FOREWORD

This document provides the third volume of EPA's responses to public comments on EPA's Proposed National Emission Standards for Ha zardous Air Pollutants for Area Source Industrial Commercial Institutional Boilers

. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on June 4, 2010 at 75 FR 31895. EPA received comments on this proposed rule via mail,

e

- mail, facsimile, and at three public hearings held in Washington, DC, Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California in June 20 10. Copies of all comments submitted and transcripts for the public hearings are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments letters and transcripts of the public hearings are also available electronically through h ttp://www.regulation s.gov by searching Docket ID EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790.

Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EPA paraphrased a limited amount of major comment themes in the preamble of the final rule. This document contains the verbatim comments provided by each com menter extracted from the original letter or public hearing transcript. The document has been broken up into three sections to meet the electronic document size constraints of the Docket.

For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the do cument control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt is provided. Table 1 of this document provides a complete listing of the DCN and affiliations included in this document. In some cases the same comment excer p t was submitted by two or more commenters either by submittal of a form letter prepared by an organization or by the commenter incorporating by reference the comments in another comment letter. Rather than repeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once and provided a list of all the commenters who submitted the same form letter or otherwise incorporated the comments by reference in Tables 2 and 3 at the end of this document.

Several of EPA's responses to com ments are provided immediately following each comment excerpt. However, in instances where several commenters raised similar or related issues, EPA has grouped these comments together and provided a single response after the first comment excerpt in the gr oup and referenced this response in the other comment excerpts. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the Preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA ha s referenced the Preamble or the appropriate technical support document for a description of the analysis included in the final rule. In other cases EPA has provided a general r esponse at the beginning of a section of this document which responds to the co mments within the section

.

Parallel with this rulemaking effort are three separate, but related rulemakings that may be of interest to stakeholders. These three rules are: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Source Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0 0 58 ); Identification of Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste (Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2008

- 0329); and Standards of Performance for New Sta tionary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (Docket ID: EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2003

– 0119).Given the identical proposal dates, and the related nature of these other rules, many commenters sub mitted comments to this rulemaking docket that were specific to one of these related rulemakings. Some commenters submitted a single DCN with comments on all four rules while others submitted a separate DCN specific to each rule . Many commenters submitted identical

comments to all of these dockets. In order to reduce duplicative comments, t his document flags comments associated with any of the above three related rulemakings as out

- of

- scope comments for this response to comment document. To the extent that the commenter submitted these comments to the appropriate rulemaking document, responses have been developed in the response to comment documents for each of these related rulemakings. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the other response to comment document s prepared for these three other rulemakings as they may contain topics relevant to these other rulemakings.

### Table of Contents Rule Language Corrections

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 Rule Language: Definitions (existing)

................................ ................................ ........................ 5 Rule Language: Definitions (new)

................................ ................................ ............................ 29 Rule Language: Tables 1 through 6

................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Rule language Excluding Definitions and Tables 1

- 6

................................ .............................. 35 Other

- Rule Language Corrections

................................ ................................ .......................... 50 Testing and Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 Stack Test Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 53 CEMS: General

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 64 CO CEMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 72 PM CEMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 94 COMS (opacity)

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 98 Averaging Times for Monitored Pollutants

................................ ................................ ............ 101 Fuel Analysis Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 114 Detection Levels

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 118 Measurement Methodology Impractical

................................ ................................ ................. 123 Reduced Testing Allowance

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 132 Compliance Flexibility for Small Entities

................................ ................................ .............. 136 Operating Parameter Monitoring

................................ ................................ ............................ 148 Other

- Testing and Monitoring

................................ ................................ .............................. 160 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)

................................ ................................ ............... 176 SSM

- Regulatory Text Provisions

................................ ................................ ......................... 176 Other

- SSM

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 234 Recordkeepin g and Reporting Requirements

................................ ................................ ............. 247 Data Reporting Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ . 247 Records That Must Be Retained

................................ ................................ ............................. 260 Electronic Reporting Mechanism

................................ ................................ ........................... 265 Recordkeeping and Reporting: Streamlining NSPS

................................ ............................... 282 Other

- Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirments

................................ ............................... 282 Health Based Compliance Alternatives

................................ ................................ ...................... 284 Other

- Health Based Compliance

................................ ................................ .......................... 284 Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 286 Fuel Switching Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 286 Switching Subcategories

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 289 Common Stack Provision

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 291 Compliance Dates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 291 Other

- Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 303 Impacts Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 306 Costs:Controls

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 306 Costs: Testing and Monitoring

................................ ................................ ................................ 331 Social Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 344 Economic Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 346 Emission Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 421 Secondary Impacts

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 428 Health Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 510Other

- Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 525 Executiv e Orders

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 526 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

................................ .................... 526 Executive Order 13132, Federalism

................................ ................................ ....................... 527 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

... 532 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental H ealth Risks and Safety Risks

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 532 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

................................ ................................ ............... 534 Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA) of 1996 SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et Seq.

................................ ................ 535 Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 538 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

................................ ................................ ............. 538

### Rule Language Corrections

Rule Language: Definitions (existing)

Commenter Name: James McGrath Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0395 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: I would like to comment on the proposed definition of "Gas

- fired boiler" found in 40 CFR 63.11237 of the proposed regulation. I believe that the proposed 48 hour/calendar year period for periodic testing of liquid fuel i s not sufficient time and should be removed altogether from the definition or at least increased. I recommend that EPA revise the definition by either removing the proposed 48 hr/year limit for performing periodic testing or by increasing this allowance to at least 60 hours/calendar year to allow adequate time for periodic testing of liquid fuel. Rationale: Boiler tuning alone can take 40 hours/calendar year. If, in addition to the 40 hours/year required for boiler tuning, a facility was required to perfor m operator training and also required to fire oil for a short time during an annual boiler inspection, these activities combined could easily exceed the proposed 48 hour/calendar year allowance.

Response: The 48 hours per year allowance was adopted beca use of the need to test an emergency fuel in order to ensure that the unit could effectively operate using the emergency fuel during a period of gas curtailment. California regulations stipulate a 48

- hour limit on this periodic testing on emergency fuels, and we adopted their precedent.

Commenter Name: David Meierhenry Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0414.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: I support the definition of gas

- fired boiler found in 63.11231 although adding propane to the definition could be beneficial for further clarification.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for his support of the definition og gas

- fired boilers. We also agree with the comment regarding propane and have added propane to the definition of natural gas.

Commenter Name: James McGrath Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0395 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: Also, the definition for "Oil subcategory" does not indicate any numerical time limitation for periodic testing of liquid fuel so there seems to be an inconsistency between these two definitions. Based on the proposed definition of "Oil subcategory" a dua l

- fuel, natural gas/distillate oil fired boiler would not be included in the "Oil subcategory" definition as long as it met the listed criteria in the definition (only during gas supply emergencies, curtailment, etc...) and regardless of how many hours wer e required for periodic testing of liquid fuel.

Response: We do not believe it is necessary to include periodic testing allowance in the definition of “oil subcategory” because the definition states that gas

- fired boilers are excluded from that definiti on. The definition of “gas

- fired boiler” does include the periodic testing limit. However, in order to avoid any confusion, the 48

- hour periodic testing limit has been added to the definition of “oil subcategory.”

Commenter Name: Robert H. Colby and G . Vinson Hellwig Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2022.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: The definition of “coal” in the section 112 major source rule includes “coa l refuse.” Coal refuse is defined as coal wastes that have ash content higher than 50 percent and heat value of less than 6000 BTU. The rule then sets out that it applies to units that combust “coal.” However, units that combust coal refuse with those prop erties may well be subject to section 129 limits. EPA should correct the definition to avoid any confusion on this issue.

Response: We agree that an area source boiler burning coal refuse that is defined as solid waste would be subject to section 129 li mits. We have included coal refuse in the definition of “coal” in case any area source boiler is burning coal refuse that is not defined as solid waste.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CI BO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: Federal, state, or local governments and gas suppliers have in the past required a facility to curtail its use of natural gas so that it can be used for home heati ng or another critical need. The length of the curtailment usually lasts a very short time period during which the facility may either restrict production or switch to a liquid fuel to maintain the same level of production. These occurrences will only be t aken in the national interest or for regional or local emergency type situations and only for a short time period. Onsite gas supply emergencies could also occur whereby use of gas fuel is not possible and backup liquid fuel firing is required in order to maintain critical production or services. Periods of backup fuel use would be limited to the time to complete repairs and safely return the gaseous fuel system to service.CIBO requests that EPA expand the definition of gaseous fuel

- fired boilers and pro cess heaters to include gas curtailment required by a government agency (federal, state, local), natural gas supplier, or on

- site gaseous fuel system emergencies. During the limited time of curtailment when the facility switches from gas to backup liquid f uel (recommended to be limited to 876 hours per year (10%)), new or reconstructed boiler and process heater affected sources would be exempt from complying with the liquid fuel standards (if they are included in the final rule). The exemption should allow for periodic backup fuel operation and testing in order to prove that it is available and reliable should it be needed; that testing time should be included within the 876hour limit. In addition, this 10% annual time allowance would also allow for periodic operation on oil to allow turnover of oil in the storage tank to prevent oil degradation that might impact reliability when needed in an emergency. A facility should be able to apply to the permitting authority for an extension of the 876

- hour exclusion i f curtailments cause the unit to exceed that time limit.

Documentation of time firing backup fuel should be provided to the permitting authority by the affected source as part of the semi

- annual reporting requirement. A review of California rules (i.e., Ventura County Rule 74.15; Kern Rule 435.2; Bay Area Rule 9.7; Santa Barbara Count Rule 342; Yolo

- Solana Rule 2.27; South Coast Rule 1146; and SCAWMD Rule 1109) shows substantial relaxation of requirements in recognition of natural gas curtailments. Each o f the California rules provides for less stringent limits when a normally gas

- fired unit burns liquids

- during a curtailment and while testing to assure operability on liquids in case a curtailment should occur.

If there is a curtailment of natural gas because of national interest, it is important as part of our National Energy Policy that refineries and petrochemical plants be allowed to continue production at the pre

- curtailment levels so that there is a sufficient supply of home heating oil, jet fuel , diesel, gasoline, feedstocks, etc. If facilities are forced to limit production, the reduction in supplies may further intensify the problem because of the reduction in supply of products such as home heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, and gasoline. Similar issues exist at other critical manufacturing facilities.

The exemption would enable the facility to operate under the pre

- curtailment gaseous fuel compliance requirements and thus be excluded from the liquid fuel requirements. Further, new or reconstructed units would not be required to install pollution contro l equipment required for liquid fuels which may never be used or only used for a very short time period over many years.

Response: We disagree that the definition of “gas

- fired boiler” needs to be revised to allow for an area source boiler to operate o n oil beyond periods of gas curtailment or gas supply emergencies. The Boiler Area Source NESHAP does not apply to gas

- fired boilers located at an area source. A dual fuel boiler that combusts oil outside of periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergen cies, and allowed periodic testing would be considered in the oil subcategory and subject to the Boiler Area Source NESHAP.

Commenter Name: Robert D. BessetteCommenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 44

Comment: EPA has included vague definitions in the Proposed Rule that create a gap in coverage for certain boilers. EPA should provide clarity so that sources can be confident they are in compliance with the final rule. EPA defines the "biomass subcategory" to include "any boiler that burns any amount of biomass, but no coal, either alone or in combination with liquid fuels or gaseous fuels." 75 FR 31930. The coal subcategory is defined to include "any boi ler that burns any coal alone or at least 10% coal on an annual heat input basis in combination with biomass, liquid fuels, or gaseous fuels." 75 FR 31930

- 31. As drafted, these definitions appear to create a gap in coverage for boilers that may burn less t han 10% coal and more than 90% biomass. EPA should revise the biomass subcategory to allow up to 10% coal firing.

Response: We agree that the definition of the various categories created a potential gap in coverage of area source boilers. We have rev ised the definitions in the final rule to close these
gaps.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 69

Comment: EPA Should Clarify That Boilers Using Liquid Fuel for Limited Times Are Not Subject to Emission Limits in Table 1.

Small sites that are area sources of HAP should have the flexibility to use liquid fuel or fuel oils on a limited basis without these sources being classified as a unit that combusts oil. A boiler that uses less than 10% liquid fuel or fuel oil on an annual average heat input basis should not be classified as a New Oil or Existing Oil Boiler. We believe that making such an adjustment to this rul e will better align the area source rule with the major source MACT rule in subpart DDDDD for boilers and heaters, which uses a 10% heat input criterion to classify a number of sources. In addition, allowing this additional flexibility in the final rule wi ll result in a negligible emission increase of HAPs from these boilers at area sources. We suggest changes to the definitions later in this comment package that reflect this comment.

Response: We disagree with the comment. The Boiler Area Source NESHA P differs from the Boiler MACT in that gas

- fired boilers are not part of the area source boiler category. In the Boiler Area Source NESHAP, if a predominantly gas

- fired area source boiler was allowed to combust oil for an extended period it would not be s ubject to standards. In the Boiler MACT, the dual

- fuel boiler whether it is considered a gas or oil unit would still be subject to the regulation.Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 70

Comment: EPA Should Modify the Definition of "Gas

- Fired Boilers" and the Oil Subcategory.

EPA Should Modify the Definition of "Gas

- Fired Boilers" to include boilers that bu rn less than 10% liquid fuels on an average annual heat input basis. The definition of "gas

- fired boiler" is too restrictive for small sources and does not represent GACT. Specifically, the proposed rule classifies any existing boiler that burns even a sma ll amount of oil as an oil

- fired unit subject to a stringent carbon monoxide limit of 2 ppmv. Area source sites need additional flexibility to combust fuel oils on a limited basis without boilers being classified under the Existing Oil subcategory.

The p roposed area source rule is more stringent than the proposed MACT standards for boilers at major sources. Specifically, §63.7575 defines gas fired units as "Unit designed to burn gas 1 (NG/RG) subcategory includes any boiler or process heater that burns at least 90% natural gas and or/refinery gas on a heat input basis on an annual average."

Therefore, EPA must provide at least the same exclusion for boilers at area sources that burn less than 10% oil or other fuels on a heat input basis. Based on the abo ve reasoning, we recommend that the definition for Gas

- Fired boiler in § 63.11237 be revised as follows:

Gas

- fired boiler includes any boiler that burns at least 90 percent gaseous fuels on a heat input basis on an annual average, and a boiler that burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. Periodic testing of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year.

75 FR 31931

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 69.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 71

Comment: EPA should revise the definition for the "Oil" subcategory to remove the exclusion for units that burn solid fuel. EPA should also remove the limitation that boilers in the Oil subcategory must either burn liquid fuel alone or in comb ination with gaseous fuels. Instead, EPA should amend the definition so that the Oil subcategory includes "any boiler that burns atleast 10 percent liquid fuels on a heat input basis on an annual average. Gas boilers that burn liquid fuel during periods o f gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or for periodic testing of liquid fuel are not included in this definition."

Response: The definition of “oil subcategory” has been revised to read “any boiler that burns any liquid fuel and is not in either the biomass or coal subcategories. Gas

- fired boilers that burn liquid fuel during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies , or for periodic testing, not to exceed 48 hours during any calendar year, of liquid fuel are not included in this definition.”

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 72

Comment: EPA’s Definition of "Natural Gas" in the Proposed Rule is in Conflict With the Agency’s Own Views As To That Term.

EPA failed to use the definition of "Natural Gas" that represents the mo st current thinking of the agency. The definition adopted in § 60.41 Subpart Da, published in the Federal Register on 28th January 2009 (Federal Register /Vol. 74, No. 17 /Wednesday, January 28, 2009 /Rules and Regulations, p. 5079) includes an third defin ition of Natural Gas to read,

§ 60.41Da Definitions.

Natural gas means:

(1) A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the earth’s surface, of which the principal constituent is methane; or
(2) Liquid petroleum gas, as defined by the American Society of Testing and Materials in ASTM D1835 (incorporated by reference, see § 60.17); or

(3) A mixture of hydrocarbons that maintains a gaseous state at ISO conditions. Additionally, natural g as must either be composed of at least 70 percent methane by volume or have a gross calorific value between 34 and 43 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard cubic meter (910 and 1,150 Btu per dry standard cubic foot).

This third definition enables affected sources to burn gaseous fuels that are substantially similar to naturally occurring natural gas without being subject to a variety of additional requirements that impose a regulatory and cost burden on the source. The net impact of this third definition is to promote the beneficial combustion of clean gaseous fuels, such as clean Landfill Gas, which might otherwise be released into the atmosphere or flared. As EPA has indicated in its Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP),The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) is a voluntary assistance program that helps to reduce methane emissions from landfills by encouraging the recovery and beneficial use of landfill gas (LFG) as an energy resource. LFG contains methane, a potent greenhouse gas that can be captured and used to fuel power plants, manufacturing facilities, vehicles, homes, and more. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/

By failing to adopt the most current definition of "Natural Gas", as incorporated into § 60.41 Subpart Da, EPA is inhibiting sources from burning clean gaseous fuels like Landfill Gas that could be beneficially combusted. EPA should define "Natural Gas" to be identical to the definition in § 60.41Subpart Da.

Res ponse: We agree and have revised the definition of “natural gas” in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Rich Hardegger and Bill McMurtry Commenter Affiliation: Barr Engineering Company and Darling International Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1911.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed rule defines biomass as follows: Biomass means but is not limited to, wood residue, and wood products (e.g., trees, tree stumps, tree limbs, bark, lumber, sawdust, sanderdust, chips, scraps, sl abs, millings, and shavings); animal manure, including litter and other bedding materials; vegetative agricultural and silvicultural materials, such as logging residues (slash), nut and grain hulls and chaff (e.g., almond, walnut, peanut, rice, and wheat) , bagasse, orchard prunings, corn stalks, coffee bean hulls and grounds. This definition of biomass fuel is not intended to suggest that these materials are or [are] not solid waste. We are requesting the EPA’s consideration of vegetable

- and animal

- deriv ed fats to be included in the list of biomass materials. These materials are products of vegetable oil recycling and animal rendering that are typically used as feedstock for manufacturing other commodity or specialty products. When markets determine that these fats are available for use as fuel, boilers permitted to use liquid biofuels switch from fossil fuel to biofuel as their primary fuel. A notable reference regarding this energy source is the June 2002 University of Georgia study in cooperation with t he Poultry Protein & Fat Council of the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, and the Fats and Proteins Research Foundation, Inc. (http://www.biorefinery.uga.edu/docs/biofuel_oil_report.pdf ). Vegetable

- and animal

- derived fats, such as yellow grease, poultry grease and tallow, for example, are renewable energy materials derived from plant (crops) and animal (livestock) sources that have a short

- term carbon cycle. Their periodic availability to displace a fraction of our fossil fuel demand makes them worthy of inclusion within the biomass fuel category and definition.Response: We agree with the comment and have added liquid biofuels to the definition of “Liquid fuel.”

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petrol eum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: This proposal applies to boilers at area sources. Boiler is defined in proposed §63.11237 as “an enclosed combustion device in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. A device combusting solid waste, as defined i n 40 CFR 241.3, is not a boiler. Waste heat boilers are excluded from this definition.” The first sentence of this definition is slightly different from the definition in the proposed major source rule, which reads “an enclosed device using controlled flam e combustion and having the primary purpose of recovering thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water”. We recommend the two definitions be made identical and that the definition in §63.7575 be used for area sources as well as major sources. We believ e the concept of “primary purpose” is an important one, since there are many cases where some hot water or steam production occurs from waste heat from process heaters, turbines or other combustion or process equipment and thus that equipment might be mist akenly deemed to be boilers under the proposed area source definition. Since the area source rulemaking record only deals with traditional boilers, it is critical that the rule be limited to those devices and the primary purpose test provides that assuranc e.

Response: We agree and have revised the definition of “boiler” to be consistent with the Boiler MACT definition.

Commenter Name: Andrea Grant Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1945.1 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Proposed regulation 63.11194 addresses which sources are to become subject to the NESHAP rule. It states that the rule applies to each new or existing affected source as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2):

(1) The affected source is the collection of all existing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers within a subcategory located at an area source.

(2) The affected source is each new or reconstructed industrial, commercial, or institutional boil er located at an area source.The text of the Preamble and the proposed regulation speak in terms of individual boilers, but proposed regulation 63.11194 is confusing and could be read to require the combination of existing boilers at a given area source . Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the rest of the rule that establishes individual boiler standards. Moreover, as stated, there is no evidence that data from individual large boilers (e.g. 30MMBtus/hr) can appropriately be applied to

seve ral smaller, connected boilers. EPA should, therefore, clarify the language of the provision. The recommendations that follow assume that the requirements are applicable to distinct, individual boilers.

Response: The proposed rule incorporated the broa der definition of affected source from the revised General Provisions. The General Provisions define the affected source as “the collection of equipment, activities, or both within a single contiguous area and under common control that is included in a se ction 112(c) source category or subcategory . . . “ Therefore, the definition of existing affected source in the final rule will remain the collection of existing industrial, commercial, or institutional boilers within a subcategory located at a area sou rce of HAP emissions. The emission limits, work practice standard, and management practice are applicable to individual units within the affected source.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institu te (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The commercial boiler, industrial boiler and institutional boiler definitions in the proposal include units that generate electricity, as well as those that generate steam or hot water. While there may not be any boilers that generate electricity without first generating steam or hot water, there may be such devices in the future or these definitions might be misinterpreted to include devices that generate electricity without combustion, e.g., nuclear reactors. Including electricity generation in these def initions serves no purpose and should be removed, so that these definitions mirror the general boiler definition.

Response: The definition of “Boiler” has been revised to include “using controlled flame combustion.”

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bash el Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10Comment: Recommendation: Modify or clarify the definition of biomass (should be biomass fuels ) when including “animal manure, including litter and other bedding materials” so the rule does not include very small operations unintentionally.

First, the definition should read “biomass fuels” not just “biomass”. This would match the proposed NESHAP for boilers and process heaters at major sources. Second, the way it is currently defined veterinary clinics and similar small operations could potentially be affected by this rule in the event they burn bedding and litter from their kennels. This could c reate confusion in two ways. First, where they may have an incinerator to burn the animal carcasses and also burn waste bedding in the unit, the two wastes would make the unit fall under two rules. Second, if they don’t incinerate carcasses but have a boi ler that can burn the bedding/litter then they will now have many more restrictions on what was a better disposal option than sending that waste to a landfill. Operations like veterinary clinics appear to be a small business sector that was not addressed in the impact analysis for the rule.

Response: To clarify, an incinerator would not be subject to two rules. As stated, in section 63.11195 of the final rule, any boiler subject to standards under section 129 of the Clean Air Act is exempt from this fin al rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Boiler system is defined in §63.11237 as “the boiler and associated components, such as, the feedwater system, the combustion air system, the fuel system (including burners), blowdown system, combustion control system, and the energy consuming s ystems.” The term “energy consuming systems” would seem to bring every steam and hot water consumer at a site into the definition. This makes no sense. Boiler systems are associated with the production of steam or hot water (per the boiler definition) and not with the steam or hot water consumers. Allowing the output from one area source category to be used as a rationale to regulate operations that are part of other source categories is a precedent

- setting expansion of the area source program and violates the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). If accepted, this approach could be used to establish numerous additional requirements on other source categories. For example, the oil and gas area source category rulemaking could inappropriately be used to reg ulate all refining and chemical operations in the country, because their processes are based on oil and gas production. Including that term “energy consuming systems” in the boiler system definition only adds confusion to the regulation, muddies the affec ted source, and serves no purpose, since consumers are not being regulated. Furthermore, there is no legal basis for regulating other source categories under this regulation. This term should be removed from the boiler system definition.Response: In the final rule, we have revised the definition of “boiler system” to remove the term “energy consuming systems.” We have added a definition of “Energy use system” to clarify what the required energy assessment should include. In the final rule, we have also revised the definition of ‘Energy assessment” to clarify that the energy use systems to be included are only those systems using energy from affected boilers.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Pet roleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: It is unclear whether the “fuel system” referred to in the boiler system definition is just the system associated with the boiler or the entire fuel system for the site. Including the entire site fuel system is unreasonable and would also make the affected facility definition and the rule requirements applicability unclear. We recommend t his point be clarified by changing the term from “the fuel system” to “the boiler fuel system”.

Response: We agree and have made the change in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Natural gas is defined in the proposal as follows. Natural gas means: (1) A naturally occ urring mixture of hydrocarbon and non

- hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the earth’s surface, of which the principal constituent is methane; or

(2) Liquid petroleum gas, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials in ASTM D1835

– 03a, "Standard Specification for Liquid Petroleum Gases" (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14(b)).

The latest definition of natural gas in the NSPS Subpart Db and Dc rules also include a paragraph 3 as follows in order to include synthetic natural gas generated from coal[footnote: Added to the NSPS subparts by amendment on January 28, 2009 (74 FR 5072).]

a mixture of hydrocarbons that maintains a gaseous state at ISO conditions. Additionally, natural gas must either be composed of at least 70 percent methane by volume or have a gross calorific value between 34 and 43 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard cubic meter (910 and 1,150 Btu per dry standard cubic foot)This paragraph should be added to the proposed definition, so this rule is consistent with the other combustion rules potentially applicable to these units.

Natural gas, as described in paragraph 1 of the proposed definition, must be separated from oil, production water, and solids and adjusted to pipeline specifications in production batteries and in natural gas plants. Thus, “natural gas” is generally processed to some degree prior to using as a fuel and thus might be construed as not being “a naturally occurring mixture.” Additionally, intermediate gas streams (i.e., gas streams that are separated from the hydrocarbon/water mixture removed from the ground that do not yet meet the pipeline quality natural gas specifications) are combusted in boilers and process heaters at the production site or the gas plant. Thus, we believe some clarification is needed in the definition of natural gas to be clear that processed and intermediate streams are included. We recommend the definition be revised to make it cle ar that gases derived from the “naturally occurring mixture found in geological formations” meets the definition of natural gas, as long as the principal constituent is methane, by revising proposed paragraph 1 as follows. (1) A naturally occurring mixtur e of hydrocarbon and non

- hydrocarbon gases found in geologic formations beneath the earth’s surface, of which the principal constituent is methane, including intermediate gas streams generated during processing of natural gas at production sites or at gas processing plants.

Response: The definition of “Natural gas” is revised in the final rule to address the comment.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical a nd Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Gas

- fired boiler is defined in proposed §63.11237 as “any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. Periodic tes ting of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year.” Under the major source rule, gas

fired sources may fire up to 10% liquid on an annual basis. The area source definition should be made consistent with the major so urce one. Consistency is needed to avoid confusion and foster compliance since many companies operate both area and major sources and because a certain amount of liquid firing is often necessary to optimize boiler operation and minimize fuel costs and to allow maintenance of the gas system.

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 69.Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: SEVERAL PROPOSED DEFINITIONS REQUIRE FURTHER REVISION AND CLARIFICATION.

There are several definitions in EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT rule that require additional revision and clarification. Specifically, EPA defines “natural gas” in proposed § 63.7575, as:

(1) A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon ga ses found in geologic formations beneath the earth’s surface, of which the principal constituent is methane; or

(2) Liquid petroleum gas, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials in ASTM D1835

- 03a, “Standard Specification for Liquid P etroleum Gases” (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14(b).

The first part of the definition seems to rely on EPA’s definition of “natural gas” in several previous MACT standards promulgated by EPA. Both of these rules address processors and providers of natural gas, not customers or end users of the gas. Given that end users do not know or have control of the source of materials introduced into the distribution system, EPA’s proposed definition of “natural gas” is problematic if any kind of biogas, landf ill gas, or “synthetic gas converted from coal” is in the main pipe. EPA’s proposed definition needs to be expanded to cover other types of fuel gases that are carried through the main pipeline.

To address this concern, the Auto Group recommends that EPA add a third component to the definition that would include “any gas that is transported through a commercial natural gas pipeline.” This addition would allow fuel gases that are carried through the commercial pipeline to be treated as natural gas and regu lated as such. Furthermore, it would not require consumers to determine what type of fuel gas is in the natural gas pipeline and whether that fuel gas comes from a geologic formation or from some other source that results in commercial grade natural
gas.

Response: The revision suggested by the comment is unnecessary in the context of the Boiler Area Source NESHAP because the rule does not apply to gas

- fired boilers. A gas

- fired boiler is defined as a boiler burning gaseous fuel and gaseous fuel is def ined as including, but not limited to, natural gas landfill gas, and biogas.

Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23Comment: Given the importanc e of landfill gas and the fact that landfill gas can be processed to the extent that it is like natural gas (and even injected into natural gas pipelines), the Auto Group recommends that EPA add a component to the definition of “natural gas” that would inc lude landfill gas, i.e., a fourth component to the definition that would say “any landfill gas that is processed and transported through a dedicated pipeline.” “Landfill gas” also could be defined as “gas derived from the decomposition of waste in a landfi ll.” This would ensure that landfill gas units are treated similarly to natural gas units given these fuels can be found in the same distribution system.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1, Excerpt 22.

Commenter Name: Leon Lataille Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1896.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Deer Island boilers typically operate on digester gas for approximately 98% of heat input, on an annual average basis, using ultra low sulfur no. 2 fuel oil for startups and for periods when digester gas is unavailable due to process issues, or when avail able digester gas is insufficient during winter months to provide sufficient thermal energy for plant needs. The amount of digester gas available is dependent on a number of factors including the influent wastewater characteristics and can vary significant ly even within the course of a day. Every effort is made to maximize the beneficial use of digester gas, and to minimize the use of oil as a cost saving measure. Oil is, however, required during startup due to the design of the boiler. The proposed definit ion of gaseous fuel boilers makes reference to gas curtailment, which relates to suppliers of natural gas, but does not take into account users of on

- site generated biogas, which are subject to limits on the availability of biogas not from suppliers but by the nature of the supply source. The definition of gaseous fuel boilers should be expanded to include "boilers using biogas which supply on an annual average basis at least 90% of heat input required by the operation".

Response: We disagree with the co mment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 33.

Commenter Name: Randy Thurman and Brent Stevenson Commenter Affiliation: Arkansas Environmental Federation and Arkansas Forest & Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 006

- 0790

- 1921.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: Boilers proposed to be regulated by this rule are also used widely by facilities to provide heat and steam critical for continuous safe operation of hospitals, institutions and small manufacturers. As the se rules become effective many of the facilities will switch to natural gas as their principal fuel. As proposed, [by definition] these boilers are limited to use of liquid fuel for only 48 hours per year for testing and periods of gas curtailment or gas s upply emergencies. Due to the critical function of many of these boilers, the rules should allow use of liquid fuel for up to 500 hours per year for gas

- fired boilers. This small change would allow use of liquid fuels for a period of time limited to emissi ons usually considered insignificant under Arkansas and most other state air permitting programs and would serve as a easily measured limit to assure the boilers are operated as gas

- fired boilers in the majority. The clarification would eliminate the confu sion and differing opinions about what constitutes supply interruption.

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 33.

Commenter Name: Brad Cooley Commenter Affiliation: GDF SUEZ Energy Gener ation North America, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2134.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: DEFINITION OF NATURAL GAS: The proposed rule does not reflect the most current definition of “natural gas” which was adopted in Section 60.41 of Subpart Da as published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2009 (74 FR 5079). This definition allows sources to burn gaseous fuels that are substantially similar to naturally occurring natural gas, including clean Landfill Gas, without being subject to additional regulatory requirements and costs. GSEGNA requests that the Agency adopt this definition of natural gas into the proposed rule.

Response: We agree and have revised the definition of “Natural gas” in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Brad Cooley Commenter Affiliation: GDF SUEZ Energy Generation North America, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2134.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EXCLUSION FOR GAS

- FIRED BOILERS DURING PERIODS OF CURTAILMENT: GSEGNA supports the Agency’s inclusion of gas

- fired boilers that burn liquid fuel only during periods of natural gas curtailment in the definition of gas

- fired boilers.

Response: EPA thank s the commenter for their support on this issue.Commenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: We suggest that the definition of gas

- fired boiler in the area source rule match the definition of “Unit designed to burn gas 1 (NG/RG Subcategory)” in the proposed ICI Boiler regulation for major sources of HAPs. This definition would provide consistency between the programs and offer operational flexibility. For reference, the major source regulation definition is, “Gas

- fire boiler includes any boiler that burns at least 90 percent natural gas on a heat input basis on an annual average.”

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 69.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: We suggest that the definition of gas

- fired boiler in the area source rule match the definition of “Unit designed to burn gas 1 (NG/RG Subcategory)” in the proposed ICI Boiler regulation for major sources of HAPs. This definition would provide consistency between the programs and offer operational flexibility. For reference, the major source regulation definition is, “Gas

- fire boiler includes any boiler that burns at least 90 percent natural gas on a heat input basis on an annual average.”

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 69.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: In 63.7575, the second sentence in the definition for “Coal” is incomplete. It states “Synthetic fuels derived from coal for the purposes of creating useful heat including, but not limited to, solvent

- refined coal, coal

- oil mixtures, and coal water mixtures, for the purposes of this subpart.” It is not clear whether this sentence intends to include or exclude these materials from the definition of coal. This definition should be clarified.Response: The commenter is referring to the definition in Boiler M ACT. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the Boiler MACT rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- H Q

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: Bagasse is the primary fuel burned at Louisiana sugar mills although it is sometimes necessary for mills to supplement bagasse with natural gas. We therefore propose, in addition to the exemption, the following definitions to be added to 63.11236:

Bagasse means the matted cellulose fiber residue from sugarcane that has been processed in a sugar mill.

Bagasse

- fired boiler includes any boiler that burns bagasse as its primary fuel source but may also burn natural gas and/or other clean cellulosic biomass materials, including but not limited to forest

- derived biomass and other biomass crops, provided that the total sum of supplemental fuels not exceed 10% of the fuel combusted on an annual basis ba sed on gross heat input.

Response: The definition of “biomass” in the final rule (and as in the proposed rule) includes the term “bagasse.” We disagree with the need to add a definition of a “bagasse

- fired boiler.” The definition of “Biomass subcategory” addresses bagasse

- fired boilers

.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: Duke Energy agrees with and supports the definition given in 63.7575 for “fuel type”. Specifi cally Duke Energy agrees that receiving fuel from different suppliers does not constitute and change in fuel type.

Response: The commenter is referring to the definition in Boiler MACT. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the Boiler MA CT rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke EnergyDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: Duke Energy believes that EPA’s definition of a hot water heater is overly restrictive, or at best confusing. In 63.7575, EPA defines a Hot water heater as “a closed vessel with a capacity of no more than 120 U.S. gallons in whish water is heated by combu stion of gaseous or liquid fuel... at pressures not exceeding 160 psig...” By this definition, regulated sources could include a very large number of hot water heaters used by offices, hospitals, schools, commercial businesses, and other non

- industrial sou rces. Water could be used for bathing, dish washing, space heating and other similar purposes not associated with industrial activities. While these types of hot water heaters are typically found at sources that are not considered major sources of HAPs, ma jor source facilities sources can also have these types of hot water heaters. EPA should restrict the definition of a hot water heater for purposes of this rule to include only units that are specifically used as part of an industrial process. EPA should

c onsider increasing the capacity of these units above 120 gallons.

Response: The commenter is referring to the definition in Boiler MACT. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the Boiler MACT rulemaking docket, the response to this commen t will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The definition of "deviation" in 40 CFR 63.11237 does not establish guidelines to determine continuous compliance with limits and work practice standards in the rule. The definition states a deviation is not always a violation. While we agree with this as sertion, the EPA should clearly define when deviations become violations as the EPA has defined in previous rules such as 40 CFR 63 Subpart MM

— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources At Kraft, Sod a, Sulfite, And Stand

Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills, 40 CFR 63 Subpart LL

— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants For Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, and 40 CFR 63 Subpart DD

— National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Off

- Site Waste And Recovery Operations.

Response: We understand the concern of the commenter but we disagree with adding a definition on when a deviation becomes a violation.

Commenter Name: Douglas I. Greenhaus Commenter Affiliation: Nation al Automobile Dealers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2047.1Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: NADA is concerned that the area source NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers may impose additional regulatory burdens on space heaters/boilers. On the one hand, proposed 40 CFR §63.11237 defines a boiler as an enclosed combustion device in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water. Thus, since most space heaters heat air, no t water, they should fall outside the rule.

Response: We agree that space heaters that heat only air are not covered by this rule. The area source boiler NESHAP only applies to boilers with a boiler defined as a combustion unit that recovers energy i n the form of steam or hot water. A boiler, burning coal, biomass, or liquid fuel, used for space heating would be subject to this rule. A combustion unit that heats air for space heating would not be a boiler and, thus, not subject to this rule.

Com menter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The Class of ‘85 agrees with EPA’s determination that natural gas

- fired area source Boilers should not be regulated under the Proposed Rule. However, the Group would like EPA to clarify that whether a source is a gas

- fired Boiler is determined by the fuel it actually combusts, not on the fuels it has the potential to combust. Clarifying the definition of gas

- fired Boiler will allow sources to more easily determine the applicability of the Proposed Rule and avoid unnecessary compliance issues.

Response: The definition of “gas

- fired boiler” in the final rule is based on what the boiler combusts and not on what it has the potential to combust.

Commenter Name: Tom Siegrist Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2216 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: A “gas

- fired boiler” is proposed to be defined as any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. The proposed def inition would limit the periodic testing of liquid fuel to a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year. This definition would appear to significantly limit liquid firing for gas

- fired boilers, especially for those boilers that only occasionally f ire oil as a fuel and have the associated emissions already covered by an existing air permit. An alternative approach would be to define an allowable amount of liquid fired, including that fired during curtailments, emergencies, and testing, thatwould se rve as a threshold to distinguish between gas

- fired and an oil

- fired boilers. Use of an annual capacity factor, similar to that used in NSPS Subpart Db, would facilitate the implementation of such an approach. KNC proposes that the following definition of “annual capacity factor” and modified definition of “gas

- fired boiler” be added to 40CFR63.11237: Annual capacity factor means the ratio between the actual heat input to a unit subject to this subpart, as applicable, during a calendar year and the potenti al heat input to the unit had it been operated for 8,760 hours during a calendar year at the maximum steady state design heat input capacity. Gas

- fired boiler means any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels and that may burn li quid fuel during such times as periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. Non

- gaseous fuels are limited to no more than 10 percent of the unit’s annual capacity factor.

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 33.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The definitio ns for “boiler” in the proposed major source rule and area source rule are different. For consistency, EPA needs to clarify the two definitions.

Response: We agree and have made the definition of boiler in the final rule more consistent with the defin ition in the Boiler MACT.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Currently, the definition of gas

- fired boiler includes: “...any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuel. Periodic testing of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year (Proposed definition at 40 CFR 63.11237). First, we do not believe that the applicability criteria for areas sources of HAPs should be more restrictive than the criteria for major sources. Second, this definition and the 48 hour limit may pose significant problems during routine and emergency maintenance and testing times.We suggest that the definition of gas

- fired boiler in the area source rule match the defin ition of “Unit designed to burn gas 1 (NG/RG Subcategory) in the proposed ICI Boiler regulation for major sources of HAP. This definition would provide consistency between the programs and offer operational flexibility. We suggest changing the language in the rule to read: “Gas

- fire boiler includes any boiler that burns at least 90 percent natural gas on a heat input basis on an annual average.

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt 69.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: OCC strongly supports the proposed definition of “boiler" which excludes waste heat b oilers from this area source standard. Emissions from a combustion unit with a waste heat boiler are most appropriately regulated by the applicable standards for the particular type of combustion unit. This is appropriate because it is often not feasible t o separate the combustion source emissions from the heat recovery steam generator emissions.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their support on this issue.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: ACCCI requests that EPA provide clarification that boilers firing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or propane

- derived synthetic natural gas (SNG) as a backup fue l are considered a gas

fired boilers. We note that EPA proposes to incorporate ASTM D183503a to define "natural gas" for purposes of this regulation. It is important that any standard incorporated by the regulation be broad enough to encompass the use of p ropane (a constituent of LPG) as natural gas and not just mixtures. Most LPG mixtures include butane, which reduces the effectiveness of LPG at low temperatures, causing many facilities to substitute propane. Propane (and/or LPG) is mixed with air to creat e SNG, which should be specifically allowed to be considered as natural gas for purposes of this rule. LPG

- based SNG is often used for emergency backup and EPA should make this point explicit in the final rule.Response: We agree and have revised the definition of “Natural gas” in the final rule to include
propane.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 5

Comment: OCC respectfully requests clarification of the exemption (63.11195(a)), for boilers regulated by another area source standard. One of our locations burns process vent gases in an onsite boiler and consequently is preparing to comply with t he Chemical Area Source rule. OCC respectfully requests clarification that this boiler is not subject to this Subpart JJJJJ standard, including during intermittent periods (e.g. maintenance outages) when vent gases are not introduced to the unit.

Respon se: Applicability determinations are made by the EPA Regional Offices on a case

- by

case basis. We have included a list of sources that are not subject to the final rule. The final rule clarifies that boilers that are specifically listed as, or included in the definition of, an affected source in any other NESHAP are not subject to the Boiler Area Source NESHAP. However, we do not exclude boilers that are used as control devices unless they are specifically considered part of any other NESHAP’s definitio n of affected source.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: We request clarification that a boiler comb usting landfill gas (or similar gaseous fuels derived from landfills or monofills) be considered a gas

- fired boiler and not in the biomass category. ACCCI considers these fuels to fall under the definition of biogases, which are included in the definition of gaseous fuels, but we are aware that EPA has taken the position that gas derived from landfills is "biomass" under other rules. We seek clarification that for purposes of this rule it is not the agency’s intent to regulate boiler use of landfill or mono fill gas, even if derived in whole or part from materials that might be defined as biomass.

Response: The definition of “gaseous fuel” in the final rule does include landfill gas and biogas.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: Am erican Iron and Steel Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 14Comment: The Definition of Gas

- Fired Boilers Should be Amended

The definition of gas

- fired boilers includes those units burning gaseous fuels, which by further definition includes process gases (e.g., coke oven gas or blast furnace gas). However, the definition of gas

- fired boiler is qualified by stating that gaseous fuels cannot be combined with any liquid fuel except during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fuels. Without clarification of that definition, the exemption for gas fired boilers is potentially negated.

Whi le process gas

- fired boilers, such as coke oven gas

- fired boilers, are primarily designed to burn process gas, usually with natural gas as a back

- up fuel, they are sometimes supplemented with liquid fuels when the supply of process gas from the is interrup ted due to operational difficulties or reduced operations necessitated by business conditions or when steam demands elsewhere in the plant cannot be met by the available process gas supply to the boilers. It is not clear from the definition of gas

- fired bo iler whether the terms gas curtailment and gas supply emergencies pertain to commercial natural gas supplies or can be interpreted to include occasions of curtailment and supply deficiencies from the process supplying the gas. In the absence of clarifying language in the definition, the occasional use of liquid fuel would place these boilers (as well as any units using any liquid fuel, except in the stated circumstances) into a category that requires stringent emission limits, the installation of costly emi ssion control equipment, and testing, monitoring and recordkeeping obligations.

Response: We disagree with the comment. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1. However, the standard for oil

- fired area source boilers in the final rule is b ased on GACT which is a management practice of a tune

- up, instead of the MACT

- based emission limits presented in the proposed rule.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: In addition, AISI requests that EPA provide clarification that boilers firing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or propane

- derived synthetic natural gas (SNG) as a backup fuel are considered a gas

- fired boilers. We note that EPA proposes to incorporate ASTM D183503a to define "natural gas" for purposes of this regulation. It is important that any standard incorporated by the regulation be broad enough to encompass the use of propane (a constituent of LPG) as natural gas and not just mixtures. Most LPG mixtures include butane, which reduces the effectiveness of LPG at low temperatures, causing many facilities to substitute propane. Propane (and/or LPG) is mixed with air to create SNG, which should be specifically allowed to be considered as natural gas for purposes of this rule. LPG

- based SNG is often used for emergency backup and EPA should make this point explicit in the final rule.Response: The definition of “natural gas” in the final rule incl udes LPG and propane.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: We request clarification that a boiler combusting lan dfill gas (or similar gaseous fuels derived from landfills or monofills) is considered a gas

- fired boiler and not in the biomass category. AISI considers these fuels to fall under the definition of biogases, which are included in the definition of gaseous fuels, but we are aware that EPA has taken the position that gas derived from landfills is "biomass" under other rules. We seek clarification that for purposes of this rule it is not the agency’s intent to regulate boiler use of landfill or monofill gas, e ven if derived in whole or part from materials that might be defined as biomass.

Response: The definition of “gaseous fuel” in the final rule does include landfill gas and biogas.

Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: There are varying definitions in the two sets of Boiler rules for the same terms ("boiler" and "biomass" are examples) that need to be reconciled.

Response: We agree and have made the definitions in the final rule more consistent with the definitions in the Boiler MACT.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: The Definition of Hot Water Heater Needs to be Revised

In section IV.A of the preamble to the Proposed Rule, EPA states that the proposal would not regulate hot water heater s as defined in 63.7575. EPA recognizes that all hot water heaters meet the proposed definition of a boiler because they are enclosed devices that combust fuel for thepurpose of heating water, but it is further stated that the when the hot water output fr om a hot water heater is intended for personal use rather than for use in an industrial, commercial, or institutional process, the hot water heater is more appropriately identified as a residential

- type boiler and not an industrial, commercial, or institut ional boiler.

EPA seeks to establish a definition for hot water heaters that would distinguish residential

- type units or those used for non

- process purposes from process

- related units. However, the proposed definition bases the exemption solely on the si ze and output of the unit by limiting the capacity of an exempted hot water heater to 120 gallons, the pressure to 160 psig, and the temperature to 120 °F.

In order to maintain consistency with the rationale used to exempt hot water heaters, a hot water heater should be distinguished from a boiler by the intended use of its output, not its physical parameters. Accordingly, AISI recommends the following revision to the definition in §63.7575:

Hot water heater means a device in which water is heated by combustion of gaseous or liquid fuel and is withdrawn for personal use and not for use in an industrial, commercial, or institutional process.

Response: We disagree with revising the definitio n of hot water heater. The definition in the final rule is based on the definition of hot water heater contained in California’s air regulation. The concern with basing the definition on personal use is defining what is personal use as opposed to what is commercial or institutional use. For example, a boiler located in a dormitory or on campus providing hot water is considered an institutional boiler whether or not the hot water is use for personal use of the students living in the dormitory.



### Rul e Language: Definitions (new)

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Some devices use electricity to heat water or produce steam. These are not generally thought of as enclosed combustion devices, but “enclosed combustion” is not a defined term and could be reinterpreted in the future. We there fore ask the Agency make clear that these are not “boilers” under this proposal.

Response: We agree and have revised the definition of a “boiler” to include “using controlled combustion.”Commenter Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New Yor k State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Since interruptible gas customers’ dual fuel boilers would be classified as a gas boiler if they only use liquid fuel during gas curtailment or gas supply emergencies, EPA should define a period of gas curtailment or supply emergency. Would it be defined by when the gas utility requires interruptible customers to curtail demand? There are economic conditions under which customers will switch, but would those qualify as well?

The proposed rules define gas

- fired boilers: Gas

- fired boiler includes any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic testing on liquid fu el. Periodic testing of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar year.

Response: The final rule does contain a definition for “Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.”

Commenter Name: Barry Chri stensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: OCC respectfully requests clarification of the definition of gaseous fuels. OCC requests specific language in t he rule to clarify that hydrogen, which is generated as a byproduct in two of our area source Chlor

- Alkali facilities, is considered to be a process gas in the definition of gaseous fuels. Our byproduct hydrogen is sold as a product to industrial and medic al gas manufacturing facilities or is used onsite and burned as a fuel. One of our locations fires hydrogen in combination with natural gas in boilers. Another location burns hydrogen in its waste heat boilers.

Response: The definition of “gaseous fuel s” has been revised to include hydrogen.



### Rule Language: Tables 1 through 6

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: CIBO recommends that EPA clarify certain aspects of its proposed testing regime prior to finalizing the Proposed Rule. First, in Table 4 there is no need to require sources to convert CO emissions to lb/MMBtu. 75 FR 31915. While Table 4 states that stack testing applies to new units, existing coal units may have to undergo stack testing in order to show compliance with mercury limits.

Response: We agree and Table 4 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: With regard to Table 5, if CO limits as ppm with O2 correction, there is no need for flow traverse and conversi on to lb/MMBtu in Table 5 unless it is allowed as an alternate limit. EPA should replicate its approach in the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule at Table 3. 75 FR 32023.

Response: We agree and Table 4 has been revised to remove the flowrate requirement.

Com menter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: Additionally, EPA has not included requirements for wet scrubbers in Table 3. 75 FR 31914. Some boilers rely on wet scrubbers to comply with the mercury and PM emission limits. Monitoring of pressure drop and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers should be included in this Table 3. Furthermore, EPA should incorporate the monit oring options for additional devices per Table 7 of the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule (75 FR 32071).

Response: We agree and monitoring of pressure drop and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers is included in Table 3 of the final rule. Table 3 has also been revised to incorporate the monitoring options for additional devices.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16Comment: Table 1 of the proposed Subpart JJJJJJ indicates CO compliance should be based on a daily block average even for units without a CEM. The Maine DEP believes this may be an error and recommends that EPA require three one

- hour runs instead. The Tit le and headings for Table 3 indicate that the operating limits only apply to units subject to mercury emission standards. We have been told by EPA contacts, however, that the title and heading are incorrect. If the monitoring requirements in Table 3 apply to units subject to any of the emission standards, it would require COMS for very small boilers utilizing ESPs for PM control. We request that EPA review the content and applicability of this Table to ensure appropriate requirements would be applied.

Re sponse: We agree and both Tables 1 and 3 has been revised to reflect the final rule requirements.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 69

Comment: Table 3 includes operating limits for boilers with mercury emission limits. This table should be expanded to also include operating limits for boilers that have PM limits and use control devices to comply with those limits. In addition, some boilers may use wet scrubbers to comply with the mercury and PM emission limits. Therefore, monitoring for wet scrubbers should be included in this table (e.g., monitoring pressure drop and liquid flow rate). EPA should incorporate the monit oring options for additional devices per Table 7 of the proposed boiler MACT (75 FR 32071).

Response: We agree and monitoring of pressure drop and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers is included in Table 3 of the final rule. Table 3 has also been revise d to incorporate the monitoring options for additional devices.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 74

Comment: In Ta ble 4 to subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63, Item 3.f should be deleted. The CO emission limits are in ppm so facilities do not need to convert tested CO emissions to lb./MMBTU.

Response: We agree and Table 4 has been revised.Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 75

Comment: Existing coal units may have to do stack testing to show compliance with Hg limit; however, the te xt immediately preceding Table 4 says it applies to new units. The text should indicate that the testing procedures apply to new and existing units.

Response: We agree and Table 4 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliati on: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: 63.11201 does not reference the Table 3 mercury standards but Table 3 references 63.11201.

Response: Sectio n 63.11201 has been revised to reference Table 3.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: Table 3 refers to 63.11211(c) but should be 63.11211 (b).

Response: Table 3 has been revised based on the comment.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: Table 4 of the proposed rule outlines stack testing requirements and requires that a lb/MMBtu value be calculated for CO. However, the proposed CO limitation is a corrected PPM value.Response: We agree and Table 4 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: A technical correction: The sentence that introduces T able 2 says “As stated in §§ 63.11202 and 63.11203.” [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 31932.] There are no such subsections; the correct reference would be to § 63.11201(b).

Response: We agree and Table 2 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: Item (1) in Table 2 of the rule has a single compliance option listed in the seco nd column. This item is lettered. Item (2) in Table 2 of the rule has a single compliance option listed in the second column. This item is not lettered. The EPA should clarify the lettering in Table 2 of the rule.

Response: Table 2 has been revised bas ed on the comment.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment: Table 3 Should Include Monitoring For Additional Control Devices. Table 3 includes operating limits for boilers with mercury emission limits. This table should be expanded to also include operating limits for boilers that have PM limits and use control devices to comply with those limits. In addition, some boilers may us e wet scrubbers to comply with the mercury and PM emission limits. Therefore, monitoring for wet scrubbers should be included in this table (e.g., monitoring pressure drop and liquid flow rate). EPA should incorporate the monitoring options for additional devices per Table 7 of the proposed Boiler MACT (75 Fed. Reg, 32071).Response: We agree and monitoring of pressure drop and liquid flow rate for wet scrubbers is included in Table 3 of the final rule. Table 3 has also been revised to incorporate the m onitoring options for additional devices.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: Technical Edits Are Needed On Table 5. The text prior to Table 5 on fuel analysis states that the requirements in Table 5 apply to new units. These requirements also should apply to existing coal

- fired units using fuel analysis to comply with the proposed mercury limit.

Response: We agree a nd Table 5 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: Technical Edits Are Needed On Table 4. There are a few technical edits necessary on Table 4. First, Item 3.f should be deleted. The CO emission limits are in ppm so facilities do not need to convert tested CO emissions to lb/MMBtu. Second, existing coal units may have to do stack testing to show compliance wit h the Hg limit; however, the text immediately preceding Table 4 says it applies to new units. The text should indicate that the testing procedures apply to new and existing units.

Response: Table 4 has been revised to address the comment.



### Rule language Excluding Definitions and Tables 1

- 6

Commenter Name: R.H. Pankratz Commenter Affiliation: Babcock and Wilcox Pantex, DOE/NNSA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0466 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Proposed § 63.11222(b)(6)(iii). 6 3.11222(b) You must conduct a tune

- up of the boiler biennially to demonstrate continuous compliance as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.(6) Maintain on

- site and submit, if requested by the Administrator, an annual report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section, (i) The concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in ppmvd, and oxygen in percent dry basis, measured before and after the adjustments of the boiler; (ii) A description of any corrective actions taken as a part of the combustion adjustment; and (iii) The type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment. Comme nt: §63.11222(b)(6)(iii) requires a regulated entity is to provide information related to an “annual adjustment”, which is not referenced anywhere else in this proposed regulation. For consistency, replace the terms “adjustments of the boiler”, “combustion adjustment”, and “annual adjustment” with “tune

- up of the boiler as defined in §63.11222(b) of this section”. Comment: §63.11222(b) requires a biennial tune

- up of the boilers affected by this Subpart. §63.1122(b)(6) and §63.11222(b)(6)(iii) requires an a nnual action based on the biennial action in §63.11222(b). For clarity the periodic requirements should be consistent. For consistency, replace annual with biennial in the periodic requirements in §63.11222(b)(6) and §63.11222(b)(6)(iii).

Response: Secti on 63.11222(b) has been revised in the final rule based on the comment.

Commenter Name: Dorris Bender Commenter Affiliation: City of Independence Water Pollution Control Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0351 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 2

Comment: 63.11222 Paragraph (b)(6)(iii) requires an annual report of the type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment. “Annual adjustment” conflicts with the proposed rule requirement for a biennial (not annual) boil er tune

- up. Clarification is needed. We do not object to the proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements for boiler fuel usage.

Response: Section 63.11222(b) has been revised in the final rule based on the comment.

Commenter Name: Dorris Bender C ommenter Affiliation: City of Independence Water Pollution Control Department Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0351 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: 63.11224. Paragraph (c)(2) states, “You must keep records to document conformance with the work practices, emission reduction measures, and management practices required by §63.11215 as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.” However, neither §63.11215 nor §63.11224 has a paragraph (c)(2)(iii) or (iv). Clarification is n eeded.

Response: Section 63.11224 has been clarified based on the comment.

Commenter Name: David MeierhenryCommenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0414.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: 63.11205(a) states, “At all times you must operate and maintain any affected source...in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices...” The phrase “...safety and...” should be deleted. There is obviously no denying the importance of employee safety programs and I encourage the EPA to discuss their safety philosophy as well as their relationship with OSHA in the preamble. Putting a reference to safety in the rule, however, makes it an enforceable condition, similar to OSHA’s general du ty clause, but it is too vague, ill

defined, and inappropriate for an air pollution control rule. In a proposal covering 40 pages of Federal Register text with over 40,000 words there is no discussion of the agency’s safety expectations.

The EPA’s incorp oration of safety into the rule raises, at a minimum, the following questions. Which safety practices do the EPA find acceptable or unacceptable? Are OSHA standards the primary concern? What about the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code, industry standards, manufact urer’s guidelines, and company safety policies? If an employee is injured while performing boiler maintenance, or a contractor is injured conducting an energy assessment or stack test, will this be a violation of Subpart JJJJJJ? Does it have to be a record able injury? Will a violation occur if an exit sign in the boiler room is missing but there is no injury? Will the EPA inspectors be looking at the safety training programs? Will they be examining the OSHA 300 logs? Can citizen lawsuits be filed under the Clean Air Act for safety issues related to this rule? As stated previously, the phrase “safety and” should be deleted from 63.11205(a).

Response: The phrase “safety and” included in 63.11205(a) is only restating the General Provision requirement conta ined in 40 CFR 63.6(e) Operation and maintenance requirements

, which state “...in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control practices...”

Commenter Name: Bob Pankratz Commenter Affiliation: Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Pantex, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0833 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: §63.11222(b)(6)(iii) requires a regulated entity is to provide information related to an “annual adjustment”, which is not referenced anywhere else in this proposed regulation. For consistency, replace the terms “adjustments of the boiler”, “combustion ad justment”, and “annual adjustment” with “tune

- up of the boiler as defined in §63.11222(b) of this section”. Comment: §63.11222(b) requires a biennial tune

- up of the boilers affected by this Subpart. §63.1122(b)(6) and §63.11222(b)(6)(iii) requires an ann ual action based on the biennial action in §63.11222(b). For clarity the periodic requirements should be consistent. For consistency, replace annual with biennial in the periodic requirements in §63.11222(b)(6) and §63.11222(b)(6)(iii).Response: Sectio n 63.11222(b) has been revised in the final rule based on the comment.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0838.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: In §63.1124, paragraph (c)(2) states, “You must keep records to document conformance with the work practices, emission reduction measures, and management practices required by §63.11215 as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this sec tion.” Neither §63.11215 nor §63.1124 has paragraphs with these numbers, however. EPA should clarify or correct this statement.

Response: Section 63.11224 has been clarified based on the comment.

Commenter Name: Catherine Fitzsimons Commenter Affilia tion: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1829.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed rule requires annual testing for PM and mercury; if three consecutive tests show emissions at or below 75% of l imit, test frequency can drop to every three years. The proposal includes the following: 63.11214(d) If a performance test shows emissions exceeded 75 percent of the emission limit, you must conduct annual performance tests for that pollutant until all pe rformance tests over consecutive 3

- year period show compliance.

Shouldn’t this specify that annual testing is required until three consecutive tests again show that emissions are at or below 75% of limit? If they show compliance but are above 75% of limi t, the testing frequency would remain annual.

Response: We have clarified the provision by specifying that annual testing is required until three consecutive tests again show that emissions are at or below 75% of the limit.

Commenter Name: Renee Les jak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Recommendation: Correct the following typos:• 63.11221(a)(3)

– too many “y ou have” • 63.11211(a)

– spell out CMS and all other acronyms the first time they are used in the rule

Response: The edits have been made to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: We do request that the language of the proposed exemptions in §63.11195 (a) and (b) be clarified, however, to be clear that the exemption applies to not only a boiler that is an affected facility under CAA §112 or 129, but also to any boiler that is part of an affected facility under those CAA sections. For instance, under par t 63 subpart UUU, a CO boiler is part of the Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit affected facility and its emissions are regulated by that subpart, but CO boilers are not listed as an affected facility on their own under that rule. The word “specifically” should be deleted from §63.11195(a) and (b).

Response: Section 63.11195(a) has been revised to include the phrase “, or included in the definition of,” which is intended to include any boiler that may not be specifically listed in another section 112 standar d but is include as part of the affected source and, thus, it emissions are already regulated.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Under proposed §63.11194(a)(1), an affected source is “the collection of all existing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers within a subcategory lo cated at an area source.” The subcategories of concern under this proposal are listed in §63.11200, but (a)(1) could be easily misinterpreted to include boilers in subcategories that are not listed in §63.11200. Thus, we recommend (a)(1) be revised to spec ifically reference §63.11200 or that the subcategories be listed in (a)(1) as well as in §63.11200. Furthermore, it is unclear if the boilers within all of the subcategories listed in §63.11200 comprise one affected source or whether there is a separate af

fected source for each subcategory. We ask the Agency to clarify that point.

Under §63.11194(a)(2) another affected source is defined as “each new or reconstructed industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler located at an area source.” Since this par agraph does not limit these affected sources to only the subcategories listed in §63.11200, presumablyevery new or reconstructed boiler at an area source is an affected facility under this rule, regardless of the fuel it combusts. Such a designation would trigger burdensome reporting and recordkeeping requirements for boilers not subject to rule requirements or addressed in the record. Therefore, we believe that (a)(2) must be revised to limit the boilers covered to those in one of the subcategories listed in §63.11200. As for (a)(1), §63.11200 should be specifically referenced from (a)(2) or the subcategories should be specifically listed in (a)(2).

Response: Section 63.11194 has been revised to clarify that new boilers only within the listed subcatego ry are affected sources.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment: Proposed §63.11221(a)(1) states “you must not operate above any of the applicable maximum operating limits or below any of the applicable minimum operating limits listed in Table 3 to this subpart at all times.” However, the li mits in Table 3 have averaging times and thus sources may operate above and below those limits as long as the averages meet the limit. Thus the phrase “at all times” is incorrect and should be deleted. The Table 3 limits should not be turned into instantan eous limits through §63.11221(a)(1). The same problem occurs in proposed §63.11221(a)(5) relative to the Table 1 CO limits. Those limits are daily average limits, so the requirement in (a)(5) to meet the CO limit “at all times” is incorrect and that phras e should be deleted.

Response: We agree with the comment and the phrase has been removed from the final rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and R efiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment: Proposed §63.11224(a)(3)(i) requires an initial certification that ““This facility complies with the requirements in §63.11222(b) to conduc t a biennial tune

- up of the boiler”. Sources cannot make that certification, since they will only have done the initial tune

- up. Therefore, they cannot certify that they have met the requirement for biennial tune

- ups”. This statement should be changed to o nly require that sources certify that the initial tune

- up has been completed.Response: We agree and the appropriate paragraph was revised in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Leon Lataille Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authori ty Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1896.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: 63.11214(a) requires annual testing, with extensions for PM and mercury testing under certain conditions listed in (b) through (d). 63.11214(e) indicates that boilers of 10 to 100 MMBtu/hr size must conduct annual tests for CO. The status of annual testin g for CO for boilers less than 10 MMBtu/hr is not mentioned. Add text to clarify the testing requirements for boilers less than 10 MMBtu/hr.

Response: Boilers less than 10 MMBtu/h are subject to only a work practice standard or a management practice o f conducting an initial and biennial tune

- up. There are no emission testing requirements for boilers less than 10 MMBtu/h.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: EPA proposes allowing a facility to use up to 10% of an alternative fuel that a boiler is "designed" to burn without having to comply with appropriate emission limits. NHDES suggests that E PA change the word "designed" to "permitted" to burn. While a unit may be designed to burn certain fuels, a state may have placed limitations on the type of fuel used within a permit.

Response: In the final rule, the definitions of the various subcate gories have been revised and are based on the percent of annual heat input to the boiler, not on design limits.

Commenter Name: John C. deRuyter Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1964.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The wording in §63.11223(d) should be clarified relative to COMS installation to avoid confusion. It should be revised to read: “If you have an applicable opacity operating limit under this rule, you must install...”Response: The wording i n §63.11223(d) (now §63.11224(d)) has been revised.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: The regulations list emission limitations for CO corrected to two different percent oxygen (3% and 7%). NHDES requests that the regulations specify the emission limitations in lb/MMBtu heat input as well as ppm consistently in the final rules so that emis sion limitations can be compared for the various types of fuel combusted.

Response: The CO emission limits in the final rule are corrected to 3 percent oxygen.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Envir onmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: The language preceding Table 2 refers to §§63.11202 and 63.11203 but should reference 63.11201.

Response: The language preceding Table 2 has been revised.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: We recommend that the monitoring plan sect ion of the proposed rule be clarified to more clearly define the contents of sections 63.11223(b)

– (e).

We recommend the monitoring plan sections be reviewed/updated to more clearly describe the requirements. For example, paragraph (b) refers to boilers that show compliance with an emission limit through stack testing and states that these units must have a monitoring plan for each CMS including information regarding ongoing QA, maintenance and recordkeeping procedures. Considering facilities that perfor m stack testing will not have analyzers installed for continuous monitoring, does this section refer to the reference method monitoring equipment in a stack testing protocol? For example, more clearly stating reference method analyzers used during annual c ompliance testing or facility installed analyzers to show compliance with emission limits would be much clearer.In addition, paragraph (c) includes references of both CMS and CPMS in a confusing fashion. This paragraph applies to analyzers either installed by the facility or used during compliance testing with the reference method and more explicitly stating these i deas would help clarify this section. Also citing the specific section within the rule that requires the installation of the analyzers being discussed would also be helpful.

Why does paragraph (c)(4) require three hour block averages when in the case of CO data the compliance period is a calendar day using hourly averages? Is this section referring to stack testing reference method data that uses 3

- hr data for compliance purposes? Please review/update accordingly to more clearly state which monitoring pla n paragraphs apply to compliance reference method stack testing data vs. facility installed COMS/CO CEMS data.

Paragraph (d) for COMS and (e) for CO CEMS are much more straightforward, but how do they fit in with the prior sections (b) and (c)? Are the r equirements in paragraphs (b) and (c) also required for COMS and CO CEMS as well?

Response: Paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) are stand along paragraphs. Paragraph (b) presents the requirements for the site

- specific monitoring plan, if applicable. Paragra ph (c) presents the requirements for continuous monitoring of a control device’s parameter, if applicable. Paragraph (d) presents the requirements for continuous monitoring of opacity, if applicable. In the final rule, the requirement for continuous moni toring of CO has been deleted.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: For dual fuel fired units that a re applicable to the proposed regulation and are primarily gas

- fired, it is not clear that they are exempt from meeting the applicable emissions limits while burning natural gas (i.e., under conditions of gas curtailment or other gas firing

- only operating times).

In 40 CFR 63.11201(a), specify that “You must comply with each emission limit specified in Table 1 of this subpart that applies to your boiler while firing the fuel subject to the emission limit.

Response: Section 63.11195 (Are any boilers n ot subject to this subpart?) specifically states that “a gas

- fired boiler as defined by this subpart” is not subject to the final rule. Therefore, a
gas

- fired boiler, meeting the definition in the final rule, is not subject to the rule when burning oil if the combustion of oil is during periods of gas curtailment or gas supply emergencies.Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerp t Number: 5

Comment: Regarding the same section 63.11223(e)(6), as defined in the regulation the "oil subcategory includes any boiler that does not burn any solid fuel and burns any liquid fuel either alone or in combination with gaseous fuels." For this reason it appears tha t boilers that co

- fire natural gas and fuel oil would use co

- firing CEMS emissions data within the daily averages to show compliance with the fuel oil firing emission limits.

Would gas firing only hours be included within the daily averages for dual fuel fired boilers? Instead of adding specifics to the regulation, is this an example of a question that would be answered by a facility and specified within the site specific monitoring plan?

Response: In the final rule, the CO emission limits for oil

- fi red boilers have been replaced with a management practice of a biennial tune

- up requirement.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Section 63.11223(e) does not reference an installation requirement for the Oxygen analyzer.

It seems that either 40 CFR 60 PS

- 3 should be referenced here for the installation requirements for the O2 analyzer or PS

- 4B be refere nced for both CO and O2.

Response: The requirement for the installation and operation of a CO CEMS has been removed in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Proposed section 63.11224(b) (75 Fed. Reg. 31929, column 3) states, "You must prepare, by March 1 of each year, an annual compliance certification report for the previous calendar y ear containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section." Please clarify whether "(b)(3)" should be "(b)(4)."Response: In the final rule (b)(3) has been revised to read (b)(4).

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Proposed section 63.11224(b)(3) (75 Fed. Reg. 31929, column 3) states, "If the source is not in compliance, include a description of deviations..." It is unclear whether the phrase "If the source is not in compliance" in this statement is in reference to the reporting period for which the annual compliance certification report is being prepared.

Response: The introductory paragraph (b) states that the information in subparagraph (3) is for the previous calendar year.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Co mmenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Preamble to the rule provides contradictory information about the treatment of mercury from biomass boilers. T he discussion in the draft rule preamble related to mercury from biomass systems is confusing. The discussion from p. 56 seems to contradict previous statements regarding MACT

- based controls for mercury only being imposed on coal boilers. The discussion

on p. 75 is confusing with regard to mercury emissions from biomass boilers. Also, statements seem to indicate that EPA is willing to consider regulating biomass boilers for mercury emissions through MACT

- based emission standards. It should be made clear in the rule that mercury emissions from biomass boilers using unadulterated wood fuel are not a concern.

Response: The discussion in the proposal preamble was whether mercury emission from biomass

- fired area source boiler should be established under a MAC T approach (as was done for coal

- fired boilers) or under GACT. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to develop standards for listed source categories. Biomass

- fired boilers are included in the listed categories of area sources and mercury is one of the listed HAP and one of the listed urban HAP.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11Comment: Proposed Table 6, for section 63.7(e)(1) in the column entitled "Applies to subpart JJJJJJ" states, "No. Subpart DDDDD specifies conditions for conducting performance test at section 63.11210." The Group believes that Subpart JJJJJJ should be referenced i nstead of subpart DDDDD and the citation for conditions for conducting performance tests should be section 63.11212.

Response: We agree and Table 6 has been revised.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: In 63.11212(a), the EPA proposes that facilities must conduct all performance tests according to the requirements in 63.7 and no addi tional information is given. In 63.7520(a) of the Boiler MACT Rule, the EPA provides definitive sections in 63.7 with which facilities are required to comply. In addition, in the Boiler MACT Rule, the EPA clearly states that the site

specific test plan mus t be developed according to 63.7(c). Since area source facilities must meet the same requirements, as listed in Table 6, the EPA should consider adding the same additional information in the Area Source Boiler Rule for clarity.

Response: Section 63.11 212 of the final rule has been revised to be consistent with section 63.7520 of the Boiler MACT.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Proposed section 63.11213 and Table 5 do not appear to address fuel sample collection for liquid fuels.

Response: We are not aware of a collection method for liquid samples.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12Comment: In 63.11214(f), the EPA proposes that "If you demonstrate compliance with the mercury based on fuel analysis..." [75 FR 31927]. It appears that the words "emission limit" were omitted and the sentence should read "If you demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limit based on fuel analysis..."

Response: The words “emission limit” hav e been added in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Proposed section 63.11237 includes biodiesel in the definition of "Liquid fuel." Please clarify whether liquid biofuels such as crude palm oil and other crude biofuels and algal fuel are considered "Liquid fuel" as defined in the Proposed Rule.

Respons e: The term “liquid biofuels” has been added to the definition of liquid fuels in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 C omment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Proposed section 63.1124(a)(3) requires the Notification of Compliance Status to be submitted "no later than 120 days after the compliance date specified in section 63.11196 unless you must conduct a performance test." P lease clarify whether this exception also applies to owners and operators who are required to conduct a performance evaluation on the CEMS in lieu of a performance test.

Response: The requirement of installing a CEMS was removed in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA should be clearer that sources only have to stack test for pol lutants for which they have applicable, numerical emission limits.For existing units, the proposed rule sets numerical emission limits for emissions of (i) mercury from coal

- fired units and (ii) CO from coal, oil and biomass

- fired units. EPA should clar ify that only these units need to conduct performance testing, and only for these pollutants. SOCMA believes that this EPA’s intent, based on the following provisions:

Proposed Section 63.11210(a) (“You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emiss ion limit that applies to you.”)

Section 63.7(e) of the General Provisions, incorporated by reference in Table 6 (which refers to “determining compliance with the relevant standard.”)

Nonetheless, SOCMA is concerned that there is some ambiguity about u nits that are subject to
tune

- up requirements for particular pollutants; i.e., emissions of PM from all categories of existing units and emissions of Hg from oil and biomass

- fired existing units. SOCMA would appreciate clarification that these units do not have to test for emissions of these pollutants.

Response: We disagree that further clarification is needed.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: In 63.11222(b), the EPA proposes the continuous compliance requirement of biennial tune

- ups for boilers. Section IV.G of the preamble [75 FR 31902] describes the proposed continuous complian ce requirements, including annual stack tests and monitoring requirements. The EPA did not identify any continuous compliance requirements for boiler tune

ups. The EPA should identify continuous compliance requirements for tune

- ups in the preamble.

Response: Section 63.11223 of the final rule presents how continuous compliance with the work practice or management practice of a tune

- up is demonstrated.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and En vironmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: In 63.11201(a), the rule states that facilities must demonstrate compliance with each emission limit specified in Table 1 of the Area Source Boile r Rule. Table 1 of the rule should state that the boiler must achieve "less than or equal to" the emission limit instead of "meet" for clarity.Response: Table 1 of the final rule has been revised to address the comment.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Ree ce Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: In 63.11237, the format for the definition of deviation should match the Boile r MACT Rule definition. Item (3) in the Area Source Boiler Rule definition is a stand alone sentence and not an instance of a deviation.

Response: The definition of “deviation” in the final rule has been revised to be consistent with the Boiler MACT.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: There appears to be a grammatical error: a new sentence should be started between "...data base" and "the owner or operator..." In addition, the EPA should make the electronic reporting language in the Area Source Boiler Rule consistent with the Boiler MA CT Rule language in 63.7550(h) to further clarify when and how stack test data should be entered into the EPA’s data base.

Response: The electronic reporting language in the Area Source Boiler Rule has been revised in the final rule to be consistent w ith the Boiler MACT Rule language in 63.7550(h).

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: In Table 6 of the Area Source Boiler Rule, the EPA proposes the applicability of the General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJJ. The citation for 63.7(e)(1) incorrectly refers to Subpart DDDDD in the application column.

Response: Table 6 of the final rule has been revised to address the comment.Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 60

Comment: The regulatory language should make clear th at the CO is only to be minimized to the extent the adjustments do not increase NOx emissions, decrease unit combustion efficiency, cause flame impingement or flame instability, or cause other safety issues, and that portable CO and O2 analyzers are accept able, and that these tests are not performance tests.

Response: The rule language in section 63.11223(b)(4) states “Optmize total emissions of CO consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications.”



### Other

- Rule Language Corrections

Commenter Name: Sheldon Schultz Commenter Affiliation: Yanke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The time base of the averaging period must be established in the rule, indicating daily or monthly is not a rule an d leaving this to argument later is not acceptable rule making. In my opinion monthly makes the most sense and is a reasonable compromise between hourly and annual.

Response: The averaging times are established in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Ma tthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment: Since proposed §63. 11211(b) contains requirements for demonstrating compliance with mercury limits through fuel analysis, that paragraph should be moved to §63.11213, which contains the rest of the requirements for such analyses and is titled “What fuel analyses and procedur es must I use for the performance tests?” Otherwise the requirements in §63.11211(b) are likely to be missed.Additionally, it should be clarified that fuel analyses are not performance test and that all of the notice, planning, reporting and other requir ements associated with performance tests do not apply to these multi

- sample fuel analyses.

Response: We disagree, §63.11211(b) refers to §63.11213.

Commenter Name: John Huber Commenter Affiliation: National Oilheat Research Alliance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1831.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Comments Seeking Clarification Size and Affected Facilities EPA’s definition uses the following language. § 63.11194 What is the affected source of this subpart? (a) This subpart a pplies to each new or existing affected sources as defined in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) The affected source is the collection of all existing industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers within a subcategory located at an area sou rce. (2) The affected source of this subpart is each new or reconstructed industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler located at an area source. In describing boiler and boiler configurations, NORA has described facilities that may have multiple boile rs with a total BTU value in excess of 30 MMBTU but generally each boiler will be less than 10 MMBTU. Our reading of the regulations indicates that the partial exemption for boilers with less than 10 MMBTU capacity should apply to a single boiler and thus two boilers that are utilized in one heating systems each with a capacity of 9 MMBTU would be within the 10 MMBTU treatment described in “§ 63.11215 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice standard, emission reduction measures, and m anagement practice? (a) If you own or operate an existing boiler with a heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBTU, you must submit a signed statement in the Notification of Compliance Status report that indicates that you conducted a tune

- up of the boiler. ” Furthermore, the regulation defines a boiler in clear terms an enclosed combustion device, whereas multiple boilers would indeed be defined as multiple enclosed combustions devices in “§63.11237 What definitions apply to this subpart? Boiler

means an enc losed combustion device in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam or hot water.” NORA in its comments believes that this definition is appropriate and therefore the size limit should be based on individual boilers, and not on boiler systems composed of multiple boilers. NORA would like clarification on this issue, but all of our comments are based on individual boiler sizing.

Response: We agree that the size limit is based on individual boilers.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The EPA states in the preamble, section IV.E (75 FR 31902), that in the eve nt a source fails to comply with a standard as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA will determine an appropriate response. However, the definition of deviation in 63.11237 gives the entity responsible for enforcement of these standards discretion to d etermine what constitutes a violation. It is unclear as to whether the EPA will retain enforcement authority of this portion of the rule. The preamble for the final rule should clearly state who will have authority to determine malfunctions, and the approp riate response required by the facility.

Response: We have added provisions to this final rule to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission limits that are caused by malfunctions.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Section 63.11224(a) requires the 60 day Notification of Intent to conduct a perfo rmance test as prescribed in 63.7(b) but it fails to specify to whom it needs to be submitted. Perhaps the text could be revised to indicate that the Notification of Intent be submitted to the "delegated authority."

Response: The wording “delegated aut hority’ was added to the appropriate paragraph in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Tim W. Sonnichsen Commenter Affiliation: Sonnichsen Engineering, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2139.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: The MACT Rul es are all but unreadable

Owners, managers and operators of biomass

- fired boilers are very busy people. The length, format and the rambling question

- and

- answer nature of the MACT “rule” are not acceptable.

In preparing the final rule, kindly provide su mmary documents that are clear , concise, and to the point. If you must include an additional 200 to 300 pages for the lawyers to decipher, then so be it.Response: After the rule is promulgated, there will be outreach activity that will include devel opment of a brochure that will provide information to help an owner or operator to determine how their boiler may be affected by the Area Source Boiler NESHAP.



### Testing and Monitoring

Stack Test Methods

Commenter Name: Rob Barton and Ralph Roberson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1978.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA should include the following reference methods for compliance demonstration:

a. EPA Method 30A, 30B (mercury) b. EPA Me thod 5B (total, filterable PM)

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Commonly applied monitoring methods for carbon monoxide have a standard deviation of 5 ppm, which e xceeds the limits proposed for several boiler subcategories in both the Area Source and Major Source Boiler MACTs.

Response: See the preamble for revisions to the CO limitations and compliance demonstration methods.

Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: In addition, CEMs are not an appropriate way to measure emissions during SSM events. Specifically, CEMs are certified using reference test methods that require near steady state operation. RATA testing requires near steady state operation for 21 minute intervals and is performed only after a boiler has reached normal operating conditions. The conditions that occur during SSM events are anything but steady state and therefore there would be no way to verify with a RATA test that the CEMs is operating properly.

Response: There are no CEMS requirements for this rule, except for the use of an O2 monitor to ensure good combustion practice s for minimizing CO emissions. Also see the preamble for revised treatment of SSM.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Do cument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 34

Comment: According to proposed §63.11212(c), stack tests must be performed at maximum normal operating load. This will require the boiler to be at that particular rate for a sig nificant part of a day (e.g., 12+ hours). This has several potential consequences that do not appear to have been considered. If the boiler is not needed to run at these high rates, fuel will be wasted, excess steam or hot water will have to be vented to t he atmosphere and extra CO 2 and pollutants will be emitted. For standby and emergency boilers, essentially all the firing during the test period would be waste and all pollutants emitted would be excess. If the boiler is part of a process operation (as opp osed to providing space heating or hot water), that operation may be affected, incurring excess operating costs and possibly wasting additional energy and increasing process emissions. Thus, if the annual performance test requirement is maintained, the ann ual test should be allowed to be deferred until the boiler is operating at least 80% of capacity for operational reasons.

Proposed §63.11212(c) requires that stack tests be performed at maximum normal operating load while burning the type of fuel or mixt ure of fuels that have the highest content of mercury. This requirement makes no sense for liquid

- or biomass fired boilers, since there is no emission limitation proposed for mercury for those boilers.

Furthermore, it is impossible to operate a boiler a t precisely the “maximum normal operating load” or the “highest content of mercury.” Both of these requirements should be reworded to require the test be performed “at or near” the maximum operating load and, only where there is a mercury emission limit, a t or near the highest mercury content. This would make these requirements feasible and comport with normal stack testing practice, where operation of a combustion source at between 80 and 100% of design capacity is typically considered representative for p erformance test purposes.We also note that annual stack testing at maximum mercury levels will result in significant mercury emissions that would not normally occur, since most boilers never actually run maximum mercury fuels and because the boiler will have to run a significant quantity of high mercury feed because they are only capable of storing one feed. While the amount of unnecessary, excess mercury emissions may be relatively small for any one boiler, the national total will be significant because of the large number of boilers and the claimed mercury emission reductions for this rulemaking should be reduced accordingly.

Response: The final rule requires that testing be performed at representative operating loads.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 78

Comment: The proposed area source rule requires a minimum 1

- hour sampling time for PM and 2

- hour sampling t ime for mercury stack testing. The proposed Boiler MACT rule requires a minimum 4

- hour sampling time for all compounds.60 We agree that the proposed sampling times in the area source rule are adequate and EPA should provide justification for requiring long er sampling times.

Response: We agree with commenters that the rule must clarify minimum sample volumes and assure that the specifications are consistent between test methods and with the method capabilities. The correct approach to measuring low quanti ties of emissions is to specify collection of a minimum sample volume that assures accuracy sufficient to determine compliance at the level of the emissions standard

In response, the final rule will specify that the test run durations will be consistent with the methods prescribed procedures. For PM Methods, Method 29, and for the ASTM D6784

- 02, applications will be 3 dscm, consistent with the methods prescribed procedures. One may collect 4 dscm in 3 to 4 hours of testing with Method 29 or with Method 5

.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 80

Comment: The proposal also asks, “As discussed previously, the standard reference methods for measuring emissions of mercury, CO (as a surrogate for POM), and PM (as a surrogate for urban

non

- mercury metals) are EPA Methods 29, 10, and 5 and are not applicable for sampling small diameter stacks. We [EPA] solicit comment on whether it would be technically infeasible to design sampling ports adequate for the test methods in boilers that are below a certain size.” Wedo not believe EPA should spend valuable time inves tigating whether or not EPA test methods should be modified for the purposes of gaining additional emission information for this rule from small sources unlikely to have an impact on the environment. Previous work preparing the standards in question went t hrough extensive scientific validation for all aspects of the test standards. These standards are regularly reviewed. If the technology changes in a way to allow for the additional information EPA speculates about in this query, that technology will be int egrated into the EPA test method at the appropriate time in the future.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for this comment. The soliciting of comment on this topic has enabled EPA to finalize an approach for certain small boilers. See response to othe r comments on this issue.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: If sources considered utilities under other rules are regulated as industrial units under this rule, then any emission limitation established that is corrected to O2 should also have an option for a limit corrected to CO 2 . The CEMS for most utility units have been changed to use CO 2 as the diluent gas instead of O2.

Response: There are no CEMS requirements in the final rule that require use of a diluent monitor to correct to O2. There is an O2 requirement for certain boilers to ensure good combustion p ractices for minimizing CO emissions.

Commenter Name: Bob Perry Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: EPA should include the following reference methods for com pliance demonstration: a. EPA Method 30A, 30B (mercury) b. EPA Method 5B (total, filterable PM)

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. FinleyCommenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2260.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In section 63.11212(c), stack tests are required to be conducted at the "maximum normal operating load while burning the type of fuel or mixture of fuels that have the highest content of mercury." For existing boilers with a rating greater than 100 MMBtu/hr, the applicable emissions li mit is for carbon monoxide, with no limit for mercury. Requiring a maximization of mercury containing fuel is not the relevant issue for initial testing for these boilers. The appropriate test condition should instead be the maximum normal operating load

u sing the predominant fuel.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on changes made to the final rule which require testing at fewer facilities.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Method 30b is not listed as an option for mercury compliance testing in table 5 of subpart DDDDD of Part 63. Method 30b is currently in use for mercury compliance testing over Method 2 9.

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: Christopher S. Colman Commenter Affiliation: Hess Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2168.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Test methods specified may not work at smaller facilities.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practi ce standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr. Also, please see preamble for discussion on changes made to the final rule which require testing at fewer facilities.

Commenter Name: Rob BartonCommenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2140.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA should include the following reference methods for compliance demonstration: EPA Method 30A, 30B (mercury) and EPA Method 5B (total, filterable PM)

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research, Inc Doc ument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2198.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Compliance Procedures Should Include Alternative EPA Reference Methods

EPA should include the following reference methods for compliance demonstration:

a. EPA Method 30A, 30B (mercury) b. EPA Method 5B (total, filterable PM)

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Co mmenter Name: Christopher Recchia Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Energy Resource Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2008.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Method 10 testing is fine for stack tests, but those results cannot be used to support conclusion that boilers (MACT floor) can operate 24/7 in compliance with those standards at all loads and during operation in pilot or stand

- by mode.

Response: Pleas e see preamble for adjusted emission limits.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: CitizenDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Every biomass heating unit should be tested utilizing the fuel it is intended to burn, not "lab" fuel. For instance, do not use crib wood fuel (present EPA fuel spec) to test a cordwood burning hydronic units. As is being demonstrated in the field every day, the utilization of crib wood as a test fuel is not a go od predictor of clean cordwood combustion.

Response: The rule requires use of the fuel with the highest emitting potential that the source intends to combust. The Agency does not consider a “lab” fuel that is not representative of the fuel to be combus ted as appropriate under this subpart.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: UARG generally supports EPA’s proposal to use periodic performance tests, rather than CEMS, as the primary method for determining compliance with emission limits when limits cannot be met based on fuel analysis. UARG believes that such periodic tests will ensure “on an ongoing basis, that the air pollution control device is operating properly and its performance has not deteriorated.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,033. UARG also supports EPA’s proposal for reduced periodic testing, but objects to the restrictions EPA proposes. In addition, UARG asks that EPA provide options for use of several additional well established test methods not included in the rules, and options that would allow for reduced run length when appropriate.

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support. Also note that the final ru le includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B . A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f). With respect to reduced run length, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, C omment Excerpt Number 28.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: UARG agrees that because EPA’s proposed emission limits were based on test data collected using runs of at least four hours, EPA cannot require compliance with the emission limits based on runs of shorter length. Moreover, in some cases, four hours (or lo nger) may be needed to obtain an adequate sample volume. However, in those cases where a source is able to obtain an adequate sample and meet an emission limit with a shorter run time, that option should be provided. UARG requests that EPA provide for that possibility by allowing shorter samplingtimes when the owner/operator can meet the comparable data quality objectives of the longer sampling time. Allowing shorter run times could significantly reduce the cost of compliance for

some sources.

Response: We agree with commenters that the rule must clarify minimum sample volumes and assure that the specifications are consistent between test methods and with the method capabilities. The correct approach to measuring low quantities of emissions is to specif y collection of a minimum sample volume that assures accuracy sufficient to determine compliance at the level of the emissions standard

In response, the final rule will specify that the test run durations will be consistent with the methods prescribed p rocedures. For PM Methods, Method 29, and for the ASTM D6784

- 02, applications will be 3 dscm, consistent with the methods prescribed procedures. One may collect 4 dscm in 3 to 4 hours of testing with Method 29 or with Method 5.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Ze ugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: To demonstrate compliance with the PM limits through stack tests, EPA proposes to allow use of Methods 5, 5D (required for positive pressure fabric filters), or 17. Proposed Table 5. Sources performing calibrations of PM CEMS under PS 11, on the other hand, are also allowed the option of using Method 5B

-- Determination of Nonsulfuric Acid Particulate Matter Emis sions from Stationary Sources. Method 5B was specifically developed to determine primary filterable PM emissions from sources with wet scrubbers and is routinely allowed for stack testing under federal regulations. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts D (60.46(b)), Da (60.50Da(e)(1)), Db (60.46b(d)(2)), Dc (60.45c(a)(2)) and Part 63, Subparts QQQ (63.1450(b), UUU (63.1579 and Tables). EPA should allow use of Method 5B or explain why the method is not appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the propo sed limits.

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: EPA Method 10 was reviewed to assess the potential accuracy of the CO emissions data that were included in the floor calculation. If the p rimary purpose of the testing was tomeasure CO emissions for compliance purposes, one would expect that a diligent stack tester, seeing minimal CO emissions, might settle on a span of 50 ppm CO for the actual compliance test, the data from which would the n have an absolute accuracy of +/

- 1ppm (50ppm * 2%, ignoring the stated M10 accuracy of NDIR analyzers of +/

- 5% of calibrated span). If the span gas is higher than 50 ppm, the expected accuracy would be greater than +/

- 1ppm. That level of accuracy is ver y different from the appearance of the data that is presented in the area source floor memo, where CO values are reported out to 3 significant figures at levels sometimes less than 1 ppm. This is a misrepresentation of the accuracy of the test method.

Response: Test method measurement imprecision is a contributor to the variability of a set of emissions data. One element is associated with method detection capabilities and a second is a function of the measurement value. Measurement imprecision is propo rtionally highest for values measured below or near a method’s detection level and proportionally decreasing for values measured above the method detection level.

Probability procedures applied in calculating the floor or an emissions limit inherently a nd reasonably account for emissions data variability including measurement imprecision when the database represents multiple tests from multiple emissions units for which all of the data are measured significantly above the method detection level. That is less true when the database includes emissions occurring below method detection capabilities and are reported as the method detection level values.

We applied the following procedures to account for the effect of measurement imprecision associated with a database that includes method detection level data. The first step was to define a method detection level that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor or emissions limit and that also minimizes the influence of an outlier test

- specific method detection level value. We reviewed each pollutant

- specific data set to identify the highest test

- specific method detection level reported that was also equal to or less than the average emissions level (i.e., unadjusted for probability confidence l evel) calculated for the data set. We believe that this approach is representative of the data collected to develop the floor or emissions limit while to some degree minimizes the effect of a test(s) with an inordinately high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive, or the procedure for determining the detection level was other than that specified).

The second step in the process is to calculate three times the representative meth od detection level and compare that value to the calculated floor or emissions limit. If three times the representative method detection level were less than the calculated floor or emissions limit calculated from the UPL, we would conclude that measuremen t variability was adequately addressed. The calculated floor or emissions limit would need no adjustment. If, on the other hand, the value equal to three times the representative method detection level were greater than the UPL, we would conclude that the calculated floor or emissions limit does not account entirely for measurement variability. If indicated, we substituted the value equal to three times the representative method detection level to apply as the adjusted floor or emissions limit. This adjuste d value would ensure measurement variability is adequately addressed in the floor or the emissions limit.Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Exc erpt Number: 31

Comment: Proposed Table 5 lists Methods 2, 2F or 2G as the methods to determine the velocity and volumetric flow rate of the stack gas when testing for PM, HCl, and Hg, and Method 4 to determine moisture content for all pollutants. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,069. Use of these methods is not necessary, or reasonable, because all of the methods specified in Table 5 for concentrations of those emissions also provide measurements of velocity and flow. Likewise, the methods used to determine pollutant c oncentrations (e.g., Methods 5, 23, and 26A) also determine stack moisture. Therefore, EPA should either remove those references or make use of those methods optional.

Response: EPA disagrees, and has retained Methods 2, 2F, and 2G.

Commenter Name: J im Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: EPA Should Explain The Discrepancies Between The Sampling Time Requirements Of This Rule And The Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. The proposed area source rule requires a minimum 1

- hour sampling time for PM and 2

- hour sampling time for mercury stack testing. [Proposed 63.11212 at 75 Fed. Reg. 31926] The proposed Boiler MACT rule requires a minimum 4

- hour sampling t ime for all compounds. [Proposed 63.7520 at 75 Fed. Reg. 32052] We agree that the proposed sampling times in the area source rule are adequate and EPA should provide justification for requiring longer sampling times.

Response: We agree with commenters that the rule must clarify minimum sample volumes and assure that the specifications are consistent between test methods and with the method capabilities. The correct approach to measuring low quantities of emissions is to specify collection of a minimum sample volume that assures accuracy sufficient to determine compliance at the level of the emissions standard

In response, the final rule will specify that the test run durations will be consistent with the methods prescribed pr ocedures. For PM Methods, Method 29, and for the ASTM D6784

- 02, applications will be 3 dscm, consistent with the methods prescribed procedures. One may collect 4 dscm in 3 to 4 hours of testing with Method 29 or with Method 5.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffi nCommenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 62

Comment: EPA should specify that the oxygen measurement should be based on either an O2 CEMS reading ( if the unit has one) , or the use of a portable emissions monitor. It should be made clear that a Method 3 oxygen measurement is not required.

Flexibility should be provided to apply specific steps as appropriate for the particular unit.

Response: The test method provisi ons in the rule indicate the generally required measurements as part of all stack tests. If the source wishes to seek an alternate method, a source may request an alternate through the general provisions in section 63.7.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin C ommenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 75

Comment: In Table 5 to proposed Subpart DDDDD, we believe EPA should include Method 30B as an acceptable mercury performance testing method. RMB’s experience with Method 30B indicates that the method can provide superior precision and accuracy at low mercury concentrations. Method 30B has been shown to produce comparable results to the methods that were specified to collect the Hg emission data upon which EPA has developed the proposed Hg emission limits For example, when EPA promulgated Method 30B as a direct final rule, the Agency provided the following rationale.I4

In considering development of a sorbent trap

- based referenc e method, EPA has reviewed historical emissions data where sorbent trap measurement systems were operated concurrently with either the Ontario Hydro Method or Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A

- 8). EPA has also conducted several field test evaluations of sorbent trap systems versus the Ontario Hydro Method in collaboration with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Based on these efforts, we have concluded that a sorbent trap

- based technique coupled with appropriate performance criteria and QA p rocedures can provide Hg emissions data of quality comparable to that produced by the Ontario Hydro Method.

Response: The final rule includes Methods 30 A and 30B, but not Method 5B. A source wishing to use Method 5B will need to apply for an alternative testing procedure per Section 63.7(f).

Commenter Name: Wayne York Commenter Affiliation: Hancock Lumber Company, I ncDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Requiring annual CO testing following the full “Reference Method” testing requirements as specified in 40 CFR 60 Appendix A is not environmentally beneficial. At any given facility, it is conceivable that there may be an environmental benefit from conducting an initial test, because they may need to tune their boilers or make adjustments to meet the emissions limit initially. However, annual testing will not continue t o improve emissions, but will add ongoing costs with little or no additional environmental benefit. We recommend significantly reducing the testing frequency for CO emissions. Annual testing will result in diminishing returns. We would recommend the frequ ency be once per five year period. This could be augmented with boiler tune

- ups during the interim between tests, if necessary. Alternatively, the CO testing should have a mechanism to reduce the required testing frequency, depending on the level of perfor mance achieved during the previous test(s), as is included in the proposed rule for the particulate matter (PM) and mercury testing requirements under 40 CFR 63.11214(a)

- (d). For units greater than 10 MMBtu/hr, the requirement to test is in effect the maj or component of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) finding. Table 4 of the proposed rule, entitled “Performance (Stack) Testing Requirements ,” requires CO testing to include Reference Methods 1

- 4, including Determination of Stack Flow Rate, Volumetric Flow Rate, and Stack Moisture Content. None of these parameters are actually critical to the determination of CO emissions in terms of pounds per MMBtu (lb/MMBtu). It is our understanding that the determination of CO in terms of lb/MMBtu can be conducted far more
cost

- effectively based on the instrumental measurement of CO, and determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide (either instrumentally or using a Fyrite or equivalent method), and abbreviated methods for moisture determination, such as the use of “midget impingers” or “wet

- bulb/dry

bulb”, when using the fuel factor calculations as listed in 40 CFR 60 Appendix A Method 19.

Response: See response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2192.1, Comment Excerpt Number 6.



### CEMS: General

Commenter Name: Margaret E. Sheehan Commenter Affiliation: Energy Justice Network Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1053.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The EPA should require Continuous Emissions Monitoring for mercury, dioxin and other toxic and hazar dous air pollutants.

The EPA should require biomass plants to use Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for toxic air pollutants, and to have the data released real time on websites that can be accessed by the public. Yearly stack tests do not give an accurate estimat e of emissions duringstart

- up, shut

- down or upset conditions

– which, for some pollutants, most notably dioxins

– can be hundreds of times higher than during steady

- state operation (which is when stack testing is typically done). CEMS equipment for many o f these pollutants has been tested and verified by EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification Program. [See Reference 8 in submittal.]

In addition to mercury contamination, contamination from toxic and hazardous air pollutants such as copper, iron and z inc need to be addressed through increased monitoring.Wood waste from construction and development contain metals such as copper and zinc.13 These metals are strongly correlated with dioxin formation and can serve as catalysts for dioxin formation.14 15 As demonstrated in the following section, dioxin is a highly toxic threat to public health.

Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing compliance.

Commenter Name: Rich Raiders Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1958.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Co mment: EPA Should Provide Compliance Flexibility For Owners of Continuous Emissions Monitors. Arkema appreciates that EPA did not require continuous emissions monitors (“CEMS”) in the proposed Boiler MACT and generally achievable control technology (“GACT ”) area source standards. EPA also did not require extensive CEMS use in the proposed CISWI standards. However, situations may exist where a facility may elect to install, or may have already installed, one or more CEMS units on units regulated in one of t he proposed source categories. In these cases, EPA should allow facilities to demonstrate compliance using common CEMS protocols and relative accuracy test audit (“RATA”) protocols used for other Clean Air Act obligations. Facilities opting into using CEMS for compliance with one or more pollutants should be exempted from the proposed testing requirements so long as the facility follows appropriate CEMS performance demonstrations.

Response: We agree that we should encourage use of CEMS including for cond ucting initial compliance tests and for demonstrating ongoing compliance. The final rule would allow for use of CEMS as an alternative monitoring method. Using the alternative monitoring procedures of the general provisions, the rule allows for the source owner or operator to install and operate continuous emissions monitoring systems in lieu of some testing and parametric monitoring. This process requires source owners to propose site

- specific monitoring plans for approval. These plans would include CEMS performance specifications and periodic quality assurance and quality control steps to assure the quality of the alternative monitoring data.Commenter Name: Cheryl Johncox Commenter Affiliation: Minneapolis Neighbors for Clean Air Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1971 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The EPA should require biomass plants to use Release CEMS data for toxic air pollutants.

CEMS equipment for many of these pollutants has been tested and verified by EPA’s Environmental Tec hnology Verification Program. [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

- Verified Technologies. http://www.epa.gov/etv/vt

ams.html.]

Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing complia nce.

Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: From an economic perspective, the use of CEMs to measure emissions during SSM events is no t feasible. First, facilities do not have CEMs on every boiler or process heater at a facility and, therefore, the equipment would need to be installed on multiple units at the affected facilities. The cost of installing a CEMs is considerable. One vendor estimate indicates that the total installed cost can range from $35,000

- 45,000 per unit. This includes the cost for the sample line, sample probe, rack, analyzers, data collection and engineering. In addition to these costs, there also are operating expens es for the equipment that can run from $24,000

- $34,000 annually per CEMs. This amounts to a significant cost for an affected source for equipment that is not even demonstrated as an accurate way to measure during SSM events. Furthermore, for those CEMs tha t already are installed, EPA’s proposed emission limits would necessitate an additional range to monitor compliance. This would mean additional equipment would be needed just for this rule, which would require additional installation and operational costs as well for existing CEMs. Considering that a vast majority of facilities have multiple affected units, the use of CEMs is not economically feasible.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commen ter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PADocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 68

Comment: In order to reduce the burden of the rule on area sources, installation of CEMS and COMS should not be required for boilers that do not already operate CEMS or COMS. Area sources may not have the required knowledge or manpower to operate complex continuous monitoring systems on their boilers, so the monitoring should be as simple as possible. Parameter monitoring or visible emissions observations should be sufficient for these small sources to ensure continued proper operation of the boiler and any associated air pollution control equipment.

Response: Please see preamble for discus sion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Section 63.11223(e)(6) describes the CEMS data needed to calculate a daily average and excludes data when the "boiler is operating at less than 50 percent of its rated capacity." This concept appears to exclude startup/shutdown data and for boilers that h ave a low capacity factor or can fire at any load or are permitted to fire at loads less than 50% of the unit’s rated capacity, CO CEMS daily data may never or very infrequently be valid. For this reason, it appears the CEMS installation requirement needs to include certain exemptions, in light of the fact that requiring units to install CEMS that will rarely report data does not seem to be cost effective. For example, the recently promulgated 40 CFR 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requires CEMS be installed on boilers that satisfy numerous criteria including "the unit has operated for more than 1,000 hours in any calendar year since 2005" as stated within 40 CFR 98.33(b)(4).

Exempt boilers from installing CEMS that do not operate more than 1,00 0 hours per year at a capacity greater than 50% of its rated capacity. Compliance with applicable limits could still be verified by stack testing.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: EPA proposes to require the use of carbon monoxide ("CO") continuous emission s monitoring systems ("CEMS"). Proposed section 63.11223(e)(2) would require a performance evaluation of each CEMS to be conducted in accordance with section 63.8 and PS 4A of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix 13. However, the Proposed Rule, 40 C.F.R section 63. 8, and PS 4A of 40 C.F.R Part 60, Appendix B, do not specify the frequency at which the performance evaluation of the CEMS must be conducted. The Group recommends following the frequency specified in Procedure 1 of 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix F

- Quality A ssurance Procedures.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA proposes to require the use of carbon monoxide ("CO") continuous emissions monitoring systems ("CEMS"). Proposed section 63.11223(e)(4) would require CO CEMS data to be reduced as specified in sectio n 63.8(g)(2). Following the June 1, 2006 revision of 40 C.F.R. section 60.13(h) (i.e., harmonization of Part 60 with Part 75), 40 C.F.R. section 63.8(g)(2) is no longer consistent with section 60.13(h). The Group recommends that EPA harmonize the data redu ction requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 63 with 40 C.F.R. Parts 60 and 75.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: GTMA opposes any continuous emission monitoring requirement for boilers located at an Area Source of HAP, such as the proposed r equirement for boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr to have CEMS for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA states that it has no emission data for POM on coal boilers, but chose CO as the surrogate, assuming that as an indicator of incomplete combustion, it would also po tentially indicate elevated organic HAP emissions. EPA provides no evidence or data to support the assertion that minimizing CO emissions through more complete combustion will result in minimizing organic urban HAP emissions. EPA should study this further before arbitrarily imposing CEMS on minor area sources.Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group D ocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The Group requests that EPA extend the deadline for complying with the Proposed Rule to five years. The Proposed Rule will, in many cases, require facilities to install controls on a large number of Boilers located at multiple generating stations. Additionally, numerous facilities will be required to install CEMS on many of the Boilers requiring controls. The proposed three

- year compliance deadline, in addition to the on e

- year compliance extension that may be granted on a case

- by

- case basis, would not provide enough time for many facilities to retrofit their affected boilers and meet the proposed standards. For example, one Group member estimates that it will take five ye ars to design, permit, procure, install, and receive regulatory approval to comply with the Proposed Rule. Accordingly, EPA should extend the compliance deadline.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requiremen ts.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Absence of a discussion regarding the application of the “diluent cap” for boilers CEMS data.

Apply the 40 CFR 75 diluent cap of 14% for boilers acceptable within hourly CO calculations using CEMS data when O2 values are greater than 14%. If so, we requ est that the application of the “diluent cap” to CEMS data be documented within the final regulation.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10Comment: There is no discussion of time sharing CEMS in the proposed rule (i.e., use of a single CEMS over multiple units/stacks). For example, in 63.11223(c)(1), as long as the minimum data availability requirements are satisfied (i.e. one sample within each quadrant of the hour) time sharing of CEMS appears to be allowed for facility’s that are equipped with multiple units. We comm end the Agency for this cost

- effective and flexible approach and recommend a brief discussion of this monitoring option within the final rule.

Discuss the option for facilities to utilize CEMS time sharing in the final rule to help industry mitigate CEMS installation costs required by this regulation.

Response: Provided the minimum data availability requirements are met, time

- sharing of CEMS is permissible. However, the only CEMS requirement in the rule is for documenting compliance with an O2 operating limit to demonstrate good combustion practices for minimizi ng CO emissions.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Size of unit dictates installation of CEMS rath er than operational history. Under the agency’s new federal Greenhouse Gas rules, the Agency provided a thoughtful analysis, and operational parameters, to the requirement for installation of CEMS.

We recommend the agency review the CEMS installation requirements in comparison to other regulations and develop further thoughtful language that would include at least acknowledgement of a unit’s historical operations or permitted operational scenarios pr ior to being required to install CEMS.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the changes to monitoring requirements.

Commenter Name: W. Randall Rawson Commenter Affiliation: American Boiler Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1897.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Comments Relating to Monitoring and Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems Requirements ABMA believes that the monitoring and CEMS requirements of the Proposed Area Source Rule should be c larified. As an initial matter, ABMA recommends that EPA evaluate the technical feasibility of in

- situ measurements at the very low emission levels identified in the proposedrule. To the extent that EPA has not done any such evaluation, ABMA recommends th at EPA contact CEMS manufacturers to ensure that CEMS will provide an accurate and feasible tool for compliance.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the changes to monitoring requirements.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation : Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: EPA should not mandate CEMS or COMS.

SOCMA believes that requiring continuous monitoring, either of emissions or opacity, does not reflect “generally available control technology” at area source boilers. CEMS and COMS are very rarely found on area source boilers, and are seldom if ever required by permitting agencies. One of these units costs roughly $250,000. This q uarter

- million dollar expense is excessive and unnecessary when its cost is viewed in light of:

the small size of such units; the small size of the average business operating them; the relatively low volume of emissions from them; and the lack of variability in such emissions if the units are periodically stack

- tested and tuned up

– as the rule otherwise requires.

The high cost of fuel will also continue to drive owners to operate their boilers efficiently, again minimizing emissions.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: EPA Should Not Require CEMS Or COMS On Area Source Boilers. In order to reduce the burden of this rule on area sources, installation of CEMS and COMS should not be required for boilers that do not already operate CEMS or COMS. Area sources may not have the required knowledge or manpower to operate complex continuous monitoring systems on their boilers, so the monitoring requirements should be as simple as possible. Parameter monitoring orvisible emissions observations should be sufficient for these small sources to ensure continued proper operation of the boiler and any associated air pollution control equipment.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements. A COMS is one option for listed cont rol devices, but sources can opt for control device parameter monitoring instead of an opacity operating limit. For other control devices not specifically listed, the source would have to use an opacity limit and demonstrate compliance with a COMS, althou gh the source can request an alternative under the general provisions of Part 63.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 49

Comment: EPA Should Not Require CEMS Or COMS On Area Source Boilers. In order to reduce the burden of this rule on area sources, installation of CEMS and COMS should not be required for boilers that do not already operate CEMS or COMS. Area sources may not have the

re quired knowledge or manpower to operate complex continuous monitoring systems on their boilers, so the monitoring requirements should be as simple as possible. Parameter monitoring or visible emissions observations should be sufficient for these small sour ces to ensure continued proper operation of the boiler and any associated air pollution control equipment.

However, if COMS are required in the final rule, EPA needs to clarify proposed 63.11223(d) to eliminate confusion as to when a COMS is required. We suggest the following revision:

“(c) If you have an applicable opacity operating limit under this rule, you must install, operate, certify and maintain each...”

This requirement should only be applicable relative to an opacity limit in this particular rule, not if there is some existing opacity requirement under some other program, such as state rules.

Response: See the response to Comment Excerpt Number 50 fo r this commenter.



### CO CEMS

Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Comment: The solution to continuous compliance with CO emissions limits is a catalytic CO reduction unit, a basically unproven device in this application. It will require natural gas or propane for catalyst regeneration, a scandal in and of itself. The solution, f or an existing unit, is basically to install an expensive retrofit, raise annual operating cost, and hope that it works.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to emission limit requirements in final rule.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus Com menter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1947.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA is also proposing that compliance be determined using EPA Method 10 or a CO continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) which meets Performance Specification 4 (PS

4). Method 10 was developed many years ago and was designed to conduct CO measurements above 20 ppm. Likewise, PS

- 4 is intended for use on CO CEMS that have a monitor range of 0

- 1000 ppm and PS

- 4A specifies a monitor range of 0

- 200 ppm. To measure concentrations near the proposed 1

- 2 ppmdv rc7( 3% 0, limit, instrumentation designed for ambi ent monitoring would need to be incorporated and the methods revised accordingly. Having not developed this instrumentation and methodology to use on individual emission sources, one does not know if these systems will provide reliable data for the purpose of demonstrating compliance. In addition, the proposed rule states that all CO measurements have to be converted to a constant 3% 0, basis. EPA has not considered the potential error associated with the 02 measurements at such low concentrations. The pote ntial errors associated with all of the analyzers in a field environment have to be considered in evaluating the potential problems with demonstrating compliance with the proposed CO limit. For comparison, the current 8

- hour CO National Ambient Air Qualit y Standard (NAAQS) is 9 ppm and the current 1

- hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm. It is unrealistic for a combustion source such as a boiler to draw in combustion air from the surrounding ambient air at these CO levels and be required to actually act as a pollution c ontrol device and reduce the CO concentration in the ambient air.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements. Also please see preamble for changes to emission limit requirements in final rule.

Comment er Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47

Comment: The Proposed Rule requires area sources to utilize CEMS and in some circu mstances COMS. 75 FR 31903

- 29. These requirements are extremely burdensome on area sourcesconsidering the testing requirements and costs. The requirement for CO CEMS for units less than 100 MMBtu per hour is too onerous. Many units at this size in the ind ustrial and institutional sector do not operate that frequently, therefore the cost of installing CO CEMS is not justified for units with such limited operation. CIBO recommends that EPA remove this requirement and present alternatives to either install CE MS or use stack testing for any units with limits. EPA could also increase the threshold requirement for CO CEMS to 250 MMBtu per hour or provide a limited use exemption such as 10 percent use.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule , including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement. Also see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1, Comment Excerpt Number 50.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 6

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: We are concerned about the proposed requirement to install and use CO CEMS. The proposed rule would require a CO CEMS for boilers with a heat input capacity of 100 mmBtu per hour or more. The quality assur ance testing and maintenance of such a device, will strain resources at typical area source facilities. We urge EPA to drop this requirement in the area source rule. However, for units that have a CO emissions limit but must demonstrate compliance with a p erformance test, the proposed CO limit in the form a of "daily average" makes no sense given the performance test provisions.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Bill Perdue Commenter Affiliation: American Home Furnishings Alliance, AHFA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1970.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: The proposed rule is unclear in its requirement for CO testing for some boilers

sma ller than 10 MMBTU/hr. The heading to Table 4 specifies: “As stated in § 63.11212, you must comply with the following requirements for performance (stack) test for new affected sources:”, however 63.11213(e) seems to indicate that CO testing is required fo r all units with a CO limitation, including existing units. Requiring small boilers <10MMBTU to test for CO presents a significant regulatory burden, particularly considering the size and impact of the individual unit.Response: Please see preamble for changes to emission limits in final rule.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 32

Comment: EPA has collected 30

- day CO CEMS data from major sources and may have coincidentally collected area source CEMS data. However, we believe EPA needs to collect much more and if it pursues setting a CO emission limit base the limit on long term data. We are providing 30 day CO CEMS dat a from area sources with this submission (see Appendix 3). However, we believe EPA should go one step further and evaluate the annual variability of CO data from sources with CEMS. We are also providing annual CEMS data with this submission (see Appendix 4 ). As noted elsewhere, CO emissions from boilers can be highly variable, especially when fuel mix and load change. But variability also comes from weather, which is seasonal and with biomass fuel moisture levels, which are also seasonal. Seasonality also a ffects startups (particularly) and a shutdown since it is the cold surfaces in boilers that lead to spikes in CO levels during startup.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 32

Comment: Where CO CEMS are not required (boilers between 10 and 100 MMBTU/hr design heat input), sources should be given the option of using CEMS because such analyzers may be required for permit or operating reasons, if a CO emission limit is finalized.

Response: Though CO CEMS are not required by the final rule, facilities do have the option to install one for reasons not pertaining to the rule.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33Comment: Permit compliance stack tests represent an inherently flawed data set for establishing CO limits. Facilities are typically required to conduct stack tests while operating at 90 per cent of full load or greater, and during normal operating conditions. These operating conditions are designed to challenge the boiler in at least two areas where state permit authorities have the greatest concern regarding boilers: particulate and NOx emis sions (CO is not even mentioned in wood/oil fired boiler NSPS). These operating conditions virtually ensure peak combustion efficiency. Therefore, a CO stack test is going to represent the best CO performance, the lowest emission levels, in any boiler. Thi s is widely recognized. EPA has primarily used 3

- run stack test data from an extremely limited number of sources to develop the proposed area source limit. The data collected represent only a small snapshot in time captured during the best operating condit ions, to set emission limits for a pollutant that is highly variable. Even EPA acknowledges this fact in the preamble of the Major Source rule, noting “We believe that single short term stack test data (typically a few hours) are probably not indicative of long term emissions performance, and so are not the best indicators of performance over time”[ 43 75 FR 32024].

In sum, using short

- term test data to identify ‘best performers’ and then setting a 24 hour average emission limit based on the short

- term da ta suffers from three significant shortcomings: 1. The majority of the best performers have a single Method 10 test which provides almost no information on CO temporal variability. 2. Short

- term tests do not reflect startup, shutdown, or malfunction cond itions, nor do they capture fluctuations in emissions due to load swings, fuel quality changes, or changes in fuel mix. 3. Best performers should be those units having the lowest long

- term average CO emission rates, not those with the lowest 3

- hour test a verages.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petroch emical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: Under the proposal, liquid

- fired boilers over 100 MMBTU/hr appear to be required to perform initial and annual stack tests and to install and operate CO CEMS. Boilers between 10 MMBTU/hr and 100 MMBTU/hr are required to perform annual stack tests. We have several concerns about these requirements. Requiring both stack tests for CO and continuous monitoring is a wasteful and unnec essary duplication. One or the other is all that is necessary. The requirement to perform annual CO stack tests for boilers where CEMS are required may, in fact, not be what the Agency intended and may be an oversight in the drafting of §63.11211(a). In ei ther case, we recommend that §63.11211(a) be revised to exclude boilers with CO CEMS.Many small area sources have no CEMS expertise (and likely no engineering expertise) available onsite or even within the owner’s company. Requiring CEMS and all the associated claptrap or annual performance tests imposes an unreasonable burden on these fac ilities and provisions are needed to provide relief in these situations. We do not believe the Agency correctly estimated the high ongoing costs associated with the CO CEMS requirements for facilities where there are no onsite engineering resources. Meetin g the requirements of Appendix B and F of Part 60 (particularly the RATA requirements) for such units imposes tremendous unconsidered costs, when engineering resources must be hired on an hourly basis.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the fi nal rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment: We sup port EPA’s decision in §63.11223(e)(6) to exclude data collected from sources required to collect CO emission data with CEMS “when your boiler is operating at less than 50% of its rated capacity” for calculating data reporting averages. Currently, this
req uirement and therefore this aspect of the rule would only apply to CO emissions from units greater than 100 MMBTU/hr. capacities. Boilers with less capacity may have installed CEMS as a permit condition and others may do so in the future so this section sh ould be written to clearly apply to all units with CO CEMS. Additionally, units with capacity greater than 250 MMBTU/hr. must install Particulate CEMS devices.

This exclusion should also apply to those units. We recommend that the language in §63.11223(e ) be modified to account for smaller units that have installed CO CEMS and units required to install PM CEMS. In our separate comments for the Major Source rule, we discuss our recommendation against the use of PM CEMS that also applies here (See Section X XIV, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058; we incorporate those comments by reference).

Response: Please see preamble for changes to requirements in final rule, including elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Cheryl Sonnier Nolan Commenter Affiliat ion: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2277 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: CO CEMSExisting boilers at Louisiana’s sugar mills would be subject to a CO emission standard. New boilers would be subject to a PM standard as well as a more stringent CO standard. Most of the boilers at sugar mills operate at greater than 100 MM Btu/hr and, under the proposed subpart, would be required to install a CO GEMS. Many mills would therefore be required to i nstall a CO GEMS on multiple boilers, which would be extremely burdensome from an economic perspective given the seasonal nature of such sources.

Should EPA improperly conclude that all biomass

- fired sources are subject to 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ, EPA s hould reconsider the need for CO GEMS and provide an alternative means to demonstrate compliance with the CO standard short of annual Method 10 stack testing (e.g., allow the use of portable analyzers).

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The proposed CO oil firing emission limits for new/existing sources are 1 ppmvdc and 2 ppmvdc, respectively and boilers greater than 100 mmbtu/hr would be required to install CO CEMS according to 40 CFR 60 PS

- 4A. The allowed error for CO accord ing to the 40 CFR 60 relative accuracy test is a 5 ppm difference between the reference method and facility CO CEMS. Considering the reference method can only quality assure data to within 5 ppm, the proposed CO limits are indistinguishable from zero. How can a permit limit, under this proposal, be set below the allowable deviation in the reference test method? How could this be enforceable?

Considering the limitation with the current EPA reference method (i.e. 40 CFR 60 PS

- 4A) we request that the CO stan dard be set to nothing lower than 10 ppmvdc, which is twice the allowed error of the required relative accuracy test within 40 CFR 60 PS

- 4A. If EPA is intent on implementing a CO emissions limit less than 10 ppmvdc, we believe either 40 CFR 60 PS

- 4A needs to be revised or another monitoring regulation developed and referenced within this proposed NESHAP area source boiler regulation that would require the CO CEMS be quality assured at a level half the proposed limit. Is EPA currently working on an updated C O monitoring regulation for low emission limits in parallel with the development of this regulation?

Response: Please see preamble for changes to requirements in final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Bob Pe rryCommenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA should limit continuous monitoring requirement for CO to boilers greater than 250 mmbtu/hr having capacity factors grea ter than 10%. As previously noted, FENOC Industrial Boilers operate on a very infrequent basis. In addition to the additional expense of continuous CO monitor not being warranted, the lack of run time could seriously hamper compliance with the extremely lo w CO limits. Longer averaging times would be of little value in achieving compliance due to low capacity factors.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: According to the Summary of This Proposed Rule Section E, the proposed limits have been developed in a method th at is consistent with Sierra Club vs. EPA considering EPA has established standards in this rule that apply at all times. However, according to Section 63.11223(e)(6) CO CEMS data is not to be included within the compliance average when a boiler is operate d at less than 50% of its rated capacity.

If the intention is to develop a regulation that applies during all operating times then all CO CEMS data should be used within the compliance average. Excluding CO CEMS data when a boiler is operating less than 50% of its rated capacity does not appear to be inline with the concept that the CO emission limits apply during all operating times. We recommend that this provision within Section 63.11223(e)(6) be removed and the CO emission limits be reevaluated as des cribed within Concerns #1, #2, #6, #7 and #12 of this letter.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Docume nt Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10Comment: We have CO CEMs to monitor against emission limits (most being established as BACT under PSD). We do not believe that CEMs are reasonable for smaller area sources (<100 MMB tu/hr) which represent the majority of the source category being regulated here.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliati on: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: A concern of ours is whether or not a unit that has not fired oil in years or does not operate regularly over the 50% load threshold would be subject to the rule or required to install CO CEMS with the possibility of never having to use the CO CEMS data. We recommend a CEMS installation applicability section similar to the recently promulgated 40 CFR 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule that would take into consideration operating history and fuel(s) combusted from a given boiler. For example, includ ing a statement such as:

“Boilers that are above the rated capacity threshold(s) to install a CO CEMS and have operated on a fuel regulated by this rule for more than 1,000 hours in a calendar year since 1/1/2010 are required to install a CO CEMS.”

A s tatement such as this would help make sure CO CEMS would not be required on boilers that would not report data from the CO CEMS in a quantity great enough to justify the costs associated with installing and maintaining a CEMS. We also recommend a tiered CO CEMS installation requirement such that coal fired boilers >100 mmbtu/hr, biomass boilers >150 mmbtu/hr and fuel oil firing boilers >200 mmbtu/hr would be required to install CO CEMS instead of all boilers >100 mmbtu/hr be required to install CEMS. We rec ommend the CEMS installation be tiered by fuel and size to reflect the higher level of HAPs emitted from coal boilers then biomass boilers then fuel oil boilers. Stack testing could be required as an alternative compliance method for boilers that do not sa tisfy additional CO CEMS installation requirements.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18Comment: We recommend a more thoughtful CEMS installation applicability section similar to the recently promulgated 40 CFR 98 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule that would take into c onsideration operating history and fuel(s) combusted from a given boiler. For example, including a statement such as,

“Boilers that are above the rated capacity threshold(s) to install a CO CEMS and have operated on a fuel regulated by this rule for more than 1,000 hours in a calendar year since 1/1/2010 are required to install a CO CEMS.”

A statement such as this would help make sure CO CEMS would not be required on boilers that would not report data from the CO CEMS in a quantity great enough to justi fy the costs associated with installing and maintaining a CEMS. We also recommend a tiered CO CEMS installation requirement such that coal fired boilers >100 mmbtu/hr, biomass boilers >150 mmbtu/hr and fuel oil firing boilers >200 mmbtu/hr would be require d to install CO CEMS instead of all boilers >100 mmbtu/hr. We recommend the CEMS installation be tiered by fuel and size to reflect the higher level of HAPs emitted from coal boilers then biomass boilers then fuel oil boilers. Stack testing could be requir ed as an alternative compliance method for boilers that do not satisfy additional CO CEMS installation requirements.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Da vid Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: Discuss within the regulation common stack applications and state that under certain common stack circumstances CO CEMS installations may not be feasible. Also discuss stack structural limitations regarding CEMS installations and whether capital improveme nts on older exhaust stacks would be required to install CEMS. Under these situations, an alternative compliance strategy would need to be developed by the site and approved by EPA. An alternative may be to allow stack testing of these units even if the bo ilers are above the size limits required to install CEMS considering a facility may be able to shutdown the other combustion units for a short compliance testing period or perform stack testing at an alternative location that would not be accessible to a C EMS installation.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLCDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1 977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: The CO CEMS calculation methodology is not discussed thoroughly enough within the proposed rule. Include a more detailed CO daily (or 30 operating day) average calculation discussion. For example,

- How many hou rs are needed to calculate the daily average? We recommend 18 operating hours while firing a fuel regulated under this rule to mimic the Pennsylvania Continuous Source Monitoring Manual Revision Number 8 that has recently been released.

- A discussion of what types of data are included in the analysis. For example, for a dual or co

firing unit we assume that natural gas only firing hours would be excluded within the daily average and co

- firing hours that include a fuel regulated under this rule would be in cluded.

- We recommend that the diluent cap be allowed and included within the final rule. For example, when oxygen levels exceed 14% then 14% O2 would be used in the CO ppmvdc calculation to avoid excessive CO ppmvdc values due to startup/shutdown condit ions. The diluent cap is allowed under 40 CFR 75 and other regulations.

- If 30

- day rolling averages are adopted as a compliance averaging time frame we recommend specifying the data include operating days (i.e. operated at least 18 hours) with a data loo kback time period of three years (i.e. 1095 days).

Response: Please see preamble for changes to monitoring requirements, and elimination of CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: For facilities that operate numerous boilers, we assume time sharing CEMS would be allowed if the CEMS installations meet the rules minimum data availability requirements.

Specifically include mention of time sharing CEMS as an alternative to help facilities minimize costs where a given facility operates multiple boilers. Since time

- sharing CEMS are not overly common, mentioning them within the regulation may allow sources t o minimize costs where they may not have been aware that time sharing CEMS would be an option.

Response: Provided the minimum data availability requirements are met, time

- sharing of CEMS is permissible.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation : American Sugar Cane LeagueDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: The Requirement to Install CO CEMS Is Unjustified.

EPA wisely determined that the cost per unit of a PM CEMS “...would make them an

unr easonable monitoring option” for boilers at area sources. 75 Fed. Reg. 31910 (June 4, 2010). With regard to the requirement to install CO CEMS and conduct annual CO testing, EPA merely states that “cost information for CO CEMS provided by commenters on the NESHAP for major source boilers” was reviewed. Id. The EPA then concludes that requiring CO CEMS for boilers with a heat input capacity of at 100 MMBtu/hour is reasonable.

The lack of any justification or cost analysis related to the requirement to inst all CO CEMS at area sources suggests that EPA arbitrarily applied conclusions arrived at from its review of data collected for major sources. This fact supports the ASCL’s position that the requirement for a CO CEMS for boilers located at area sources be r emoved.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Fred P. Osman Commenter Affiliation: Osman Environmental Sollutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 06

- 0790

- 2146.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Secondly, meeting the CO standards on a daily average basis will be very difficult for units that have CEMS and have relatively long start

- up times. Whatever CO limit EPA ultimately publishes will likely b e difficult for a biomass boiler to consistently achieve on a daily basis, with any available control technology. Units that are equipped with CEMS should be allowed to prove compliance with the GACT limit on a 30

- day rolling basis to address SSM issues.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Frank A. Stanonik Commenter Affiliation: Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2156.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Even if such designs were possible, to our knowledge the laboratory quality instruments used to measure CO are not sufficiently precise to accurately measure 1 ppm.Operators at area sources that are purchasing new oil boilers at these lower inputs will be asking the boiler manufacturer to provide units that meet these emission limits. But as we noted, those products do not exist.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule which pertain to this topic.

Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2165.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: It is recommended that EPA add clarifying lan guage to the CO CEMS requirement to make clearer that CO CEMS are not required for equipment subject to work practice standards.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commen ter Name: G. Vinson Hellwig Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2016.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: In Part 63.11223(e)(6) for boilers with a heat input capacity of 100 MMBtu/hr or greater, monitoring of CO emissions is required as a surrogate for polycyclic organic matter (POM). The proposed rule states that the CO continuous emission monitoring syste m (CEMS) daily average data calculation shall not include "data recorded during periods when your boiler is operating at less than 50 percent of its rated capacity." In Michigan it is common for a boiler to be sized to provide both process steam and steam for heating the facility during winter. Many boilers are operated at less than 50 percent load during warm weather, so the installation and use of a CEMS as required in the proposed rule will demonstrate either compliance with the CO limit an indication o f the POM emissions from these boilers during a large portion of the year. However, there will be extended periods where monitoring is not required. It is unclear what the reasoning is for dropping the data for a load less than 50 percent. The limits

are in units of parts per million (ppm), rather than pound per hour (Ib/hr). Mass emissions would likely be less at lower loads since less fuel is burned. Concentration of CO is an indicator of efficiency (and efficient combustion would be expected to produce lower POM emissions), but boiler efficiency is not optimized at loads less than 50 percent. Less efficient combustion, by definition, produces higher CO emissions, which is the reason for monitoring the emissions of CO.When measuring the CO concentration in ppm with a CEMS, a false high indication for CO occurs when very low diluent gas concentrations are measured. If low concentration data are used to calculate CO in lb/MMBtu emission rates during low capacity operation, mathematically the last term in t he equation causes the emission rate calculation to approach infinity as the measured diluent value approaches a value representative of zero heat input (i.e. 0.0% when carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the monitored diluent). Thus, during periods of low capacity bo iler operation, when the heat input and CO 2 concentrations are low (or high as would be the case if oxygen were being measured), the CO lb/MMBtu emission rates become artificially inflated. One solution to this dilemma is to limit the emissions on a mass b asis (lb/hr) for periods of low capacity boiler operation and to use the GEMS data during other times.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Thomas D. Emero Commenter Affiliation: Beaver Wood Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2166.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: BWE boilers will be equipped with a CO continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS), which will be subject to federal relati ve accuracy test audits, thus additional annual stack testing is not only redundant but an operating cost that can be avoided while not presenting any harm or risk to the environment or human health.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the fina l rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Glowinski Commenter Affiliation: American Wood Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1930.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: NCASI analyzed long

- t erm CO CEMS data for three boilers located at wood product plants. These three boilers burn similar wood fuels and operate in a similar manner to hundreds of other wood

- fired boilers found at wood panel plants and sawmills that will become subject to the a rea source boiler rule. The 24

- hr and 30

- day average CO profiles for these units are presented in Appendix A. Daily average CO concentrations computed by the Maine DEP for seven wood

- fired boilers potentially subject to GACT, all of which were electric gen erating units (EGUs), are also presented in Appendix A. Table 1 [See submittal] summarizes the type of boilers, boiler capacities, type of fuels fired, and percent of 24

- hr averages that were less than the proposed GACT limit of 160 ppm @ 7%O2 for the biom ass subcategory. The CO CEMS data for the boiler at Mill A were analyzed over two different time periods (A1 and A2). All tenboilers had numerous 24

- hour averages above the proposed limit. Furthermore, many of the 30

- day rolling averages for each of the three boilers at wood panel plants exceeded 160 ppm.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Richard Rosvold Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Services, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2259.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: It is unclear why the EPA is requiring that CO measurements for many units be corrected to 3% oxygen (02) instead of a more typical 7% 02. Please explain the basisfor the 3% 02 correction as opposed to 7% 02 as is used in other EPA regulations. Absent valid justification, we suggest that a 7% 02 basis be used throughout this rule.

Response: See the preamble for revisions to the CO limitations and compliance demonstr ation methods.

Commenter Name: Lewis F. Gossett Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2196.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: SCMA does not believe that any continuous emission moni toring (such as CEMS) can be justified for a boiler that is not a major source of HAP, such as the proposed requirement for boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr to have CEMS for carbon monoxide (CO), especially when CO is just a surrogate for POM and other or ganic urban HAP. EPA states that they have no emission data for POM on coal boilers, but chose CO as the surrogate, assuming that as an indicator of incomplete combustion, it would also potentially indicate elevated organic HAP emissions. EPA provides no e vidence or data to support their assertion that minimizing CO emissions through more complete combustion will result in minimizing organic urban HAP emissions. EPA should study this further before arbitrarily imposing CEMS on minor area

sources.

Respons e: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Dan H. Williams Commenter Affiliation: Sealed Air CorpDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2228.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: A 1 or 2 ppm limit is below the accuracy level of most if not all existing CO CEMS and stack test methods. Calibrations are done with an allowable drift for most standards that is greater than 2 ppm (5 ppm is allowed by Part 60 Perform ance Specification 4 for a CO CEM spanned at 100 ppm). [Footnote: 100 ppm is a typical CO CEMS span and allows the instrument to monitor the most common range of CO concentrations with reasonable accuracy.] For CO monitoring, there are no CEMS commercially available that can accurately and predictably measure sub

- 1 ppmv concentrations in the flue gas, thus it is impossible to accurate determine is a source is complying with a 1 or 2 ppm standard and there is no way sources can provide a compliance margin.. The accuracy of CO CEMS is limited by the equipments ability to precisely remove measurement bias and interference, which includes CO 2 which is the major component of exhaust gas. EPA needs to consider true real world monitoring schemes and recognize

measu rement limitations.

In addition to CO CEMS having an allowable drift of 5%, calibration gases typically have an accuracy of ±2% and there is an accuracy band for sampling and conditioning. Thus, measurement uncertainty for a CO CEMS adds up to several pe rcent. Furthermore, the EPA Methods used for units without CEMS and for calibrating CO CEMS do not define their detection limits, but experience shows that they are not accurate in the low ppm range, adding more uncertainty. While people read and report CO results below 1 or 2 ppm, there is little certainty associated with the accuracy of those reports.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Glowinski Commenter Affiliation: American Wood Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1930.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: While the tendency is to think that further reductions in CO emissions will improve the quality of the combustion, and i n turn minimize emissions of other organic compounds, this is not necessarily true. Instead, forcing CO emissions lower and lower ends up over

- constraining the combustion process, producing negative impacts on other air quality concerns, without documented improvements in emissions of organics. Most boilers are designed to mix fuel and air at an appropriate ratio, and to provide sufficient residence time for the fuel to combust completely. Obviously, these factors are fuel

- dependent, as a gaseous fuel will require less time for complete combustion than a liquid fuel, which in turn requires less time to burn than a solid fuel. The need for longer residence time is why the radiant sections in solid

- fuel fired boilers are larger than for gas

- fired units. The si ze of the boiler is typically optimized to allow for complete combustion, while minimizing the cost of construction materials. If the construction cost werenot a concern, a new boiler could be designed with additional residence time to complete the combus tion process and minimize CO emissions.

Unfortunately, increasing the size of the furnace is not an option for existing units. For these units, the strategy for reducing CO emissions is typically to raise the level of excess oxygen. The increase in oxyge n concentration has two positive effects. First, it acts to overcome poor distribution of the fuel. Second, it increases the flame temperature, which speeds up the combustion reactions, allowing more complete combustion to occur for the same residence time

. However, there are a number of negative impacts associated with operating a boiler at higher levels of excess oxygen. Many boilers do not have sufficient fan capacity to run with elevated excess oxygen at the high end of the load range. Therefore, thes e units would effectively be derated by such strategy. A site might have to add another boiler to offset the reduction in steam generating capacity.

The minimization of excess oxygen in boiler applications is a key feature for maximizing boiler efficienc y. The boiler efficiency is defined by the amount of combustion air that is present, and the difference between the ambient temperature and the stack exhaust temperature. The more air that is heated up through the combustion process, the more heat is lost to the atmosphere, causing the boiler to be less efficient. A less efficient boiler will require more fuel to be fired to produce a given amount of steam. The additional fuel firing results in higher operating costs, and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Minimizing the level of excess oxygen is also a primary strategy for reducing NOx emissions from a boiler. The NOx formation mechanisms are dependent upon the temperatures in the flame zone, and the stoichiometry. Reducing the level of excess oxygen reduce s the peak flame temperature, which reduces the rate at which the nitrogen in the air dissociates. As such, there is less monatomic nitrogen available to be oxidized to form ‘thermal NOx’. Similarly, if there is less oxygen present, the monatomic nitrogen is less likely to be oxidized (and more likely to react with a second monatomic nitrogen to form diatomic nitrogen). This reduces both the amount of thermal NOx, and the ‘fuel NOx’ (NOx that is formed by the release of fuel

- bound nitrogen). Therefore, incr easing the level of excess oxygen will result in higher NOx emissions.

Low

- NOx burner (LNB) designs manipulate the stoichiometry within the flame to minimize NOx formation. These designs establish a fuel

- rich zone for the initial phase of combustion, and then add air at a later stage in the outer regions of the flame. In the initial phase, there is not sufficient oxygen available to form significant amounts of NOx, and in the secondary phase, the flame is much cooler, which also inhibits NOx formation. Ho wever, these burners often operate with CO emission up to 100 ppmvd in the upper part of the load range. At mid loads, the CO begins to increase and at low loads, it may reach 400 ppmvd for a liquid

- fired boiler. These low

NOx burners will not be able to a chieve CO emissions as low as 2 ppmvd over all operating scenarios.

The requirements of the National Fire Protection Act (NFPA) specify the minimum total air flow at which a boiler can operate, which is independent of the boiler load. This value is commonly 25 or 30 percent of the total air flow. As a result, boilers that are operating at loads less than 25percent experience increasing levels of excess air because the fuel flow is decreasing with load, but the air flow remains fixed. The amount of excess air can become sufficiently high that it acts as a heat sink and redu ces the flame temperature. The cooling of the flame slows the combustion kinetics, and often produces higher CO emissions. Therefore, low CO emission limits could restrict the minimum load capability of a boiler. Since boilers are often run at minimum load (either in warm standby mode, or due to low steam demand), this results in the boiler ‘idling’ at a higher load than was previously necessary. An obvious outcome of operating at higher load is the increased fuel costs. Another is the relative increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Response: Please see the preamble for a discussion of the standard setting process for CO.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Glowinski Commenter Affiliation: American Wood Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1930.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: The Grayling data is from a year where demand was reduced, mostly running at partial load. When running full load, Grayling mixes TDF with the wood, noted on the TDF meter reading. When not running TDF, CO will typicall y be higher.

Cadillac does not fire TDF. It has a dispatch contract where the utility can run full load or part load (part load being a bit under 50% load). Some of the Cadillac data is from part load, although that is not indicated on the emission data provided, though it can be done.

Hillman fires TDF typically but not continuously.

Viking pulled 1 random day per month for a year since they have an older CEMs/DAS that does not import to a spreadsheet. They typically will always be co

- firing with TDF and occasionally Rail Road Ties. Before TDF and Rail Road Ties were used, their CO ran consistently higher. Consequently they always co

- fire a drier fuel.

Response: See the preamble for a discussion of the revised CO emission limits and CO compliance m echanisms, which address the commenter’s concerns. We also finalized a solid fossil fuel definition that clarifies that TDF is part of the coal/solid fossil fuel subcategory.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Gr oup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 46

Comment: UARG has several concerns regarding EPA’s proposed use of CO CEMS. First, EPA’s proposed performance specifications for CO CEMS are not appropriate for use at the level of some of the proposed CO limits or at certain units. Second, the proposed requirement touse oxygen (O2) CEMS to correct CO CEMS data to 3 percent O2 is unduly restrictive. Third, EPA’s proposal to treat all periods of CO CEMS downtime as a deviat ion is not reasonable. Finally, the proposed rules do not clearly exempt units with CO CEMS from initial and annual performance testing.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47

Comment: PS 4A was developed primarily for CEMS that comply with emission standards “less
t han 200 ppmv.” 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix B, PS 4A § 1.2.1. In contrast, EPA proposes standards ranging from a high of 1,010 ppmv to a low of 1 ppmv (both corrected to 3 percent O2). While one could certainly question the reasoning behind applying a speci fication written for low emission standards to some of the proposed standards, UARG’s primary concern is with the 1 ppmv standard. Applying PS 4A (or any specification) to a limit that low presents many problems. The first issue is a simple matter of the t echnology. Experience with CO analyzers suggests that a typical 24

- hour drift can be on the order of 1 ppmv. See Attachment B at 2. Depending upon the span of the instrument, the allowed drift could be much greater. PS 4A allows and anticipates drift of up to 5 percent of the established span value for 6 out of 7 days. PS 4A § 13.1. If a CEMS can be expected to drift on a daily basis an amount equal to the emission limit, compliance with that limit would certainly be impossible.

Perhaps more significant, however, are EPA’s expectations for accuracy under the “relative accuracy specification.” When EPA developed PS 4A, the Agency recognized the potential difficulty in meeting the relative accuracy specification at low levels and included an alternative
spec ification. At the time, EPA determined that the lowest achievable relative accuracy standard was 5 ppm. PS 4A, § 13.2. Again, expecting sources to determine compliance with a 1 ppm standard with a CO CEMS that has allowable error of 5 ppm is not reasonable . In short, while the PS 4A drift specification and relative accuracy standard may be achievable, they have little relevance in assuring the accuracy of the 1 ppmv measurement EPA’s proposed standard requires the CO CEMS to make. And EPA has presented no d ata to determine the achievability of any more stringent performance specifications.

UARG also is concerned about several other requirements for CO CEMS that may not be achievable. PS 4A specifies a response time test protocol (to measure the time it tak es to achieve 95 percent of a stable value) and requires that the response time not exceed 1.5 minutes. When measuring low levels of any emission, a common strategy used is to use a longer averaging time in the analyzer itself to reduce signal noise. Makin g CO measurements at 5

- 10 ppm may require an analyzer averaging time in the 3

- 5 minute range. While the 1.5 minute response time may have been achievable for the source categories for which EPA wrote PS 4A, it may not beachievable for CO CEMS installed on the tall stacks typical of units owned and operated by UARG members due to long sample lines and long sample acquisition time (even with increased sample gas pressure and flow rate over those typically used). Nor does UARG understand the purpose of this r equirement, given that the CEMS are provided a full 15

- minutes to complete a measurement cycle. Proposed § 63.7525(a)(3).

Moreover, although EPA does not propose any ongoing quality assurance requirements for CO CEMS, other than those established under § 63.8 and the unit’s site

- specific monitoring plan at § 63.7505(d), UARG expects EPA and states to require that those plans include the same types of tests found in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix F, Procedure 1. To ensure that a monitor is measuring accuratel y in the range that includes the emission limit, the CEMS span is usually set at 1.5 to 2 times the emission limit. See, e.g., PS 4A, § 6.1.2 (addressing dual range analyzers); Attachment B at 2. Procedure 1 requires a quarterly cylinder gas audit (“CGA”) to be performed at two audit points based on a percent of span (20

- 30 and 50

- 60 percent). A CGA also must be performed using an audit gas that has been certified by comparison to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) or EPA Traceabili ty Protocol 1. Procedure 1, § 5.1.2. The lowest NIST

- traceable CO audit gas UARG has been able to locate is 5 ppmv. However, a unit that sets its CO span at 2 ppm as recommended in PS 4A would need NIST traceable gases of approximately 0.5 ppmv and 1 ppmv to meet the CGA requirement. Although EPA presumably could waive both the span recommendation and CGA requirement, UARG questions what confidence its members could have in the ability of a CO CEMS that does not satisfy those criteria to accurately monitor compliance with a 1 ppm standard. EPA must reconsider its proposed emission standards and performance evaluation requirements in light of these problems. It simply is not possible to comply with EPA’s proposed CO monitoring requirements. Attachment B at 2.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment: By choosing O2 as the basis for the correction (instead of CO 2 ), EPA has precluded the use of dilution

- based monitoring systems, which have become the systems of choice for UARG members under EPA’s Acid Rain Program be cause of their proven accuracy and reliability. [Footnote: Dilution systems are often the only reasonable choice for units with wet scrubbers because they eliminate plugging and other issues associated with corrosive flue gas conditions.] Dilution

- based sy stems measure on a wet basis and can accurately measure CO 2 , but cannot be used to measure O2 because the dilution air contains O2. To allow source owners/operators to choose the most accurate and reliable system, and the system with which they have the mo st experience (and can use for compliance with other rules), EPA should promulgate alternative standards in lb/mmBtu. Attachment B at 5. In addition, any emission limitexpressed at any O2 concentration can be directly converted to an equivalent lb/mmBtu l imit. EPA should promulgate the standards in this fashion to allow sources to choose their preferred sampling system and diluent. UARG has previously discussed these conversions and the advantages of such standards for boilers in its Petition for Reconside ration of EPA’s 2006 Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2004

- 0490

- 0325 at 11

- 13 (Sept. 7, 2006) (incorporated by reference). [Footnote: EPA granted that petition on December 7, 2006.]

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 61

Comment: For a short term adjustment situation, unit firing and stack conditions will not change enough for the stack moisture to vary significantly. Comparing CO measurements on either a wet or dry basis, before and after adjustment, is more t han adequate to reflect the impact of adjustments.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Do cument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 71

Comment: The proposed IB rule requires units with a heat input capacity ?100 x 106 Btu/hr to install, operate, and maintain CO and O2 continuous emission monitoring systems (CEM S). (15 FR 32055) The O2 analyzer must comply with Performance Specification 3 (PS

- 3), and the CO analyzer with Performance Specification 4A (PS

- 4A). Unfortunately, PS

- 4A does not appear adequate for many of the proposed CO emission limits. Quoting from PS

- 4A, [t]his performance specification was developed primarily for CEMS that comply with low emission standards (less than 200 ppmv). (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 4A, section 1.21.)

For six of the nine subcategories for new un its, EPA has proposed CO limits < 90 ppmv, and for five of the nine subcategories for existing units, EPA has proposed CO limits < 90 ppmv. Four subcategories (two for new units and two existing for existing units) have proposed CO limits equal to 1 ppmv. The proposed 1 ppmv limits present problems from multiple perspectives, not the least of which are measurement concerns. Anyone with much experience with a CO analyzerknows that the typical 24

- hour drift of a CO analyzer is on the order of 1 ppmv. Thus, t he expected daily drift of the analyzer is about equal to the proposed emission limit. When EPA developed PS

- 4A, the Agency recognized the potential difficulty in meeting the relative accuracy specification at low levels because the stack concentration, as measured by the appropriate reference method, is in the denominator of the relative accuracy equation. Thus, as the stack concentration approaches zero, the computed relative accuracy approaches infinity. EPA recognized this problem and included an altern ate specification of 5 ppmv when relative accuracy is calculated as the absolute average difference between the reference method and GEMS plus the 2.5 percent confidence coefficient.5 The problem is that EPA’s current CO performance specification permits t he analyzer error (relative accuracy) to be a factor equal to 5 times four of the proposed CO emission limits.

Although no specific quality assurance requirements are contained in the proposed rule, RMB is concerned that EPA might be tempted to simply in sert some of the requirements contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix F in the final lB MACT rule. A number of significant CO monitoring issues would occur if EPA were to include the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of Appendix F in the final rule. The span of a compliance monitor is typically selected to be 1.5 to 2 times the emission limit. Procedure 1 requires a quarterly cylinder gas audit (CGA) be performed at two audit points: (1) 20 to 30 percent of the span value and (2) 50 to 60 perc ent of the span values. A CGA must be conducted with audit gases that have been certified by comparison to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or EPA Traceability Protocol No. 1. Assume for an lB boiler with a 1 ppmv CO limit, we have sel ected a span equal to 2 ppmv. To conduct the quarterly CGA we need NIST

- traceable audit gases equal to about (1) 0.25 x 2 = 0.5 ppmv and (2) 0.5 x 2 = 1 ppmv. The lowest NIST

- traceable CO calibration gas that RMB has been able to locate is 5 ppmv. Thus, it would not be possible to comply with the proposed CO monitoring requirements.

Another non

- trivial issue posed by Procedure 1 is the definition of an "out

- of

- control" period when a calibration drift (CD) is failed. Procedure 1 states the "out

- of

- control" period is the time corresponding to completion of the daily CD check preceding the daily CD check that results in a CD in excess of four times the allowable limit.6 In other words, this provision in Procedure 1 results in data being invalidated retrospect ively. The retrospective invalidation of CO data places the owner/operator in an untenable situation given the requirement to report any period for which the monitoring system is out

- of

- control as a deviation from the monitoring requirements.7 Hopefully, E PA’s omission of Procedure 1 from the proposed lB MACT rule was not an oversight, but rather a recognition of many of the issues discussed above. RMB encourages EPA to continue to allow owner/operators the flexibility in developing site

- specific monitoring plans that is currently provided for in the proposed rule.8

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

### PM CEMS

Commenter Name: John Huber Commenter Affiliation: National Oilheat Research Alliance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1831.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: In the case of heating oil, sulfur content of the fuel and carbon content (soot) from poor combustion would dominate particulate e missions and far outweigh metal content in emissions. The amount of fuel burned and the metal content of the fuel will determine the emissions. PM testing will have no impact on these values.

Response: The EPA determined it is appropriate to use PM as t he surrogate for non

- Hg metal HAP; see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058

- 3187.1, excerpt 10. For existing oil boilers there is not a PM limit in the final rule, so this will not be an issue.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utili ty Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: EPA’s proposal to use PM CEMS is seriously flawed. First, EPA provides no PM CEMS data to support any of its proposed requirements or averagin g times. In fact UARG doubts that there is any PM CEMS installed and operating on a single unit that is subject to this proposed rule. EPA also fails to provide any analysis to justify use of stack test data to set a proposed PM CEMS standard. While averag ing time can be used to compensate for variability not seen in individual stack tests, that adjustment cannot be made by simply arbitrarily selecting a longer period (e.g., daily or monthly). Nor is that adjustment sufficient to compensate for the differen ces between the methods themselves (Method 5 and PM CEMS). Second, EPA has failed to consider the limitations of PM CEMS in measuring emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, which are not conditions under which the PM CEMS are corre lated. Third, EPA has failed to consider whether PM CEMS can be correlated under PS 11 at the levels of EPA’s proposed standards (or whether PM CEMS can even measure such low levels).

One of the primary challenges in developing PM CEMS standards is the n ature of the technology itself, which differs significantly from the technology EPA used to establish the numerical portion of the PM emission limits. Unlike Method 5, PM CEMS do not provide a direct measure of mass PM. Instead, they provide an indirect me asure by “correlating” the monitor’s response to short term stack tests (e.g., Method 5 tests) conducted over a range of concentrations that must be sufficient to include the level of the applicable emission standard. Even at the point of initial certifica tion, however, a PM CEMS meeting the criteria in PS 11 can produce responses that differ significantly (on the order of 25 percent) from what would be obtained with Method 5. Attachment B at 3

- 4. [Footnote: See also UARG Comments, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- HQ

- OAR

- 2005

- 00 31

- 0246, at 3

- 10.] An additional point of concern is the lack of information on the long termstability of the PS 11 correlations to Method 5 as conditions in the stack gas change over time. Unlike SO2 and NOx CEMS, which are challenged on a frequent basis with gases of a known concentration, there are no PM calibration gases. See, e.g., PS 11 2.2. As a result, PM CEMS responses are reevaluated at much less frequent intervals due to the burdens of Method 5 testing (e.g., annually). And, unlike Method 5, PM CEMS sample at a single point, which may not be representative of concentrations across the stack of a stratified gas stream.

Some of the issues with PM CEMS technology might be addressed in the standard setting process by setting limits based on PM CEMS data collected at sources representative of the range of units subject to the standard, and over a sufficient period of time to ensure that any lack of stability in the calibration is taken into account. As EPA previously concluded

When a PM CEMS is used for compliance monitoring, the PM emission limit that is used as a compliance set point should be based on PM CEMS data collected from many representative sources over an extended period (e.g., at least 6 months). The accuracy limita tions of a PM CEMS must also be considered when setting an emission limit.

UARG Comments on Proposed Standards of Performance for Electric Steam Generating Units (Apr. 29, 2005), EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2005

- 0031

- 0129, at 43 (quoting EPA “Current Knowledge of Particu late Matter (PM) Continuous Emission Monitoring” (September 2000), A

- 2001

- 10

- II

- A2, at 7

- 2 (emphasis added). UARG has found no evidence that EPA has considered how the permissible PM CEMS measurement error might impact compliance determinations under this proposed rule. Attachment B at 4.

EPA’s proposed use of PM CEMS in this rule presents two additional challenges. Because EPA’s proposed standard provides no exception for periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, the standard must be achievable under those conditions as well as the normal operating conditions under which stack tests are conducted. According to EPA’s preamble discussion, EPA intends to address startup and shutdown by using daily or monthly averages and by establishing standards using C EMS data that include periods of startup and shutdown. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013. Again, since EPA has not identified any PM CEMS data used to establish the proposed standards, let alone PM CEMS data that include periods of startup and shutdown, UARG

assumes that EPA intends to rely solely on averaging time to compensate for the higher emission rates expected during those periods. However, EPA has no basis to assume that PM CEMS data collected during periods of startup and shutdown will be accurate even within the permissible error bands described above, because PM CEMS are not correlated to Method 5 under those conditions (nor could they be given the difficulty of performing EPA test methods under such

non

- steady state conditions).

EPA also has failed to con sider the ability of PM CEMS to meet the PS 11 criteria at the levels of EPA’s proposed standards, or even the ability of PM CEMS to measure at that level at all. For example, although a number of PM CEMS have been installed and operated at coal

- fired boil ers in recent years, UARG is not aware of any instance in which a PM CEMS has been correlated at the level of EPA’s proposed standard for new coal

- fired boilers (0.001 lb/mmBtu). A PM concentration equivalent to that standard

-- 1 mg/m3

-- is indistinguish able from zero when measured by a PM CEMS. Attachment B at 4. This raises significant issues with respect to PS 11correlation. PS 11 requires the owner/operator to attempt to obtain three different PM concentrations during correlation testing, and allows use of a zero point in place of one concentration if three cannot be achieved. Although PS 11 expresses these concentrations as a percent of the “maximum PM concentration,” without an explicit waiver from all applicable emission standards no owner/operator can test at a level above the applicable PM emission limit (or any other limit that might be exceeded during such testing if related controls, e.g., a wet SO2 scrubber, must be bypassed or turned off). UARG questions whether it is even conceivable to

crea te, much less measure, two PM levels between zero and 1 mg/m3. And, EPA has provided no data or discussion to suggest that it is possible. Attachment B at 4.

In short, EPA has not provided sufficient support for its proposal to use PM CEMS, let alone to require their use to make compliance determinations. Even if a source could meet EPA’s PS 11 correlation criteria at all of the levels EPA has proposed, there is no evidence that EPA’s proposed standards sufficiently compensate for the permissible measurem ent error or for data collected during startup, shutdown, or malfunction at either of the averaging periods EPA mentions.

Response: There are no PM CEMS requirements in the standards for area sources.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliati on: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 72

Comment: EPA’s proposed IB MACT rule requires PM CEMS for compliance demonstration for units with heat input capacity greater than 250 x 106 B tu/hr that burn coal, biomass or residual oil.9 There are considerably more technical issues with using PM CEMS for compliance determinations than EPA apparently realizes. RMB reaches this conclusion based on its review of EPA’s response to comments in the recently released Portland Cement MACT rule. In that rulemaking, industry commenters raised a number of legitimate technical issues, which EPA summarily dismissed with a series of platitudes that were absent either technical support or test data. For exam ple, in one response EPA states, in fact, PS

- 11 and Procedure 2 are working well. It would be helpful if EPA provided some "facts" to buttress this statement.

Unlike conventional CEMS (SO2, NOx, CO 2 , etc.), PM CEMS do not measure mass directly. Rather, P M CEMS measure a parameter such as light scattering or beta attenuation which then must be correlated to PM concentration. Just by the very nature of the correlation process, there must be some allowable variation between the PM CEMS response and that whic h is accepted as the correct value (i.e., reference method measurement). In other words, the correlation line does not pass through all the data points meaning that there is deviation between the PM CEMS response and the corresponding reference method meas urement. As explained below, the allowable deviation is controlled by the statistical criteria imbedded in the EPA performance specification.On January 12, 2004, EPA published in the Federal Register Performance Specification 11 (PS

11), Specification a nd Test Procedures for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources.1° The principal component of PS

- 11 is the required correlation testing and subsequent correlation analysis. To comply with PS

- 11, the PM CEMS correlatio n must meet the following statistical criteria:

The correlation coefficient shall be 0.85.

The confidence interval (95%) half range at the median PM CEMS response value must be within 10% of the PM emission limit value.

The tolerance interval half range at the median PM CEMS response value must have 95% confidence that 75% of all possible values are within 25% of the PM emission limit value.

As the third bullet item (tolerance interval) indicates, PS

- 11 allows considera ble variation between the PM CEMS responses and the individual reference method test values. RMB finds no evidence in the rulemaking docket that EPA has considered how permissible PM CEMS measurement errors would impact compliance determinations.

Another important PM CEMS technical issue the Agency appears to have overlooked is an assessment of the lowest PM concentration that a PM CEMS can reasonably be expected to resolve. PS

- 11 directs the owner/operator to correlate the PM CEMS to conditions consisten t with those at which the PM CEMS operates. For example, PS

- 11 states, if your PM CEMS extracts and heats the sample gas to eliminate water droplets, then measures and reports PM emissions under those actual conditions, you must convert your reference meth od results to those same conditions (e.g., mg/acm at 160°C)." EPA’s proposed PM emission limit for new coal

- fired boilers is 0.001 lb/106 Btu. EPA’s proposed emission limit, in units of PM concentration, is on the order of 1 mg/m3. In RMB’s considerable ex perience with PM CEMS installations, we have never observed a PM CEMS that could measure a concentration this low. A PM concentration of 1 mg/m3 is indistinguishable from zero, or for that matter, 2 mg/m3 with a PM CEMS.

PS

- 11 requires the owner/operator to attempt to obtain three different PM concentrations at which to conduct the correlation testing.12

Level 1: from zero to 50 percent of the maximum PM concentration. Level 2: 25 to 75 percent of the maximum PM concentration. Level 3: 50 to 100 perce nt of the maximum PM concentration.

PS

- 11 is silent with respect to defining "maximum PM concentration," but it is safe to assume that no responsible owner/operator is going to deliberately exceed the allowable PM limit Thus, for discussing new coal

- fire d units, 1 mg/m3 would be the maximum PM concentration. There is absolutely no conceivable way to create, much less to measure, two PM levels between zero and 1 mg/m3. There is a second option if you cannot obtain the three distinct PM concentration levels . PS

- 11 allows you to test over "the maximum range of PM concentrations that is practical" and to add zero point data through either of several optional approaches.13 As stated above,there simply is no range between zero and 1 mg/m3. It is virtually impos sible for a PM CEMS to comply with PS

- 11 when the PM emission limit is 0.001 lb/106 Btu.

Response: There are no PM CEMS requirements in the standards for area sources.



### COMS (opacity)

Commenter Name: Rob Barton and Ralph Roberson Commenter Affiliati on: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1978.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA has specified the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) with an opacity operating limit of 10% (based on a daily block average) for sources equipped with a baghouse or ESP. While the proposed 10% limit might be suitable as a default val ue, EPA should allow sources the option of establishing an alternative opacity operating limit for those sources than can not meet the proposed limit due to stack size or fuel

- related issues. This would also allow some sources additional operating flexibil ity while still providing a reasonable assurance of compliance with the underlying emission limits.

Response: Please see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1, Comment Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast Stat es for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2137.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: It is our understanding that the proposed rules require installing an opacity monitor, if any facility installs an ESP in order to meet a 10% opacity limit on a daily basis, with no de minimus threshold. Additionally, if a facility installs a fabric filter, it would be required to install an opacity monitor or a broken bag leak detector, with no de minimus threshold. We re commend that EPA require opacity monitors only on units larger than 30 mmBtu/hr.

Response: In the final rule, opacity or parameter monitoring is required for certain boilers above 10 mmBtu/hour capacity.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Additionally, EPA could consider that wood, coal, and oil boilers over 30 MMBtu/hr are required by NSPS Dc to install and operate contin uous opacity monitors (exception, light distillate oil fired boilers). Poor combustion conditions in solid fuel boilers will result in excess opacity. Smaller boilers generally have simple particulate matter control systems that are easily overwhelmed when combustion conditions are poor. EPA could consider the use of continuous opacity monitors as a work practice for solid fuel boilers over 30 MMBtu/hr as a method to ensure good combustion in these boilers.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to th e requirements in the final rule.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Under EPA’s proposal, units that do not use a wet scrubber (e.g., units with no controls or with a dry scrubber) must comply with an opacity limit of 10 percent based on a daily block average. Proposed 63.7500(a)(2) and Tables 4 and 8.[Footnote: Source ow ners/operators can apply to the Administrator for approval of an “alternative opacity emission limit” under 63.6(h)(9). Proposed 63.7570(b)(2).]

Although opacity can be used as an “indicator” of particulate emissions, or as a trigger to initiate correcti ve action on an ESP, there is not a sufficiently direct correlation between opacity and PM or Hg to justify imposition of an enforceable limit.

For example, it is well known that the relationship between opacity and mass PM (i.e., mass concentration) is affected by the particulate size distribution, particle shape, and the color (reflectivity) of the flyash. Numerous tests have confirmed that western subbituminous coal ash creates considerable opacity at very low fuel gas particulate mass loading, while e astern bituminous coal has a higher opacity/mass relationship. Duke Energy’s experience is that opacity and particulate emission rates vary even when using bituminous coal from different vendors. Given these and other variables, the relationship simply is not sufficient to make assumptions based on the proposed opacity operating limit that the PM limit is not being met. The use of opacity as an operating limit for mercury (“Hg”) is even more problematic. Mercury is emitted from boilers in three forms

- part icle bound, oxidized, and elemental. Even if opacity were directly related to PM (which it is not), it would only be sensitive to particle bound Hg. Oxidized and elemental Hg cannot be detected at all by an opacity monitor. EPA has not adequately explained how this tenuous relationship can justify use of opacity as a limit that could create liability for violation of the Hg emission limit.In summary, while opacity is a useful indicator of ESP problems that should be investigated and corrected, ESP power is not, and the relationship between opacity to stack emissions of PM and Hg is not sufficient to conclude that the emission limit is being exceeded.

Response: We believe that continuous monitoring is needed to ensure ongoing compliance with this rule. In order to minimize costs, we look for parameters that are already monitored to use for compliance demonstration. We require performance tests to demonstrate compliance with emission limits, then use operating limits to ensure the source is operating simi larly to how it was operating when it completed a successful performance test. Under the final rule, we clarify that tests are to be performed under representative operating conditions. Also, operating limits are not direct measures of emissions, but provi de measure of fuel characteristics and control device performance. We have also provided for scaling certain parameters such as sorbent injection rate based on the operating load, to address load conditions that are less than those that occur during testin g. You are also able to petition the Administrator for approval of an alternative monitoring plan under section §63.8(f) of subpart A of part 63.

Commenter Name: Bob Perry Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: EPA has specified the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) with an opacity operating limit of 10% (based on a daily block average) for sources equipped with a baghouse or ESP. While the propo sed 10% limit might be suitable as a default value, EPA should allow sources the option of establishing an alternative opacity operating limit for those sources than can not meet the proposed limit due to stack size or fuel

- related issues. This would also allow some sources additional operating flexibility while still providing a reasonable assurance of compliance with the underlying emission limits.

Response: The general provisions in Part 63 provide a mechanism for a source to seek an alternative opaci ty limit based on site

- specific issues.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: In Cases Where EPA is Mandating the Use of PM monitors, it Should Give Sources the Ability to Delete Opacity Monitoring Requirements

In cases where PM monitoring is required, Duke Energy strongly recommends that EPA allow sources with current opacity mo nitoring requirements to supersede those requirements wherethey are required to install PM monitors. The source need simply demonstrate that the new particulate limit is more stringent than the existing opacity limits. Duke Energy feels that this is

an ex cellent example of regulatory flexibility. Moreover, sites should not be put in a position of “double jeopardy” by having to measure and report against both.

Response: This issue is not relevant to area source standards, where PM CEMS is not required.

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2198.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Continuous Compliance Procedures Should Include Option for Alternative Unit

Spec ific Opacity Operating Limit

EPA has specified the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) with an opacity operating limit of 10% (based on a daily block average) for sources equipped with a baghouse or ESP. While the proposed 10% limit migh t be suitable as a default value, EPA should allow sources the option of establishing an alternative opacity operating limit for those sources than can not meet the proposed limit due to stack size or fuel

- related issues. This would also allow

some sources additional operating flexibility while still providing a reasonable assurance of compliance with the underlying emission limits.

Response: Please see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1, Comment Excerpt Number 18.



### Averaging Times for Monitored Pollutant s

Commenter Name: Harry Dresser, Jr. Commenter Affiliation: Maine Energy Systems Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1060.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: It is recommended that both tests be conducted over a 24 hour test period during which full load operation is demanded at least 10% of the test period and turn down rates do not go below one

- third of full load.

Response: See the changes to the emission limit and monitoring requirements discussed in the preamble to the final rule.Commenter Name: Michael J. Hagenbarth Commenter Affiliation: RockTenn Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1473.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: EPA’s variabi lity analysis also is magnified by the fact that 3

- hour testing data are used to set standards with far longer averaging times. Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect between the form of the data used to determine the standard and the form of the standard itself. We support longer averaging times than proposed in the Area Source Rule, and these standards should be based on emissions data collected over comparable periods. Any emissions limits set for CO should be based on a 30

- day averaging period to accom modate the significant variability in CO emissions reflected in long term CO monitoring data.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affil iation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA proposes to use a daily averaging time for the carbon monoxide emission limits for New Oil and Existing Oil fired boilers in Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJJ of the proposed rule.

At a minimum, EPA should establish either a 30 day or an annual average period in cases where a CO CEMS is utilized to demonstrate compliance. Using a 30 day averaging period is consistent with EPA’s proposed MACT rule. This GACT rule should not be more st ringent than the MACT requirements for the oil subcategory.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Kerry Flick Commenter Affiliation: Metso Power Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1490.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Over a sufficient period of time it is reasonable to expect the emissions average to be stable. Our experience would suggest that not less than 30 days should be considered a reasonable pe riod for this purpose.Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: EPA should clarify why the Proposed Rule allows one hour sampling time for PM and two

- hour sampling time for mercury while the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule requires four hour sampling time.

Response: We agree with commenters that the rule must clarify minimum sample volumes and assure that the specifications are consistent between test methods and with the method capabilities. The correct approach to measuring low quantities of emissions i s to specify collection of a minimum sample volume that assures accuracy sufficient to determine compliance at the level of the emissions standard

In response, the final rule will specify that the test run durations will be consistent with the methods p rescribed procedures. For PM Methods, Method 29, and for the ASTM D6784

- 02, applications will be 3 dscm, consistent with the methods prescribed procedures. One may collect 4 dscm in 3 to 4 hours of testing with Method 29 or with Method 5.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: EPA has established averaging times requirements that cannot be met by a top performing unit over a range of operating conditions. EPA should provide longer averaging times for certain parameters and emissions. Additionally, EPA should adopt a 30

- day averaging period for CO as it has done in the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. See gene rally 75 FR 32006. For a comprehensive discussion of averaging times, please refer to CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.]

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBODocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment: EPA has proposed monitoring of CO limits on a daily average in all cases. EPA should change this requirement so that compliance is done on a 30

- day rolling average for CO CEMS. Costs are another issue when considering CEMS for area sources. EPA estimates capital costs of requiring PM CEMS to area source boilers to be $88,000 per unit and annualized costs of $33,000 per unit, with a total annual cost of $4.5 billion. 75 FR 31910. EPA has determined these costs were unreasonable. As stated in CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule, EPA should amend the final rule to include parameter monitoring or visible emissions observations instead of CEMS and COMS. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.] If CO CEMS or COMS requirements remain, final r ule language should be made clear that use of those is only required "if you have an applicable opacity limit under this rule,..." or "if you have an applicable CO limit under this rule and your boiler..." so that the requirement is only related to limits impo sed under this rule and not related to any other requirements the unit might be subject to.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Douglas J. Fulle Commenter Affiliati on: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1798.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA should consider extending the averaging period for the CO standard to a 30

- day rolling average, as proposed in the major source category. Under this approach, EPA could use the available CO CEMS data for an appropriate well

- performing area source biom ass unit to set the standard. This would assure that the form of the standard was entirely consistent with the underlying data used to set the standard. The proposed rule is flawed in this regard because it inappropriately sets a daily average emissions st andard based on data derived from emissions test, which typically have duration of only a few hours. A 30

- day rolling average would provide the same overall level of health and environmental protection as the proposed daily average, yet would accommodate n ormal emissions variability that might span a period of days rather than a period of hours.

For example, it is reasonable to assume that certain affected units would run at reduced load for a period of days. Basic engineering principles suggest that, bey ond a certain point, combustion conditions should be expected to deteriorate as load decreases, which would result in relatively higher CO emissions. The CO CEMS data included in EPA’s database, when correlated against firing rate, demonstrate this to be t he case. Thus, a 30

- day average would accommodate the higher CO emissions from a short period of low

- load operations

- assuming, of course, that there is a sufficient period of operations at higher loads to balance out the low

- load operations.If the EPA can validate that the relevant CO CEMS data also include representative numbers and periods of startups and shutdowns, setting a 30

- day average may preclude the need to set a separate standard for startup and shutdown. EPA must be careful if it takes this approach, however, to make absolutely sure that the emissions data reasonably reflect and reasonably anticipate startup and shutdown periods.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Co mmenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: This area source NESHAP sets a CO limit based on a “da ily average” while the major source boiler NESHAP allows “30 day rolling average for units 100 MMBTU/hr or greater, 3

- run average for units less than 100 MMBTU/hr”. The “daily average” calculation is very difficult to manage no matter what size operatio n, but most particularly at small operations. And it also is more difficult to maintain a daily average when taking into account fluctuations in boiler operations from one day to the next.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final r ule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: Averaging times of longer than 24 hours are needed for CO emissions from industrial boilers, especially those in the forest products industry that burn multiple fuels which have varying emissions characteristics, in order to preserve operational flexibili ty and ensure
cost

- efficient operation of the boiler. The facility must be able to operate the boiler in a manner that is responsive to process needs. Unlike a utility boiler, which is typically operated at a full load or without short term cycling, indust rial and commercial boilers are typically operated with swings in demand, based on production in manufacturing and building usage for commercial operations. Swings in load cause variability in CO emissions and longer averaging times are needed in order to average out unavoidable instantaneous CO emission shifts. Longer averagingperiods are also desirable if the emission limits are going to apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

There are factors beyond the boiler ope rator’s control that can cause emissions to vary over a period of days and not hours. For example, the weather will impact moisture content of solid fuels, which will affect how the fuels combust over a period of days, not hours. For a biomass boiler, the fuel supply and fuel characteristics could also vary over a period of days because mills have multiple biomass fuel suppliers providing both green and dry wood. This issue is discussed further below in Section VII A. For EPA to promulgate a numerical CO s tandard, particularly one where CEMS is a compliance requirement, a 30

- day averaging period to account for operational and emissions variability in biomass units is imperative. Such an averaging period was not evaluated or considered in this proposal and E PA. Since EPA has not developed a dataset to allow it to repair this and other fundamental achievability flaws in the limited time period EPA has been given to promulgate this standard, it reinforces the recommendation we are making here to proceed in the direction of a GACT rule that refines and develops management or work practices in order to reduce HAP emissions from Area Source boilers.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Comm enter Name: Mary Graham Commenter Affiliation: Charles Metro Chamber of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1953.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the availa ble long term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: We believe the CO ppmvdc emissions limit magnitude needs to be reevaluated and increased. To help with the concept of applying a single limit to a facility that changes loadregularly we recommend increasing the compliance averaging time frame for facilities required
to show compliance with the emissions limit using CEMS to a 30 operating day rolling average. Importantly, the average would be over 30 operating days instead of calendar days. Using operating days would allow facilities the most operating flexibility to sat isfy the emissions limit without being forced to operate units (therefore unnecessarily adding to air pollution concerns) unnecessarily to satisfy an emission limit that would be based on 30 calendar days.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comme nt: To help with the concept of applying a single limit to a facility that changes load regularly we recommend increasing the compliance averaging time frame for facilities required to show compliance with the emissions limit using CEMS to a 30 operating d ay rolling average. Importantly, the average would be over 30 operating days instead of calendar days. Using operating days would allow facilities the most operating flexibility to satisfy the emissions limit without being forced to operate units (therefor e unnecessarily adding to air pollution concerns) unnecessarily to satisfy an emission limit that would be based on 30 calendar days. We are unclear of the documented health benefits that would justify a daily compliance time frame in lieu of a 30 operatin g day compliance time frame.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: There is significant variation in the amount and duration of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) emissions for various fuels. NIIDES anticipates that variations in SSM emi ssions would be greater for boilers firing solid fuels such as biomass, than for boilers firing liquid fuels such as heating oil. NHDES recommends that EPA consider setting 30

- day averaging times for solid fuel boilers.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the SSM requirements.Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA’s variability analysis also is magnified by the fact that 3

- hour testing data are used to set standards with far longer averaging times. Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect between the form of the data used to determine the standard and the form o f the standard itself. We support longer averaging times than proposed in the Area Source Rule, and these standards should be based on emissions data collected over comparable periods. Any emissions limits set for CO should be based on a 30

- day averaging p eriod to accommodate the significant variability in CO emissions reflected in long term CO monitoring data.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: The CO CEMS averaging time required for area source boilers is daily and the averaging time required for major source boilers is a rolling 30

- day period. Because emission spikes can be statistically absorbed during a 30

- day averaging period, the daily averaging time is considered more stringent. Creating more stringent averaging periods for boilers operating at an area source is not justified.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The EPA has established violation thresholds for operating limits for section 112(d) source categories such as those found in 63.864(k)(2), 63.848(i), and 63.695(e)(5). This rule

ne eds to clearly identify when boilers are in violation of the standards when operating parameters used to demonstrate continuous compliance are not met. Also, the EPA proposes the use of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) and continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) for certain affected boilers to demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards.The rule needs to include a percentage of time during a 6

- month period that these continuous monitoring systems (CMS) are required to be operati onal and meet any operating limit in order to determine compliance.

Response: The rule establishes that failure to meet a monitored emission limit, work practice requirement, or operating limit constitutes a deviation. As for continuous monitoring syst em data availability requirements, the final rule includes revisions to the general requirements for operating continuous monitoring systems that addresses this concern. We have not included any specific minimum data availability requirement. We believe t hat numerical missing data allowances quickly become targets or excuses, not incentives to conduct monitoring in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. For all monitoring required or applied as an option under this rule, we have inc luded provisions that would require you to operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all times the affected source is operating except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring syste m malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). Further, you may not use data recorded during monitoring system malfunctio ns, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not r easonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.

Commenter Name: George M. Israel Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Chamber of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1996.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: I strongly encourage you to correct this problem by carefully tailored standards that protect against the ill effects of air toxics, while not unnecessarily discouraging the construction of much needed renewable biomass boilers. This can be accomplished b y using a 30

- day averaging period instead of the proposed 24

- hour or simply use the same “work practices” approach applied to gas

- fired boilers already include in the proposed rule.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, thi s concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Duane Mummert Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Chamber of CommerceDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2247 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The ETC suggests that a work practice stand ard is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the available long te rm data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The rules should include an emission averaging compliance option in order to enhance compliance flexibility and to improve consistency between the Area and Major Source Boiler rules (e.g., a 30

- day averaging period for the carbon monoxide emission limit f or solid fuel boilers).

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Thomas D. Emero Commenter Affiliation: Beaver Wood Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2166.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: BWE suggests EPA re

- consider the requirement for compliance with the CO limit to be demonstrated on a daily average and would prefer the 30 day rolling average afforded boilers of the same size under the proposed Major Source rule.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: John Hopewell Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings AssociationDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0 790

- 2062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Rolling Averages for CEMS Should be the Same for Both Boiler Rules. In the companion Major Source NESHAP proposal, 8 EPA specifies a 30

- day rolling average for units that have a CEMS (i.e. units with 100 MMBTU /hour or greater capacity). However, in the Area Source NESHAP, EPA has proposed a daily rolling average. EPA should make the Area Source NESHAP consistent with the Major Source NESHA P and specify a 30

- day rolling average for units with a CEMS.

Respons e: The final rule uses a 30

- day average for monitoring O2 as an operating limit for good combustion practices to minimize CO emissions, consistent with the major source NESHAP.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: EPA’s variability analysis also is magnified by the fact that 3

- hour testing data are used to set standards with far longer averaging times. Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect between the form of the data used to determine the standard and the form of the standard itself. We support longer averaging times than proposed in the Area Source Rule, and these standards should be based on emissions data collected over comparable periods. Any emissions limits set for CO should be based on a 30

- day averaging period to accommodate the significant variability in CO emissions reflected in long term CO monitoring data.

Response: Because CO CE MS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2140.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: EP A has specified the use of a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) with an opacity operating limit of 10% (based on a daily block average) for sources equipped with a baghouse or ESP. While the proposed 10% limit might be suitable as a default value, EPA should allow sources the option of establishing an alternative opacity operating limit for those sources than can not meet the proposed limit due to stack size or fuel

- related issues. This would also allow some sources additional operating flexibility while still providing a reasonable assurance of compliance with the underlying emission limits.Response: Please see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1, Comment Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Wayne J. Galler Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1997.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: EPA’s variability analysis also is magnified by the fact that 3

- hour testing data are used to set standards with far longer averaging tim es. Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect between the form of the data used to determine the standard and the form of the standard itself. GIEC would support longer averaging times than proposed in the Area Source Rule, and these standards should be base d on emissions data collected over comparable periods. Any emissions limits set for CO should be based on a 30

- day averaging period to accommodate the significant variability in CO emissions reflected in long term CO monitoring data.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Commen t Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: EPA’s variability analysis also is magnified by the fact that 3

- hour testing data are used to set standards with far longer averaging times. Thus, there is a fundamental disconnect between the form of the data used to determi ne the standard and the form of the standard itself. We support longer averaging times than proposed in the Area Source Rule, and these standards should be based on emissions data collected over comparable periods. Any emissions limits set for CO should b e based on a 30

- day averaging period to accommodate the significant variability in CO emissions reflected in long term CO monitoring data.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48Comment: Where a COMS or CO CEMS is used, a daily block average is specified, but EPA should inco rporate a 30

- day rolling averaging period under this rule, as it has done for CO CEMS in the proposed Boiler MACT rule. There are factors beyond the boiler operator’s control that can cause emissions to vary over a period of days and not hours. For example , the weather will impact moisture content of solid fuels, which will affect how the fuels combust over a period of days, not hours. For a biomass boiler, the fuel supply and fuel characteristics could also vary over a period of days because facilities hav e multiple biomass fuel suppliers providing both green and dry wood. For all types of boilers, the pollutant content of the fuel will vary over a period of days, as evidenced by the range of results obtained during the 30

- day fuel sampling required by EPA for many Phase 2 ICR participants. Where CEMS are the compliance method (e.g., CO), we support a 30

- day rolling average basis to account for operational and emissions variability.

Response: Because CO CEMS are no longer required in the final rule, this concern is no longer applicable. For a COMS, both rules use a daily block average.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 63

Comment: Proposed section 63.7525(b)(3) states, compliance with the applicable emission limit shall be determined based on the 24

- hour daily (block) average of the hourly arithmetic average emission concentrations using the continuous monitoring system out let data. This is totally unacceptable and certainly has not been demonstrated to be achievable on any one of several levels. It is also inconsistent with a statement in the preamble, which states . . . we are proposing that PM CEMS be installed and operat ed and that PM levels (monthly average) be maintained below the applicable PM limit."

It is not at all certain that the proposed PM emission limits are continuously achievable. After all, the numerical limits are based on snapshot tests, and we question whether long

- term variability is accurately reflected in EPA’s standard setting approach. Perhaps more importantly, the rulemaking record contains no analysis in which EPA purports to equate the snapshot PM stack testing data to continuous PM CEMS data. Fo r example, EPA might be able to show that the numerical limit, which is enforced through periodic stack testing, would be of the same stringency as the limit enforced with continuous data on a 30

- day rolling average basis. Second,

Response: PM CEMS are not required under this rule.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1Comment Excerpt Number: 73

Comment: Proposed section 63.7525(b)(6) states, when PM emis sions data are not obtained because of CEMS breakdown, . . . emission data shall be obtained by using other monitoring methods as approved by the Administrator . . . to provide, as necessary, valid emission data for all operating hours per 30

- day rolling a verage [emphasis added]. It is unprecedented to require emission data to be collected for all operating hours to demonstrate compliance with a numerical emission limit Granted, cap

- and

- trade programs, which are based on mass emissions, require accounting f or each operating hours. However, programs such as EPA’s Acid Rain Program contain procedures for filling in missing CEMS data (i.e., missing data substitution algorithms) and do not mandate alternative or back

- up data collection methods. Also note that a 30

- day rolling average is references in this section, which is inconsistent with proposed §63.7525(b)(3), as discussed above.

Response: PM CEMS are not required under this rule.



### Fuel Analysis Methods

Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affi liation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: In reality, both emissions of metallic and non

- metallic HAP’s from biomass combustion are a function of the fuel, not the combustion process or even the pollution control devices. EPA should focus on the fuel, both generically and specifically by facility . An individual facility should be able to provide extensive test data of its fuel to demonstrate that it is not a significant source of HAP’s, and thus is exempt from this entire regulation. It would not just be exempt from Hg or HCl testing as a result, but from the entire PM/CO proxy compliance program. Alternatively, a facility could accept restrictions in its air quality permits on taking certain types of fuels known to have HAP’s consequences (e.g. salt water soaked bark) and step up to CO/PM complian ce if the economics dictate.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. EPA is not providing the option of testing HAPs to become exempt, however, the only limit in the final Area Boiler rule for biomass units is a PM limit for new biomass boi lers.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39Comment: EPA has provided in the Proposed Rule that certain new an d existing area source boilers may choose to demonstrate compliance with emission standards on the basis of fuel analysis. 75 FR 31902. For a comprehensive discussion of our recommendations regarding fuel analysis, please refer to CIBO’s comments on the Pr oposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.] In addition to those comments, CIBO offers the following recommendations.

For units complying with the proposed mercury standard, the Proposed Rule requires monthly fuel analysis and maintenance of the annual average at or below a specified limits. 75 FR 31902. The monthly requirement is too burdensome on sources. CIBO recommends EPA amend the Proposed Rule to include quarterly monitoring and no fuel sampling should be required in any period if the unit does not operate during the period. EPA should also not require fuel analysis for single fuel units complying via stack testing. Additionally, the text associated with Table 5 indicates that table applies to new units. 75 FR 31934. C IBO recommends that EPA extend this applicability to existing coal

- fired units that use fuel analysis to comply with the proposed mercury standard.

Response: A monthly frequency provides assurance of continuous compliance with the emission limits and th e final rule only has a mercury limit for new and existing coal units. These sources can conduct performance testing and could qualify for reduced performance testing if they opt to demonstrate compliance with stack testing. The fuel analysis compliance op tion is a compliance alternative and since coal can be a non

- homogeneous fuel, and vary in mercury content, monthly analysis is appropriate in this case. Fuel analyses are not required for single fuel units; see the rule initial compliance requirements fo r revised language.

Commenter Name: Sharene Shealey Commenter Affiliation: RRI Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1839.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA allows for demonstration of compliance with the mercury emission limits through fuel analysis in the proposed rule in section 63.11211(b). For liquid

- fired units, specifically distillate

- oil fired units, EPA should also allow for demonstration ofcompl iance with particulate matter standards by fuel

- based methods. PM emissions are directly correlated to fuel and combustion conditions and are expected to be relatively low for distillate

- oil fired units.

Response: EPA did not finalize a fuel analysis approach for PM in the final rule. Existing liquid units are not subject to PM limits in the final rule and new liquid units have testing requirements and an emission limit consistent with the New Source Performance Sta ndards (40 CFR part 60 subparts Db and Dc).Commenter Name: Cheryl Johncox Commenter Affiliation: Minneapolis Neighbors for Clean Air Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1971 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The Agency states, for units th at choose to comply with either the mercury emission limit or the HCl emission limit based on fuel analysis rather than on performance stack testing, we are proposing that you maintain daily fuel records that demonstrate that you burned no new fuels or fue ls from a new supplier such that the mercury content or the chlorine content of the inlet fuel was maintained at or below your maximum fuel mercury content operating limit or your chlorine content operating limit set during the performance stack tests.

H owever, C&D materials and disaster debris by their definition are materials whose characteristics are determined by the demolition of structures with varying age and compositions and thus are constantly changing. How does the EPA propose to define whether the fuel type constitutes a change or mixture that would require recalculations and perhaps new performance tests? Monitoring emissions based on daily record as an alternative to stack emissions is unrealistic at best.

Given the concentrations of metals such as arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury contamination levels that can exist in waste wood fuel streams, using PM as a surrogate for metal emissions in the boiler rules is inadequate. Biomass boilers burning contaminated wood will inevitably have greate r metals emissions than those burning forest biomass, even if particulate levels are similar. A permissive set of rules that permits extensive use of secondary materials as fuel will virtually guarantee an increase in heavy metals emissions from biomass po wer, with emissions going undetected due to the reliance on particulate matter as a proxy for these toxins.

Response: Biomass boilers do not have emission limits for Hg or HCl, see the preamble for discussion.

Commenter Name: Caroline Choi Commenter Affiliation: Progress Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2226.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The Mercury Fuel Analysis Requirements Are Potentially Confusing In 63.11213(a), EPA proposes requiring that fuel analyses be performed a ccording to 63.11213(b) and (c) as well as Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ. Table 1 of Subpart JJJJJ shows that mercury limitations would apply to new and existing coal units only. However, in the sentence just prior to Table 5 on page 31934 of the Federal Regist er EPA states that the fuel analysis testing is for new affected sources, while the specific analytical methods are referenced for coal, biomass, and liquid samples. These multiple references make EPA’s intent unclear. Progress Energy requests that EPA cla rify these references so that the fuel analyses are for coal

- fired units only.Response: Coal units are the only subcategory that is required to meet emission limits. However, it is possible in some circumstances that a unit meets the definition of the coal subcategory but fires multiple fuels such as blends of coal and biomass or fire oil du ring parts of the year. Units firing multiple fuels are subject to fuel analysis requirements in order to demonstrate initial compliance. Since the determination of a subcategory is on an annual heat input basis, these other test methods may be necessary a nd have been included in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 32

Comment: UARG supports the option to use fuel ana lysis to demonstrate compliance where possible, and does not object to a requirement to perform a new fuel analysis for Hg and chlorine when a new fuel is combusted. [Footnote: Again, UARG seriously questions whether any source could take advantage of the fuel analysis option for demonstrating compliance at the level of EPA’s proposed emission limits.] However, UARG does not understand why EPA has proposed to require monthly fuel analysis for sources that have not changed fuel type, or how that analysis is used. UARG also requests minor changes in the fuel sampling and analysis procedures, which are overly prescriptive.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt Number 39.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliati on: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: Sources that demonstrate compliance with the Hg or HCl limit through fuel analysis must conduct fuel analysis for each type of fuel c ombusted according to 63.7521 and Table 6, and “establish operating limits according to 63.7530 and Table 8.” Proposed 63.7510(b). Proposed 63.7530(c) provides procedures for calculating Hg and HCl emission rates. To demonstrate compliance, the calculated rate cannot exceed the applicable emission limit using the fuel analysis and based on an upper 90th percentile confidence interval. In the 2004 rule, EPA required repeat fuel analysis when a new type of fuel is combusted, and not later than 5 years after t he lasts fuel analysis. 69 Fed. Reg. 55,218, 55,256 (Sept. 13, 2004). However, EPA now proposes to require new fuel analysis monthly, regardless of whether the type or mixture of fuel combusted has changed.

UARG does not understand the purpose of monthly analysis if the fuel type or mixture of fuels has not changed. EPA provides no explanation in the rule or preamble. To the contrary, althoughEPA’s preamble does reference a requirement for monthly fuel analysis, EPA does not say why. Moreover, EPA’s prea mble states that compliance is determined based on the “annual average” of those analyses. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,033. That averaging period is not reflected in the rule. Other rule provisions shed no light on the requirement. The provisions that address conti nuous compliance for units that demonstrate compliance through fuel analysis only require new analysis when a new fuel is combusted.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt Number 39.



### Detection Levels

Commenter Name: Glenn C. England Commenter Affiliation: Environ Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1967.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The detection limits reported among different source testers and laboratories varies substantially. EPA sho uld evaluate detection limits achieved in all tests to assure that emission limits are not established below the limit of quantitation that can be routinely achieved in practice. In the emission test data collected for HCl, mercury and dioxins/furans duri ng the ICR, a very wide range of detection limits achieved by different stack testers and laboratories using the same EPA test methods is evident. (See submittal for Figures 1, 2, and 3 showing HCl, mercury, and dioxins/furans detection limits, respectivel y.) HCl and mercury detection limits span approximately three orders of magnitude, and dioxins/furans TEQ detection limits span four orders of magnitude. One might point to the specific type of source and potential matrix interferences as a source of the v ariability. Examining the data for HCl and mercury, this does not appear likely because the detection limits for clean, gas

- fired sources span almost the same range as detection limits for all fuels including coal, biomass and liquids. This wide range of

m ethod performance is an indication of reproducibility among different testers, even though the same test methods were used in almost all cases.

This provides an indication of the significance of factors beyond the analytical method detection limit. These test methods were originally developed for measuring emissions from waste incinerators at concentrations several orders of magnitude higher than gas

- fired sources. While the methods may perform sufficiently well in those applications, these results indica te the processes in the test methods are not sufficiently well controlled for reliable measurements near the method detection limits.

EPA should not set emission limits lower than the limit of quantitation that can be routinely achieved in practice by mo st source testers and laboratories. For example, a 99% upper prediction limit (UPL) could be calculated using all of the detection limits reported in EPA’s database, and this could be used to establish an alternative measurement performance basedminimum l imit that can be measured routinely in practice. The detection limit data used for establishing the alternative measurement performance based minimum limit need not be limited to data in the MACT floor because there is no requirement for EPA to establish l imits that can only be measured by the top source testers and laboratories on an occasional good day. Instead, EPA must set limits for which measurements are technically feasible.

An example calculation of an alternative minimum emission limit using the same methodology that EPA used for establishing proposed MACT emission limits for mercury is shown in Table 1 of the submittal. Neglecting the outliers apparent in Figure 2 of the submittal, there are 304 detection limits reported for undetected mercury re sults. The 99% UPL of these detection limits is 3.7E

- 06 lb/MMBtu. The corresponding limit of quantitation would be 10/3 times this (Keith et al., 1983), or 1.2 E

- 05 lb/MMBtu. This represents an alternative mercury emission limit that could be measured abov e the detection limits 99% of the time in a 3

- run future test by any test team and laboratory. All of the proposed mercury emission limits are less than level.

EPA’s proposed emission limit for Gas 2 equates to a concentration of few parts per billion. U sing the same approach for HCl (See Table 2 of the submittal for estimation of HCl detection limits), an alternative method performance based minimum limit of 0.005 lb/MMBtu, or approximately 5 ppm of HCl. Based on this approach, the proposed Gas 2 emissio n limit appears to be technically infeasible from a measurement perspective.

The 99% UPL of the reported detection limits is a very conservative indicator of method performance

– perhaps overly conservative. Other metrics may be considered. However, in a ny event EPA fully consider and understand the disparity in measurement performance indicated in EPA’s database before establishing emission limits that are near or below detection limits.

Response: Probability procedures applied in calculating the flo or or an emissions limit inherently and reasonably account for emissions data variability including measurement imprecision when the database represents multiple tests from multiple emissions units for which all of the data are measured significantly above the method detection level. That is less true when the database includes emissions occurring below method detection capabilities and are reported as the method detection level values.

We applied the following procedures to account for the effect of measu rement imprecision associated with a database that includes method detection level data. The first step was to define a method detection level that is representative of the data used in establishing the floor or emissions limit and that also minimizes the influence of an outlier test

- specific method detection level value. We reviewed each pollutant

- specific data set to identify the highest test

- specific method detection level reported that was also equal to or less than the average emissions level (i.e., un adjusted for probability confidence level) calculated for the data set. We believe that this approach is representative of the data collected to develop the floor or emissions limit while to some degree minimizes the effect of a test(s) with an inordinatel y high method detection level (e.g., the sample volume was too small, the laboratory technique was insufficiently sensitive, or the procedure for determining the detection level was other than that specified).The second step in the process is to calculat e three times the representative method detection level and compare that value to the calculated floor or emissions limit. If three times the representative method detection level were less than the calculated floor or emissions limit calculated from the U PL, we would conclude that measurement variability was adequately addressed. The calculated floor or emissions limit would need no adjustment. If, on the other hand, the value equal to three times the representative method detection level were greater than the UPL, we would conclude that the calculated floor or emissions limit does not account entirely for measurement variability. If indicated, we substituted the value equal to three times the representative method detection level to apply as the adjusted f loor or emissions limit. This adjusted value would ensure measurement variability is adequately addressed in the floor or the emissions limit.

Commenter Name: Glenn C. England Commenter Affiliation: Environ Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1967.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA should re

- assess test method performance capabilities at low concentrations and revise the proposed emission limits to assure that they are not less than the limit of quantitation for the ir respective measurement methods.

Many of the proposed performance test methods for demonstrating compliance with the proposed emission limits were conceived, developed and evaluated in the 1980’s and 1990’s for application to waste incinerators, munici pal waste combustors and coal

- fired boilers. They have not been similarly evaluated for concentrations as low as many of the proposed emission limits. The fact that a method produces a number does not necessarily mean that number is a reliable indication o f the true value. The range of detection limits reported in EPA’s database indicates the need for a full evaluation of method performance at low concentrations, including precision, accuracy and reproducibility.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1967.1, Comment Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA’s proposed rule references EPA Performance Specification 4A for a carbon monoxide (CO) CEMS. Section 1.2.1. of PS 4A states that this specification was developed primarily for CEMS that comply with low emission standards (less than 200 ppmv). Dow further comments that EPA may need to m ake additional adjustments if CO emission standards areindeed set at a level of less than 10 ppmv for oil fueled sources due to QA/QC issues as discussed below.

A CO CEMS will have to be ranged from 0 to 10 ppmv in order to adequately measure CO
concent rations in the 0 to 1 or 2 ppmv range. The accuracy of a CO CEMS meeting the requirements of Performance Specification 4A is ~ 5% of the range or in this case + 0.5 ppmv (see Section 13.2 of PS4A). This level is troubling in that the uncertainty of the mea surement is 50% of the proposed emission standard in this case, thus further contributing to the challenges of meeting a 1 ppmv standard on a consistent basis for new sources.

In addition, such a small allowable emission level will make conducting the Re lative Accuracy Audits and Tests very difficult to complete. Section 13.2 of PS4A require that the RA of the CEMS must be no greater than 5 percent when the applicable emission standard is used to calculate RA. Thus, one would be comparing values that are less than 1 ppmv and looking for agreement between those values when the accuracy of EPA Method 10 is itself only about 0.2 ppmv or in this case 20% of the allowable CO emission concentration. The final rule would need to allow for an absolute difference o f less than 1 ppmv for example versus a fraction of the allowable ppmv value to be used for QA/QC purposes.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Demonstrating compliance with a 1

- 2 ppmv CO limit by conducting testing via EPA Reference Method 1 0 will be very difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate as noted below: Under Methods 10 and 7E, the span of the CO analyzer cannot be greater than 5 ppmv as Section 3.4 of Method 10 notes that the measured emissions should be between 20

- 100 percent o f the calibration span. So, even if measured emissions were 1 ppmv, the span could not exceed 5 ppmv. Section 9.0 of EPA Method 7E has a QA/QC table that states that the analyzer and calibration gas performance must be within 2% of the calibration span of the analyzer (2% of 5 ppmv = 0.1 ppmv) or alternatively 0.5 ppmv. Using the 2% criteria means that the acceptable result of the span calibration verification would have to be within 2% or within 0.1 ppmv of the calibration gas, which borders on the reasona ble detection capabilities of a CO emission analyzer.

Thus, one would be forced to use the alternative 0.5 ppmv for QA/QC purposes. This level is troubling in that the uncertainty of the measurement is 50% of the proposed emission standard (New Oil Fired Boilers) in this case, thus further contributing to the challenges of meeting a 1 ppmv standard on a consistent basis.Furthermore, EPA Method 7E requires the use of three calibration gases between the 0 to 5 ppmv level in order to meet the QA/QC requir ements for the analysis. Obtaining and using three different calibration gas standards in this range is a requirement that is excessive in this case. Therefore, the QA/QC requirements should be modified to require only a single point calibration at these l ow concentrations.

Similar to the calibration concerns, allowable drift would also have to meet the same alternative criteria of 0.5 ppmv, which again is 50% of the allowable CO concentration.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rul e, including the elimination of the CO CEMS requirement.

Commenter Name: Robert G. Hedden Commenter Affiliation: Oilheat Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2249 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The laboratory test instrument Beckett uses for these measurements is a non

dispersive Infrared absorption spectrophotometer. The repeatability of this instrument is 2.5 ppm CO. At only 1% of the smallest measurement range for the instrument (0

- 250 ppm), this is two

and

- one

- half times the maximum limit proposed in the rule. Typical field test equipment is not as capable for measuring low CO levels at this precision, and typical repeatability is ±10 ppm. Based on the capability of the equipment used to set up and maintain resi dential and light commercial burners, the proposed maximum is not reliably measurable.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to the final rule, including the CO emission limits.

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2198.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: At least one of the reported CO test data sets using EPA Reference Method 10 (RM

10) is within the range of uncertainty for the test method. The accuracy for most nondispersive infrared analyzers (NDIR) is approximately ±5 percent of span after calibration. [Footnote: 40 CFR 60, Appendix A

- 4, Method 10] The average reported CO emissions for the Thompson Falls wood

- fired boiler is 20.6 P PM using an analyzer span value of 600 PPM. The accuracy of RM

10 in this case is ±30 PPM. These test runs should be treated as “non

- detect” values. RMB recommends that EPA screen the remaining MACT floor data to determine whether similar problems exist fo r other test data.Response: Please see the preamble for revisions to the proposed CO limits. Also, see the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1967.1, Comment Excerpt Number 2.



### Measurement Methodology Impractical

Commenter Name: George Whiting Commenter Affiliation: EcoHeat Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0832 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Perhaps some simpler rules would accomplish your goals,at less administrative cost and less cost to the industry and custom ers. One simple test: if smoke is visible from the chimney for durations longer than 5 or 10 minutes at start

- up and shut

- down, then the boiler needs to go in for further testing. If not, then it falls below an acceptable threshold. That would address your particulates goals, and ensure that the boiler is not going to bother neighbors.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2192.1, excerpt number 6.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0838.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The proposed rule requires that the biennial tune

- up “measure the concentrations in the effluent stream of CO in parts pe r million, by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), before and after the adjustments are made.” In addition, the facility must maintain and potentially submit an annual report that contains “the concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in ppmvd, and oxygen in
perc ent dry basis, measured before and after the adjustments of the boiler” and “the type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment.” These requirements to measure effluent stream gases are inconsistent with EPA’s reasoning for establishing work practice standards rather than emissions limits for small boilers. EPA states in the proposed rule that the standard methods for measuring emissions of mercury, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) are not applicable for samp ling stacks with a diameter less than 12 inches, which are generally found on boilers with a capacity less than 10 MMBtu/h. In addition, many of these small boilers would require expensive modification to install sampling ports and a platform to access the stack. Since it is not feasible to require emissions limits due to the technological limitations of monitoring and testing, as well as the costs of necessary modifications to perform the tests, it is also not feasible to require emissions testing as part of the biennial tune

- up.Response: We have modified the language at 63.11223(b) in order remove the requirement to be measured on a dry basis. This change allows CO to be measured using portable monitors in the
tune

- up process. These portable monitors c an be used in smaller stacks. See further responses to comments on the tune

- up components in the preamble and tune

- up section of this document.

Commenter Name: Sheldon Schultz Commenter Affiliation: Yanke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: It is incomprehensible that “the Administrator determines that...the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations” (pa ge 17 of 196) when the subject is MACT (maximum achievable control technology). Economics and technology are not mitigating factors in application of MACT.

Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing compliance.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Na vy, Department of Defense Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1947.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: New small boilers (less than 10 MMBtu/hour) are typically designed like comparable existing units with small diameter stacks. These small sta cks do not allow for accurate application of standard EPA test methods required to demonstrate compliance with emission limits.

EPA indicates on p. 31906 of the preamble that small boilers (less than IOMMBtu/hour) typically have small diameter stacks (less than 12 inches). EPA acknowledges that sampling emissions from these small stacks using the prescribed EPA test methods can res ult in inaccurate measurements. EPA conducted a cost analysis to evaluate the economic impact of the testing and monitoring costs that facilities with small units would incur and concluded that the annual costs would have significant adverse economic impac t on these facilities. Therefore, EPA determined that it is not feasible to enforce emission standards for existing small boilers (heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/hour). Based on this analysis, no emission limits should be promulgated for compara ble small new or reconstructed boilers. While a new facility can ensure sampling ports are available, these boilers will still be constructed with the small diameter stacks which would lead to questionable emission test results. Stack size is based on fact ors other than sampling accommodation. As noted in an earlier comment some sources do not have a choice of fuel which is one of the reasons EPA cites for deciding to impose limits on small new boiler.Require work practices in lieu of establishing emissi on limits for new and reconstructed boilers with a rated heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/hour.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Comment er Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: The limitations identified by EPA do not make measurement methodology impracticable. EPA does not claim that any measurement method other than method 5 raises any technical issues at all for stacks less than twelve inches in diameter. Method 5, as EPA points out, is a method for measuring emissions of PM. Thus, the alleged technical limitation on measuring emissions in stacks with diameters less than twelve inches are not even relevant to emissions of mercury and CO, the only two pollutants for which EPA is even proposing MACT standards.

Response: S ee the preamble for discussion

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Further, EPA’s alleged concerns about the absence of sampling ports and platforms are unsupported by record evidence and unconnected to the statutory standard. EPA does not say how many area source boilers with heat input capacity do not have sampling por ts or platforms, and thus gives no indication about whether the absence of such equipment is even an issue for a significant portion of the population. Moreover, EPA does not even claim that it would be impracticable to install sampling ports or platforms on boilers that currently lack them, far less provide record evidence to support such a claim. Absent showings that boilers do not have and cannot install sampling ports or platforms, EPA’s bare assertion that some boilers currently lack them is statutoril y irrelevant. Notably, the record includes discussion of a study in which the majority of emissions data for the study was from boilers smaller than 10 MMBtu. EPA

HQOAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0048. Stack tests were taken for PM10, PM2.5, and condensable PM. The documen t containing that study notes that many state permitting authorities require “a number of technical analyses” which can include emissions tests, from these small boilers. Id. at 1. If smallboilers must provide this information to state regulatory agencies , boiler operators must have developed ways to test emissions from small boilers.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Bill Perdue Commenter Affiliation: American Home Furnishings Alliance, AHFA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1970.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Small vent diameters for liquid fired units would create technical difficulties in implementing EPA te st methods. The AHFA opposes ANY source test requirement for any boilers <10MMBTU/hr.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0838.1, excerpt number 3.

Commenter Name: John Huber Commenter Affiliation: National Oilheat Research Alli ance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1831.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Vent Constraints: The efficiency of boilers has been increasing under pressure from federal minimum efficiency standards, the Energy Star Program, building stand ards activities, and federal and state incentive programs. As efficiency increases, exhaust gas temperature decreases as does the buoyancy that has traditionally been used for venting the products of combustion safely to the outdoors through a chimney. Co ncerns about venting safety have been an important factor in setting the recent minimum efficiency standards for boilers and furnaces [ref]. Building codes [NFPA 31. Chapter 6 ] provide constraints on vent systems in the form of allowable vent diameters an d construction materials to avoid flue gas spillage and the potential for unintended water vapor condensation with higher efficiency equipment. The use of a 12” stack for compatibility with the EPA

- 5 method for PM testing is not allowable with smaller syst ems. In response to the efficiency/venting issue sidewall venting is now being used in practice in some applications. As an example of this commercial practice, Field Controls offers a complete series of sidewall vent system products applicable for boiler s as large as 3 MMBTU (www.fieldcontrols.com ). These systems include an induced draft fan which is mounted on an outside wall and a vent termination which is intended to impart momentum to the exhaust gas to avoid contact of the exhaust with building side wall materials and to avoid the potential for re

entrainment of the exhaust products into the building. Barometric dampers are used in combination with these products which are installed close to the boiler and serve to control the level of draft at the bo iler exit by mixing room air with the exhaust gas at a variable rate.Typically the draft inducer is as close as possible to the boiler. Induced draft, sidewall venting systems of this type, where there is no “stack” are not compatible with EPA test method s for CO and PM. Other boiler products, including high efficiency condensing oil boilers, use “direct vent” systems. Here an induced draft fan is not used and the vent system is under a positive pressure from the burner combustion air fan. These are sidew all vented and combustion air is directed to the burner air inlet from the outside at about the same side wall location. The advantage of having this arrangement is that outside sidewall air pressure variations, wind driven, affect both the air inlet as we ll as the exhaust and reduce wind effects on operating air/fuel ratio. Typically, a two pipe concentric vent arrangement is used with the exhaust gas in the center pipe and combustion air flowing through the annular region between the outer and inner pipe. Outside combustion air is partially preheated in this arrangement, recovering additional energy from the exhaust gas and reducing the potential for burner and combustion problems with cold outside air. As in the case of inducer

- product sidewall vent a hig h momentum vent termination is again used and there is no “stack”. Adding sampling ports which pass through the outer annulus could result in leaks and cross

- contamination of combustion air with flue gases. This could have a negative impact on the measurem ents, create service issues, and increase the risk of safety hazards. These systems are again not compatible with EPA test methods for CO and PM. Examples of systems of this type include the Peerless Pinnacle oil

- fired condensing boiler [www.peerlessboiler s.com] and the Quietside QXM8 oil boiler. Manufacturer’s specifications for the QXM8 specify 3 inch diameter venting, with no deviations and prohibit vertical venting. (http://www.quietside.com/images/Quietside/Products/DPW/166

- 168/QXM8%20IOM%20Supplement. pdf)

Heat Dissipation during Test: Oil boilers installed as the sole heat source for smaller commercial and institutional buildings are often significantly oversized for the design day space heat load and also for the heat distribution capacity of the ba seboard radiator or fan coil capacity. In some cases this situation results from the use of these boilers for domestic hot water in addition to just space heating. With domestic hot water loads, either involving an internal heat exchanger coil or an
exter nal indirect storage tank, short periods of higher firing rate are needed to rapidly respond to a domestic hot water draw. The standard for evaluation of the Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) of small residential boilers for example [ASHRAE Standa rd 103

- 2007

- ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103

- 2007 is entitled Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers. The scope of this standard includes residential boilers with inputs less than 300,000 BTU/hr.], is based on a national average oversize factor of 1.7 (input capacity to design day heat load). Boiler installations for small commercial buildings are seen as very similar to residential buildings. Because these boilers are typically installed in this way, there is no possibility to run them in the field in steady state as the heat produced cannot be practically dissipated, even on the coldest (“design”) day. For this reason EPA Method 5 and 39 tests cannot be conducted. In the proposed rule, it is stated t hat commercial boilers affected typically start only once each day. This is clearly not consistent with smaller systems used for space heating where 20

– 50 starts per day are quite common. In the AFUE test procedure, testing is done under what is seen

as a national average burner cycling patterns

– 9.68 minutes of firing followed by 33.26 minutesof idle. Again, boilers in small commercial buildings operate in a manner similar to those in residential buildings. Available Space Constraints: In many smaller commercial buildings boilers and other utilities are designed into small spaces. In the case of the replacement of an existing boiler with a new boiler, which may be subject to the testing requirements of the proposed regulations (see comments on

new ver sus existing), it is likely that the boiler would have to be moved to provide the venting configuration required for the testing. This would require significant cost associated with rerouting of hydronic piping and add far more to the cost than simply a ch ange in flue pipe size. In the case of a new building design, significant additional space would have to be provided to accommodate the proposed testing which would be cost prohibitive.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Marilyn Crockett Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Oil and Gas Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 006

- 0790

- 2212.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: However, AOGA is very concerned about the lack of a similar de minimis cutoff for new boilers. As proposed, emission standards will apply to any new boiler regardless of size. New boilers less than 10 MMB tu/hr also have small diameter stacks. In Table 4 of the proposed rule, EPA identifies reference test methods for demonstrating compliance that apply to all boilers subject to numerical standards, but EPA has already concluded that these methods are not fe asible for small boilers. On page 31909 of the preamble, EPA again notes the inapplicability of the reference test methods to small boilers, and also the excessive costs associated with annual testing and monitoring requirements for both new and existing units. However, EPA then goes on to indicate that they will not propose work practice standards for new boilers. EPA’s basis for this decision is very unsatisfactory. EPA states that new facilities have the “added flexibility of including compliance costs into their design and planning.” AOGA believes that the inconsistency with this line of reasoning is clear: the costs remain and are still excessive. EPA also states that “a new facility has the option of fuel selection in minimizing their compliance costs .” This statement is clearly not universally true. For example, natural gas is unavailable in rural Alaska and large parts of urban Alaska (e.g., the cities of Fairbanks, and Juneau, Alaska). Existing and new boilers in areas without access to natural gas supplies clearly have no way of “selecting” natural gas rather than distillate fuel to minimize compliance costs. In summary, AOGA believes that the underlying need for a work practice standard for small boilers clearly applies to both new and existing bo ilers, and we request that EPA revise the rule accordingly.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.Commenter Name: Frank A. Stanonik Commenter Affiliat ion: Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2156.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It is not economically feasible to install separate pollution control devices on these small boilers. These units have stacks that are less that 12” in diameter and cannot accommodate the necessary testing apparatus and sampling methods.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units und er 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Furthermore, EPA’s cost

- to

- sales analysis to evaluate the impact of testing and monitoring costs for these boilers is revealing. With the analysis indicating that total compliance costs range from 3

- 19% of the average firm revenues for nearly eighty perce nt of facilities, EPA concluded that “the annual costs for testing and monitoring alone would have a significant adverse economic impact on these facilities,” and that the costs for small institutional and commercial facilities “would be prohibitive.” [Foo tnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 31906.] SOCMA members confirm that the boilers that fall into this size category (<10 MMbtu/hour) are typically very small

– like those in small office buildings, for example.

Response: Please see preamble for information on curre nt requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The SBREFA Panel organized for this rule by the Small Business Administration echoed some of these concerns. In a 2009 letter to Administrator Jackson accompanying the Panel’s report, the Panel highlighted comments by small entity representatives that “a regulatory approach to improved combustion efficiency, such as work practice standards, would have positive impacts with respect to the environment and energy use and save on compliance costs. The [small entity representatives] strongly suggested that a wo rk practice standard would benecessary for area sources to comply with the rule. . . . Because of the potential burdens and costs of meeting” the new rules, the Panel urged EPA to consider adopting different options to promote flexibility, including those of work practice standards. [Footnote: Executive Summary accompanying Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel for EPA’s Proposed Boiler MACT and Area Sources Rules (sent to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson)]

Response: Please see preamble for i nformation on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Jim Pettiford Commenter Affiliation: Fulton Thermal Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2192.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The proposed rule would require annual PM and CO emissions testing for boilers over 10 MMBTU per hour in capacity and which have been installed after the June 4, 2010 date of publication of the new rule. Since PM emission testing is expensive, and since PM emissions are primarily a function of fuel sulfur content, we would suggest instead a provision that requires the use of lower sulfur fuel to ensure the low PM emissions that are desired. To ensure that CO emissions are maintained at a suitab ly low level, we would encourage USEPA to promulgate a modified rule that limits the annual test procedure to just CO emission and Bacharach smoke number
measurements.

Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing complian ce. EPA has not considered a fuel sulfur limit as part of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Glowinski Commenter Affiliation: American Wood Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1930.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Most bo ilers are designed to mix fuel and air at an appropriate ratio, and to provide sufficient residence time for the fuel to combust completely. Obviously, these factors are fuel

dependent, as a gaseous fuel will require less time for complete combustion than a liquid fuel, which in turn requires less time to burn than a solid fuel. The need for longer residence time is why the radiant sections in solid

- fuel fired boilers are larger than for gas

- fired units. The size of the boiler is typically optimized to allo w for complete combustion, while minimizing the cost of construction materials. If the construction cost were not a concern, a new boiler could bedesigned with additional residence time to complete the combustion process and minimize CO emissions.

Unfor tunately, increasing the size of the furnace is not an option for existing biomass stoker units. For these units, the strategy for reducing CO emissions typically includes an optimization of the distribution of combustion air between the grate and primary/ secondary air levels. However, this has the possibility of increasing boiler NOx levels since wood

- fired boiler NOx emissions are very dependent on achieving optimal air staging which often comes at an expense of increased CO emissions.

Response: Biomas s boilers do not have CO limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Robert G. Hedden Commenter Affiliation: Oilheat Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2249 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: It is our understanding t hat the proposed test procedure requires at least a 12

- inch diameter flue pipe. The flue pipes on less than 3 MMBtu/h boilers are 4 to 8 inches. Increasing the flue pipe size to perform the test will increase condensing of the flue gasses in the flue pipe and heat exchanger and result in decreased efficiency, and increased fuel consumption.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Wayne York Commenter Affiliation: Hancock Lumber Company, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: It could be argued that the Reference Method testing itself provides no environmental benefit, but adds si gnificant cost to the regulated facilities. The actual environmental benefit comes from the maintenance and tune up that would be conducted prior to testing. This work is typically conducted by boiler technicians using hand

- held instruments, and results in a direct benefit in the form of reduced emissions and improved energy efficiency. Additional Reference Method testing, especially for small boilers less than 30 MMBtu/hr, provides no additional environmental benefit and adds significant cost. Allowing th e use of portable hand

- held analyzers in lieu of full reference method testing for small units from 10

- 30 MMBtu/hr could be a viable option to reduce the cost but still provide a similar level of benefit for this rule;Response: For the operations and f acilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing compliance. EPA disagrees hat

com pliance monitoring and oversight activities provides no environmental benefit, and considers these measures an important element of ensuring that the intended emission reductions are achieved.



### Reduced Testing Allowance

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozni ak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Typically, MACT regulations provide allowance for process changes at an affected source if it can be demonstrated that an existing performance test can be shown to be valid. Below is suggested regulatory text for addition to the final rule:

A unit is no t required to conduct a performance test for an emission point for which a performance test was conducted within the previous 5

- year period, using the same test methods specified in this section and for which either no deliberate process changes have been made since the test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the results of the performance test, with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite process changes. The operating limits reported under the previous performance test shall be sufficient to meet the monitoring requirements in this subpart.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: EPA should amend the text associated with Table 4 to reflect that it applies to new and existing units. EPA should remove t he requirement to be 75% of limit to be eligible for reduced stack testing frequency. This requirement is not justified and in order to minimize the burden on facilities, there needs to be less frequent stack testing. Overall, CIBO supports the reduction o f stack testing frequency for CO to between 10 MMBtu/hr and 100 MMBtu/hr.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.Commenter Name: Jon Strimling Commenter Affiliation: American Biomass Company Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1904.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The rule should institute an initial third party certification test with required annual
tune

- ups without ongoing costly stack testing. Once a boiler (or range of boilers) is teste d, that boiler would be approved for installation until a change was made in the boiler design.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast Stat es for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2137.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: In the proposed rules, EPA indicates that once a facility has demonstrated compliance with the emission limit, it can r educe the frequency of stack testing. There is, however, a lack of clarity on the percentage a facility must fall below the emission limit to qualify for this reduction. In section 63.7515(b), EPA specifies that a facility must fall below 75% of the emissi on standard, whereas sections 63.7555 (c) (5) and 63.7555 (d) (6) refer to a 90% threshold. The NESCAUM states request EPA to clarify its intent.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 76

Comment: EPA should remove the requirement in 63.11214 that a unit must test below 75 percent of the applicable limit to qualify for a reduced testing frequency. We do not believe this restriction is justified, as there are major source rules that only require initial performance testing or testing every 5 years. The Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT (Su bpart EEE) requires a Comprehensive Performance Test only once every 5 years. Many MACT standards and NSPS only require one initial performance test unless there is a physical change to the control device that would increase emissions. The rule requires co ntinuous monitoring of operating parameters and fuel input that are meant to provide an ongoing assurance of compliance with the emission limits. As long as the facility continues to operate in a similar mode following the initial performance test and main tains operating parameters and fuel inputs within the established operating ranges, annual stack testing for all pollutants is not necessary. We believe that it isappropriate for EPA to require stack testing once every 5 years for area source boilers, as emissions from these boilers are small, the monitoring required by the rule will provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the emission limits, and allowing a reduced testing frequency will reduce the cost of the rule. The reduced frequency for tes ting should be allowed not only for PM and mercury, but also for CO. As stated previously, we believe a more appropriate regulatory approach for CO emissions from area sources is management or work practice standards, rather than ongoing testing and monito ring.

Response: Please see the discussion of the reduced testing frequency requirements finalized in the rule.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt N umber: 15

Comment: EPA has proposed the establishment of requirements for subsequent testing that allow a reduced testing frequency under certain conditions. While Duke Energy agrees that sources should be able to perform certain tests on a reduced freque ncy, it believes that EPA is overly restrictive in two areas and should make changes. First, EPA has not extended the option for reduced testing frequency to dioxin and furans. EPA has offered no justification for this discrepancy and Duke Energy believes that the dioxin/furan testing frequency should be allowed to be reduced along with the other pollutants. Duke Energy also believes that the requirements for extended testing frequency should not be that the unit demonstrating 75% of the standard. Rather it recommends that the unit pass either two test in a row, or one test by no more than 90% of the standard. EPA has also not addressed the issue of how a limit of detection is handled in the context of reduced testing frequency.

Response: Please see respo nse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Barry Bernstein Commenter Affiliation: Better World Energy, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2275 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: We recommend an initial third party certification stack test, with required annual tune ups without on

- going costly stack testing. A manufacturer should be granted an exemption from stack testing if the same design combustor/ boiler , air pollution contro ls and fuel type are used with a new customer. .Annual stack testing is a financial burden, especially on small systems that operate on a seasonal, 6

— 8 month, basis and recognition must be given to the unavailability of independent certified testing serv ices.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Thomas D. Emero Commenter Affiliation: Beaver Wood Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2166.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The proposed schedule of PM testing every year, which can then be reduced to every third year if emissions are less than 75% of the standard can also be reduced without increasing risk to the environment or human health. BWE suggests requiring tes ting every third year if the initial testing indicates PM emissions are 75% of the standard and requiring annual testing until such time as the results are less than 75% of the standard.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Michael Wagner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2271 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Reduce the amount of performance testing required by the proposed rule.

Response: Work practice standards are now in place for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr, no testing is required.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment: EPA Should Remove The Requirement To Be 75% Of The Limit To Be Eligible For Reduced Stack Testing Frequency And Should Require Less Frequent Testing. EPA should remove the requirement in proposed 63.11214 that a unit must test below 75% of th e applicable limit to qualify for a reduced testing frequency. EPA has not justified this restriction. The proposed rule requires continuous monitoring of operating parameters and fuel input that are meant to provide an ongoing assurance of compliance with the emission limits. As long as the facility continues to operate in a similar mode following the initial performance test and maintains operating parameters and fuel inputs within the established operating ranges, annual stack testing for all pollutants is not necessary. For area source boilers, we believe that it would be appropriate for EPA to require stack testing once every 5 years, as emissions from theseboilers are small, the monitoring required by the rule will provide a reasonable assurance of

co mpliance with the emission limits, and allowing a reduced testing frequency will reduce the cost of the rule. The reduced frequency for testing should be allowed for PM, mercury, and CO. As stated previously, we believe a more appropriate regulatory approa ch for CO emissions from area sources is work practice standards, rather than ongoing testing and monitoring.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: Amer ican Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment: Facilities Should Be Able To Test One Unit If It Is Representative Of Multiple Units At A Facility. Another measure that would reduce the cost of complying with this rule would be to allow facilities to group like units and test one representative boiler instead of requiring them to test each and every boiler at the facility. For example, if a facility has multiple 25 MMBtu/hr boilers that are of the same design and fire the same fuel, they should be able to test one of these boilers to represent emissions of the rest of the group. The periodic testing could “rotate” among the boilers in the group. This option would reduce the cost associated with emissions testing for facilities with many similar boilers.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Each and every unit that is part of the affected source is subject to an emission limit or work practice standard. From a compliance perspective it is too difficult to establish representative criteria given the multiple variables of fuel and operations cited by many other commenters.



### Compliance Flexibility for Small Entities

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: Louisiana’s sugar cane grinding season is relatively short lasting approximately 115 days a year. Such a short grinding season means that under the proposed regulations, our mills would be required to test each boiler three times more often than non

- seasonal industries, based on total hours of operation.Response: The final rule does not include limits for existing biom ass units and only a PM limit for new biomass units, thus reducing the burden. The EPA did not have sufficient data for area source boilers to create a limited use subcategory, but the operating schedule mentioned above exceeds the limited use threshold o f 876 operating hours per year.

Commenter Name: G. Vinson Hellwig Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2016.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: With regard to the feasibility of designing sampling ports for boiler stacks with small diameters (less than 12 inches), we consider such testing to be unnecessary due to the minimal expected impact on air quality from boilers that operate with small diam eter stacks. The proposed work practice standards will provide adequate emission control for small boilers without the addition of a testing requirement. A representative search of 30 permits for small boilers identified eight boilers, rated at 3.35 milli on British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) or less, with stack diameters less than 12 inches. For comparison, some of the same facilities also operate emergency generators (reciprocating internal combustion engines) rated up to 1000 kilowatts (kW) with exhaust stacks less than 12 inches in diameter. A generator output of 1000 kW is equivalent to 3.4 MMBtu/hr or 1341 horsepower. On March 3, 2010, the EPA published final revisions to the NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) (40 CFR P art 63 Subpart ZZZZ) which includes performance testing requirements for carbon monoxide (CO) and formaldehyde on a concentration basis, using established test methods applicable to small diameter stacks. If the EPA includes a performance test requirement for boilers with small diameter stacks, perhaps an approach similar to that taken for the RICE NESHAP would be more suitable for the small boilers.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Jonathan Wood Commenter Affiliation: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2248 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The proposed requirement for annual compliance testing for all boilers that have emission limits is overly burdensome on both the smaller facilities and the regulatory agencies that must oversee this. Again, additional size thresholds with increasing test ing and monitoring requirements on progressively larger boilers would seem appropriate. The major source boiler rule as proposed includes such progressively more stringent requirements. For the area source rule, an initial commissioning compliance test wou ld seem appropriate for all boiler units. After the initial test, units in the range 1

- 10 MMBTU/hr should be required to conduct annual tune

-ups. For units in the range 10

- 30 MMBTU/hr, annual tune

- ups should be supported with stack testing conducted every 5 years. For units in the range 30

— 100 MMBTU/hr in addition to the initial stack test, annual tune

- ups, and a subsequent stack test every 5 years, they should use monitoring techniques similar to Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM). Boilers greater tha n 100 million should be subject to the annual compliance test provisions as proposed as well as annual tune

- ups and CAM.

Response: For the operations and facilities subject to the rule, we believe that the combination of periodic compliance emissions te sting and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring ongoing compliance. Please see the preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: At a time when there is considerable encouragement to convert to r enewable energy, it should be noted that the majority of biomass

- only boilers are smaller than others. The most publicized uses of biomass may involve electricity generation, but more effective uses of biomass may prove to be in areas such as the U.S. Fore st Service’s "Fuels for Schools" program, which will involve many boilers rated at 10 MMBtu/hr or smaller. The financial burden of annual or near

- annual repeat testing could easily be enough to prevent transitions away from coal or oil to cleaner fuels. Wh ile it is good to require testing and tune

- ups of units that have probably never been tested before, the long

- term frequency of these measures required in the proposed JJJJJJ needs to be reduced in order to be practical.

Response: Please see preamble fo r information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Fred Gordon Commenter Affiliation: Herman Miller, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2046.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Other considerations for small sources, such as reducing the testing frequency from the annual requirement in the proposed rule similar to the size differentiation for continuous emission monitors, should be a part of this rule, in order to rel ieve small sources of some of the compliance costs that may make continued operation of these units impractical under the current proposal.Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Instead of yearly stack testing for small users, certify the equipment through independent lab certification tests (as is presently done with residential equipment) and enforce a yearly maintenance program.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Christopher Recchia Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Energy Resource Center Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2008.1 Comment Excerpt N umber: 11

Comment: Annual testing is technologically infeasible for units under 5 MMBtu and economically infeasible for units under 10 MMBtu. It is also unnecessary, as there are other measures typically performed during annual maintenance that could be r eported to ensure proper tuning and operation, such as CE and pressure drop across fabric filter.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Nam e: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Annual stack testing for units greater than 10MMBTU/hr is costly with limited added value.

We suggest stack testing be required for applicable units every three (3) years.Response: We disagree with the commenters’ assertions that the performance testing requirements are excessive. As discussed earlier, the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure

co nditions is appropriate for assuring continuous compliance with the emissions limitations

. Without recurring testing, we would have no way to know if parameter ranges established during initial performance testing remained viable in the future.

Comment er Name: Dan H. Williams Commenter Affiliation: Sealed Air Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2228.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: As proposed, the area source MACT standard causes facilities to source test boilers greater than or eq ual to 10 MMBTU/hr on an annual basis. This results in excessive testing costs on a frequent basis. By virtue of being an area source, the emissions of hazardous air pollutants are small and in most cases not even significant. This costly testing unfairly penalizes responsible manufacturing or commercial operations that were not a substantial risk to human health or the environment in the first place.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1, Comment Excerpt Number 13.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA should require a source to perform stack testing only every five years instea d of annually (unless it has a change that could affect emissions).

SOCMA appreciates the possibility under proposed Section 63.11214 that sources can reduce stack testing for PM and Hg to once every three years if certain conditions are met. However, we believe the trigger threshold (75% of the emissions limit) should simply be the emissions limit

– so long as a unit demonstrates compliance for three years, it should be able to reduce stack testing frequency.

Also, the proposed performance testing requ irements are too stringent. A stack test for CO costs $10,000. Stack tests for PM or Hg are even more expensive, although there are some efficiencies in conducting multiple tests at the same time. These costs are significant burdens to small businesses, pa rticularly when one considers that they are additive to the costs associated with the proposed energy assessment and other provisions in the proposal. We also note that most state permits only require one stack test during the permit term (often five years ). Limiting stack teststo once every five years would enable small facilities to reduce test mobilization and demobilization costs, which make up 25

– 50% of the total stack testing cost.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1, Comment Excerpt Number 13.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: SOCMA proposes that EPA limit stack testing to units burning coal or #6 fuel oil. Lighter fuel oils generate such relatively smaller concentrations of emissions that the costs of stack testing are far less justifiable.

Response: All units with applicable emission limits must perform stack testing. However, the final rule only includes a PM limit for new oil boilers thus reducing the burden.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Contro l Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: The proposed annual carbon monoxide testing requirement for existing oil fired boilers is too frequent. These tests are complex and expensive for smaller facilities. It should be

ac ceptable to use NOx and CO measurements made with handheld meters during the biennial
tune

- ups to qualify as a compliance check to ensure CO emissions are within limitations. If EPA retains the Method 10 compliance test requirement, it should be no more fr equent than once every 5 years.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1, Comment Excerpt Number 13.

Commenter Name: Daniel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: SOCMA would support an opacity limit, enforceable through traditional means, in lieu of a numerical PM limit that would be enforced through COMS.Response: The final rule does not implement this approach. A COMS, if used under the rule, will be used to ensure continuous compliance with an opacity operating limit.

Commenter Name: Richard Bellefleur Commenter Affiliation: Wellons FEI, Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1300.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Wellons does support testing wood fired units when they are first put into service. This helps ensure that the equipment was designed and built in order to meet regulations. Having to test the units once every year, will put significant financial burden o n the system users, especially in the smaller end range. Good maintenance programs and yearly shut downs and inspections should be sufficient in order to maintain the equipment performing as it was when it was initially tested.

Response: Please see prea mble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Rich Raiders Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1958.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: In the proposed Boiler MACT, Boiler GACT, and CISWI proposals, EPA proposes initial and periodic compliance tests. EPA should refine the periodic testing proposal to reduce the undue burden on owners and operators, especially in the Boiler GACT source category. The annual Boiler GACT testing requirement is unprecedented for area sources complying with Part 63 standards applying exclusively to area sources. Nowhere in the language of § 112(k), the GACT statutory authorization, did Congress instr uct EPA to regulate area sources with the same rigor as major sources. GACT standards, by their nature, should not be as stringent as MACT standards. GACT compliance demonstrations, by definition, should be less onerous than MACT compliance demonstrations. GACT sources should not be subject to any annual stack testing of any boiler. If EPA believes that periodic boiler testing is required, a frequency of every fiveto ten years is adequate, given the limited resources available to the typical GACT facility.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Andrea GrantCommenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1945.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: If even assuming the EPA determines that it must regulate POM, it is not required to apply a MACT standard to control that pollutant. Section 112(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act provides an altern ative approach for controlling pollutants from Area Sources listed pursuant to Section 112(c). EPA is authorized to impose GACT emission standards or management practices on such sources. Because the boilers that would be subject to the proposed rule are l isted pursuant to both Sections 112(c)(3) and (c)(6), EPA is permitted to impose either a GACT

determined numerical emission standard or a management practice on such sources.

The Agency has already found that a management practice

-- a mandatory biennia l tune

- up program

-- will meet the required public health and environment objectives embodied in Section 112 for very small boilers. EPA determined that compliance with numerical emission standards would be infeasible due to technical and economic limitati ons. However, Section 112(d)(5) provides for the adoption of the same management practice without any need to determine if compliance with numerical emission standards are not feasible.

Response: See the preamble for discussion.

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Or instead of eliminating the energy assessment, use it as an alternate t o the stack testing requirement for units under 100 MMBTU/hr. It could include a requirement that some percentage of the recommendations for energy efficiencies be adopted in order to avoid stack testing.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Andrea Grant Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1945.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: EPA should exempt the very smallest units (less than 3MMBtus/hr) from the NESHAP rule entirely and impose a management/work practice requirement of biennial boiler
tune

- ups on those boilers (new and existing) with a heat input capacity between 3 a nd 9.99MMBtus/hr. Moreover, because EPA has not assembled more than very limited data for boilers with a heat input capacity below 30 MMBtus/hr, the Agency should apply the management/work practice requirement to those boilers as well.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Recommendation: Reduce the frequency or completely eliminate the periodic testing required for units below 100 MMBTU/hr. A new compliance test in the event a change is made to the u nit that would impact the results of the initial compliance test, is reasonable.

In most state air permits, the smallest sources are only required to conduct a one

- time compliance demonstration test to establish parameters for periodic monitoring. The only time an additional compliance test is required is in the event something changes (e.g., primary fuel, reconstruction) that would impact the performance experienced during the initial test. A similar practice for compliance demonstration with this r ule would make the most sense.

Since 100 MMBTU/hr is already used in this rule as a threshold for applying more stringent requirements, this would make the most sense as a cut off for more frequent testing. Even then, something less frequent is more re asonable for area sources. If an area source is required to get a Title V permit, then testing for each permit renewal, once every five years, to re

- establish the monitoring parameters would be a reasonable frequency. In some states, a single stack must have emissions at the major source level (100 TPY of criteria pollutants) before more frequent testing is required, such as a biennial basis

– still not annual.

Response: We disagree with the commenters’ assertions that the performance testing requirements are excessive. As discussed earlier, the combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measureco nditions is appropriate for assuring continuous compliance with the emissions limitations

. Without recurring testing, we would have no way to know if parameter ranges established during initial performance testing remained viable in the future.

Comment er Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: For units equal to or smaller than 2 mmBtu/h, each model should be tested rather than require initial compliance or annual stack testing on each unit.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice stand ards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Andrea Grant Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1945.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA has proposed a complex and costly rule for Are a Source boilers. The rule appears to be based largely on data from EPA’s investigation of larger boilers

- individual boilers with a heat input capacity of 30 MMBtus/hr and greater. There is limited evidence that either new or existing smaller boilers coul d meet the proposed standards for PM and CO. Moreover, the fuel oil industry and certainly owners/operators of the boilers subject to the rule lack experience testing for these components and lack the necessary equipment to conduct such tests. Its purchase or the reliance on an outside, independent testing firm would be very costly and burdensome, imposing significant harm on an entire industry in which there are many small and medium

- sized companies. Accordingly, EPA should:

1. Withdraw the proposed rul e as it applies to Area Source oil

- fired boilers. There is insufficient evidence to show that regulation of such boilers is needed under the requirements of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act;

2. In the alternative, (1) exempt oil

- fired boilers with a heat input capacity of less than 3 MMBtus/hr from the rule; (2) permit all oil

- fired boilers (new and existing) with a heat input capacity between 3 and 9.99 MMBtus/hr to meet the NESHAP obligations by establishing a management/work practice of a boiler tune

- u p program to be performed every two years on each regulated boiler; and (3) consider allowing oil

- fired boilers (new and existing) with a heat input capacity between 10 and 30 MMBtus/hr also to comply with the management/work practice.3. If the Agency determines it must establish numerical emission standards to regulate Area Source boilers, then, at the very least, withdraw the current proposal; adopt a number of additional subcategories reflecting (a) the size of different oil

- fired b oilers as discussed above, and (b) the different operation of smaller connected boilers; and establish realistic and achievable standards that will not unduly burden the regulated community.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requi rements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Com ment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Small businesses and institutions should not have to undergo costly stack tests. The above recommendations will prevent undue expenses and retain the environmental benefits intended by the Area Source Boiler Rule. Fuel swi tching is not a viable option for many New York boiler operators.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Leon Lataille Commenter Affili ation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1896.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: As the owner of small boilers ranging in size (10 from 0.23 to 1.0 MMBtu/hr, 16 from 1.0 to 5.0 MMBtu/hr, and 8 from 5.0 to 9.0 MMBtu/hr), the requirement for annual testing for new small boilers will become an issue as the replacement of these boilers occurs. The cost of stack testing for small boilers is out of proportion to the attendant benefit, particularly in the case of boilers with low fuel consumption, on the order of 5,000 gallons per year of less. Testing in these cases becomes a significant percentage of the annual cost of operation. Biennial tune

- ups of new boilers would seem to be a more appropriate approach to compliance.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Eliminate source testing requirements

The proposed NESHAP rule for area sources requires management practices (a maintenance plan) for existing and new biomass boile rs. Annual source testing is required for all boilers installed after June 4, 2010. Above, annual source testing could increase the O&M costs for an installation by 30 times.

The costs to these small rural communities to source test these boilers will be immense. Installation of controls required to meet the emission standards will incur increased capital and operating costs. Costs will be further exacerbated by the high costs to transport and house technicians to perform required maintenance. EPA argues in the RICE NESHAP proposed rule that source testing is too expensive to be justified for smaller engines not subject to numerical emission standards. Since EPA acknowledges cost as a consideration, should EPA demonstrate by regulation that urban HAP stand ards do apply to rural areas, rural Alaska should be subject to GACT, not MACT, and EPA should limit the area source requirements to maintenance and management practices.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including w ork practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.

Commenter Name: Jim Pettiford Commenter Affiliation: Fulton Thermal Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2192.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Fulton has recently taken initial s teps to review the North American biomass?fired boiler sector with European’style, ultra?low emissions, combustion technology. Fulton believes that cleaner combustion performance by biomass?fired boilers will be necessary for the long?term market acceptanc e of solid biomass fuels as renewable energy resources. Fulton nevertheless wishes to express concern about the proposed Area Source Boiler Rule requirements as would apply to biomass?fired systems. We believe that the proposed PM emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBTU can be generally achieved by advanced technology, biomass?fired boilers, either with well?engineered, staged combustion or through the retrofit installation of electrostatic precipitators or baghouse filters. The proposed rule would require, howev er, annual PM and CO emission testing for all biomass?fired boilers, regardless of size, installed after the June 4, 2010 publication date of the proposed Area Source Boiler Rule.It has been documented in European testing that the long?term, field perf ormance of ultra?clean (under 0.05 lb/MMBTU), biomass?fired boilers will generally be within acceptable tolerances of laboratory certification testing results so long as clean, uncontaminated biomass fuel is used for boiler operation. Fulton therefore rec ommends that USEPA establish a regulatory process for biomass?fired boilers under 10 MMBTU per hour capacity which requires PM and CO emission testing by the manufacturer at the time of product certification under other (e.g., UL) standards, but which allo ws instead for an annual tune?up, including CO emission testing, to ensure clean, long?term boiler performance.

Response: Please see preamble for information on current requirements, including work practice standards for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr.



### Operating Parameter Monitoring

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Averaging times for operating parameters require clarification. Since daily averages are specified for CO for oil fired units, it would greatly facilitate implementation of the rule if EPA amended the final rule to require that any operating parameter lim its also be specified as daily averages. OCC respectfully requests that EPA revise the final rule to require that operating parameter limits be measured as daily averages.

Response: The final rule clarifies the averaging periods that apply based on the monitoring and testing that applies. Generally, if a CEMS is used, a 30

- day rolling average applies. Opacity uses a 24

- hour block average, while other operating parameters generally use a 4

- hour block average to be generally consistent with the anticipa ted length of conducting a performance test. For initial and annual performance tests, compliance is determined based on the actual test period for a specific test.

Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufa cturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The requirement for parametric monitoring of differential pressure (DP) and flow rate on scrubbers cannot be justified for true minor sources of HA P emissions that havevoluntary controls that reduce other pollutant types. Further, sources that installed air pollution devices (APCDs) to become synthetic minor (SM) area for pollutants not directly addressed by this rulemaking

— whether criteria pollut ants or HAP, should likewise not be subject to parametric monitoring not already required by their current air operating permits. For example, facilities with mercury emissions well below the major source threshold and therefore not triggering MACT would n ot have added controls for that reason. The rules would place MACT on these sources for mercury emissions when they are not a major source of mercury under the Clean Air Act.

Response: Table 6 of the final rule clarifies that the operating parameters such as pressure drop from wet scrubbers are only required if the unit is subject to an emission limit and the unit has a wet scrubber installed. If a unit not subject to an emission limit, such as an existing biomass unit, then there is no need to subject that unit to parametric monitoring.

Commenter Name: Chris V. Isaacson Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2060 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The proposed energy audit requirements are not needed or justified.

The proposed rule would require all existing affected units to conduct a one

- time "energy assessment" in order to "identify energy conservation measures (such as process changes or other modifications to the facility) that can b e implemented to reduce the facility energy demand which would result in reduced fuel use." 75 Fed. Reg. at 31907. The Agency asserts that, "Reduced fuel use will result in a corresponding reduction in HAP, and non

- HAP, emissions." Id. This work practice r equirement is an "above the floor" measure that EPA argues is justified in light of the emissions reductions and cost savings that can be realized by identifying and implementing energy efficiency projects.

This proposed requirement is beyond EPA’s autho rity and should not be included in the final rule. To begin, EPA is only authorized under 112 to regulate "sources" of HAPs. For example, 112(d)(1) explains that EPA may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or subcategor y in establishing ... standards" (emphasis added). More particularly, 112(d)(2)(A) authorizes EPA to establish standards that would "reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, [HAPs] through process changes, substitution of materials or other modific ations"; however, this authority is limited in 112(d)(2) standards regulating "sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies." The term "source" unambiguously means something that actually emits HAPs. Because the proposed e nergy assessment requirement would apply to processes that demand energy from affected boilers, but are not necessarily sources of HAPs themselves, EPA’s proposal exceeds the Agency’s limited authority to regulate only HAP "sources." In addition, EPA prop oses in 63.11194 to define the affected source under this rule to include only "industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers." EPA further proposes to define the terms"industrial boiler," "commercial boiler," and "institutional boiler" to include onl y boilers and not other parts of the facilities to which the boilers belong. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31931 (proposed 63.11237). By the very terms of the proposed rule, the affected source category only includes boilers. Thus, the proposed energy assessment require ment is not supportable because it would apply to equipment that is not part of the source category being regulated.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion of energy audit requirements.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utili ty Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment: UARG objects to EPA’s proposal to set enforceable operating limits based on control device parameters measured during performance testing. Est ablishment of such limits reduces operational flexibility, deprives sources of the use of any control device margin, and allows enforcement for events beyond the owner/operator’s control.

EPA’s current proposal is based on the faulty assumptions that the values of the parameters identified by EPA have a direct relationship to the level of emissions, and that exceedances of those limits therefore indicate an exceedance of the emission limit as well. To the extent possible, source owners and operators will contract for control equipment that is designed to provide a “margin of compliance” with the applicable emission limitation. [Footnote: For example, it is relatively common for new ESPs to be purchased with extra fields and sections which will allow the so urce to continue to operate in compliance with applicable emission limits even when there are problems with other parts of the controls. Fabric filters and scrubbers can also be purchased with extra capacity (i.e., additional modules) for the same purpose. ] In addition to reducing the possibility of an exceedance of the limit, this margin is intended to provide flexibility for the source to account for an inevitable control equipment or operational problem. Any source that is able to normally operate with a margin of compliance will loose part of that margin of compliance if they conduct performance testing under normal operations, because they will establish operating limits that would require them to continue to over

- control forevermore. The only way such sources could avoid surrendering whatever margin of compliance they have would be to deliberately reduce performance of their controls to attempt to generate the least stringent operating limits consistent with achievement of the applicable emission standa rd. EPA’s proposal thus has the perverse result of encouraging sources to focus their attention on learning how to manipulate their operations to allow testing as close as possible to their emission limit by reducing performance of their controls.

Unfortunately, even the “detuning” of a control device during performance testing will not ensure that the operating limits established during the test are reasonable, or necessary for achievement of the applicable emission limit. As EPA has previously rec ognized in the context of the NSPS and the CAM rule “many sources operate well within permitted limits over a range of process and pollution control device operating parameters,” and requiring sources tocontinuously maintain parameters that “happened to e xist” during the most recent performance test may not be “possible or wise.” 62 Fed. Reg. 54,900, 54,907, 54,926

- 27 .

That is because control device parameters, such as those identified by EPA for scrubbers and ESPs, do not necessarily have a direct rela tionship to emissions, but instead are interrelated with the design of the control device and the interaction of various parameters. As a result, a single parameter may vary widely with little effect on emissions. See UARG Comments on Proposed National Emi ssion Standards (Mar. 14, 2003), EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058

- 0413, Attachment C (incorporated by reference). For example, total ESP power may be completely unrelated to ESP performance for a multi

- sectional ESP. Id. at 2 and Appendix 1. This power approach for ES Ps simply does not work and that fact is easily demonstrated in the cited material. Similarly, because scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate are usually a function of boiler load, recording levels of those parameters above or below those recorded dur ing a performance test are not necessarily indicative of emissions levels at a different load. Id at 2. Many industrial boilers operated at variable load levels because they follow process demand. As the load drops, the scrubber pressure drop also moves do wn. This change does not necessarily indicate a drop in scrubber performance. In fact, the scrubber performance is likely to improve at reduced load.

Although EPA’s provision of a 10 percent difference from the average tested value recognizes some of the normal operational variability of control devices, it may not be sufficient in some circumstances. Without a clear correlation between such operating parameters and the applicable emission limit, imposition of those values as enforceable limits would unre asonably restrict source and control device operation and subject sources to potential enforcement without any evidence that an emission limits has been violated.

Response: We believe that continuous monitoring is needed to ensure ongoing compliance wit h this rule. In order to minimize costs, we look for parameters that are already monitored to use for compliance demonstration. Operating limits are not direct measures of emissions, but provide measure of fuel characteristics and control device performan ce. We require performance tests to demonstrate compliance with emission limits, and then use operating limits to ensure the source is operating similarly to how it was operating when it completed a successful performance test.

Under the final rule, we clarify that tests are to be performed under representative operating conditions. Also in response to comments, EPA reviewed the proposed procedure for establishing the operating parameter limits (i.e., calculated as the average of three test runs and

as 90 percent of the average value recorded during the applicable performance tests) and concluded that it may be too restrictive on control device operations in terms of energy or other operating needs. We determined that the operating limits should be mor e appropriately based on values recorded during the performance test runs. The final rule requires that operating limits be established on a site

- specific basis as the minimum (or maximum, as appropriate) operating parameter value measured over a single t est run during the performance test. This approach has been incorporated into the final rule for all applicable operating parameters and will result in achievable operating ranges that will ensure that the control devices used for compliance will be
opera ted to achieve continuous compliance with the emissions limits.We have also provided for scaling certain parameters such as sorbent injection rate based on the operating load, to address load conditions that are less than those that occur during testing. You are also able to petition the Administrator for approval of an alternative monitoring plan under section §63.8(f) of subpart A of part 63.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40

Comment: EPA’s proposal to use these parameters is subject to the same flaws as EPA’s other proposed operating limits

-- namely the lack of a sufficient relationship between the parameters measured dur ing performance testing and actual emissions. For example, as described above, because scrubber pressure drop, liquid flow rate, and sorbent injection rate vary with boiler load, establishment of a limit based on conditions during performance testing may t ell EPA little about actual emissions under other load conditions. Moreover, when EPA in 2008 considered the relationship between liquid flow rate and PM in the context of the NSPS for electric steam generating units at 40 C.F.R. Subpart Da, EPA concluded that, at the level of the NSPS (i.e., 0.015 lb/mmBtu), PM emissions controlled by an ESP were not particularly sensitive to the actual liquid flow rate. EPA “Response to Public Comments on Rule Amendments Proposed June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33642)” (Nov. 2008), EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2005

- 0031

- 0284, at § 2.5.3.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, Comment Excerpt Number 38.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 45

Comment: According to the preamble, EPA intends to propose (1) that units with wet scrubbers and an ESP and/or fabric filter establish and comply with ESP operating parameters and/or a BLDS, and (2) that units without a wet scrubber comply with an opacity standard , unless they have a fabric filter, in which case they must use a BLDS. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013

- 14. In other words, (1) a source with an ESP without a wet scrubber would not have the option of monitoring ESP parameters in lieu of opacity, (2) a unit with a fabric filter without a wet scrubber would not have the option of monitoring opacity in lieu of a BLDS, and (3) a unit without a wet scrubber that has an ESP and a fabric filter would only use a BLDS. However, that is not what the proposed rule language re quires.

First, the rule clearly provides that use of a BLDS if optional, at least for a unit with a dry control system. Second, the rule appears in one place to require all units with an ESP to establish minimum voltage and secondary current (or total po wer), but in other parts clearly limits use ofESP operating parameters to units with wet scrubbers. Third, the rule does not reflect any exemption from opacity monitoring for units with a fabric filter and a BLDS. In short, not only does the preamble conf lict with the rule, the rule itself is internally inconsistent.

UARG understands that units with wet control systems cannot monitor opacity and as a result must use some other technique. As a result, for units with wet scrubbers, UARG supports the use of ESP parameters as indicator monitoring as described in section D.2. However, if such parameters are sufficient for units with wet scrubbers, UARG does not understand why they also would not be sufficient for units with dry controls. As a result, EPA shoul d remove the rule language restricting use of ESP parameters to units with wet controls and offer source owners/operators the choice. For units with fabric filters, EPA should revise its preamble to be consistent with the proposed rule, which clearly allow s fabric filter equipped units with dry control systems the choice of using opacity instead of a BLDS. EPA also should revise to make clear that units complying with an opacity standard do not have to establish ESP operating parameters.

Response: Under the area source standards, the options requested in these comments are allowed. Typically, for larger boilers EPA would not consider opacity as the most appropriate option for units with a fabric filter, but has provided additional flexibility for the smal ler units subject to this subpart.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47

Comment: EPA Should Include Longer Averaging Times For Op erating Parameters And CO Emissions. The industrial boilers that will be subject to this rule may burn more than one type of fuel and may have frequent load swings. Therefore, the emissions from these boilers will vary over the course of a day, depending o n the fuel burned and the required steam production. EPA acknowledged during the Phase 2 ICR stack test program that emissions from industrial boilers are variable by requesting multi

- year historical stack test data and conducting 30

- day fuel and emissions monitoring studies. We believe that additional variability data and CEMS data should be reviewed to support longer averaging times, especially since lengthening averaging times and incorporating variability seems to be EPA’s preferred approach for address ing emissions during startups, shutdowns, and malfunction periods. The court reviewing the Brick MACT authorized EPA to look at intra

- unit variability and EPA’s work on the Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT confirmed the importance of considering variability . The EPA also acknowledged that averaging times longer than 3 hours can be appropriate for compliance with the condensate collection and treatment requirements in Pulp and Paper MACT, Subpart S. Therefore, it is inappropriate for EPA to set limits in this area source boiler rule that cannot be met consistently by a top performing unit under all operating conditions. One way to consider a unit’s variability in emissions is to set a longer averaging time for compliance with an emission limit.Averaging tim es of longer than 3 hours are needed for industrial boilers, especially those that burn multiple fuels and have varying emissions characteristics, in order to preserve operational flexibility and ensure cost

- efficient operation of the boiler. The facility must be able to operate the boiler in a manner that is responsive to process needs, not at full load all the time. Longer averaging periods are also desirable if the emission limits are going to apply at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, a nd malfunction. The proposed rule specifies 3

- hour averages are to be calculated for operating parameters [75 Fed. Reg. 31928], although the preamble states that daily averages should be calculated [75 Fed. Reg. 31902]. We support daily block averages for CPMS. A 24

- hour averaging period acknowledges process variability, lessens the effect of short process upsets on compliance, and captures the variable emissions and operating characteristics of a unit over an operating day.

Response: The final rule uses 4

- hour block averages for the control device operating limits in this rule. That period is established to be generally consistent with the anticipated period for performance tests under this subpart.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation : Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment: On October 9, 2008, EPA proposed PS 17 and amendments to the Part 63 general provisions to address selection and installation of CPMS and ongoing quality assurance of data from CPMS (in Procedure 4). 73 Fed. Reg. 59,956 (Oct. 9, 2008). Proposed PS 17/Proc edure 4 covers CPMS used to measure and record temperature, pressure, liquid flow rate, gas flow rate, mass flow rate, pH, or conductivity on a continuous basis. UARG submitted detailed comments objecting to several aspects of EPA’s proposal, including EPA ’s proposal to make the final specifications applicable in lieu of requirements in the individual Part 63 subparts, without any revision of those subparts to consider or reference applicability of the new requirements. UARG Comments, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0640

- 0 064 (Feb. 5, 2009) (incorporated by reference). Although EPA has since indicated in its regulatory agenda its intention to issue a supplemental proposal to address comments received on that proposal, EPA has not withdrawn its prior proposal. As a result, U ARG continues to object to EPA’s proposed approach and to any automatic applicability of additional requirements to this rule without subsequent proposal and revision of this rule. EPA has adequate opportunity to propose whatever performance specifications it deems appropriate in this rulemaking.

Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concerns on the continuous parameter monitoring system performance specifications and quality assurance procedures proposal, but notes that this action is for th e Boiler MACT proposal. The Agency agrees with the commenter that the Agency is able to propose appropriate performance specifications in this and any other rulemaking. In keeping with this ability, the Agency has developed and finalized specific requireme nts for performance specifications for this rule, allowing source owners or operators todevelop plans customized for their sites. Source owners or operators are encouraged to build on their existing practices, rather than start from scratch, to minimize t he burden associated with providing a continuous assurance of compliance as required by the statute.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783. 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 49

Comment: There are discrepancies in the monitoring discussion in the preamble versus the rule tables. For example, the preamble calls for monitoring for pressure drop and liquid flow rate and "maintain the daily block averages at or above the minimum operating limits established during the performance test." 75 FR 31902. This requirement however is not included in Table 3. 75 FR 31914. EPA should expand this table should to also include operating limits for boilers that have PM limits and use control devices to comply with those limits. For a comprehensive discussion of operating limits, please refer to CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.]

Response: Please see res ponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, Excerpt Number 45.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 51

Comment: EP A proposes that operating parameters measured during performance tests should constitute minimum site

- specific operating requirements subsequent to the performance test. It is inappropriate and in many cases not technically feasible to use operating condit ions during a performance test, which are typically conducted at or near the unit’s maximum firing rate, to establish a minimum requirement for all possible load ranges. EPA should amend the Proposed Rule to allow for optimum system operations and ratio

- ty pe parameters. The following comments detail why the current proposal is unacceptable.

EPA sets minimum required operating parameters at high load conditions, which are applicable to all operating conditions going forward. This approach is unacceptable. EPA’s function is not to dictate how a source operates each and every unit, but instead to limit emissions impacts to the environment. It is unreasonable to place many of the hard limits derived from the operating limits approach on a facility long term.

With many pollution control technologies, the proposed approach to establishing and maintaining minimum operating limits would result in needless over

- consumption of sorbents at great cost to the facility with little or no commensurate benefit to human he alth. As an example,the sorbent injection rate of activated carbon for the control of mercury varies with the volume of flue gas generated during combustion. To establish a minimum sorbent injection rate at or near the unit’s maximum continuous rating (MC R) would result in nearly double the sorbent injection rate during turndown to 50% load. While such an approach may work for based loaded utility boilers, there are a great diversity of units and operating conditions affected under this rule as compared to utility

- type units. Institutional, commercial and industrial boilers vary loads widely based on site conditions, business conditions, season and time of day, this would result in pointless expense to the facility with no benefit to the environment or to h uman health. Similar issues arise with use of scrubbers relative to load or throughput variations and their impact on operating parameters.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, Comment Excerpt Number 38.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Active combustion controls utilizing an O2 monitor with either an automatic or adjustable air distribution system managed full time by boiler operators would achieve the purpose of ensuring good combustion in large biomass or solid fuel

- fired units. EPA should consider the use of an O2 monitor with alarm for mid

- sized biomass or solid fuel boilers. This would provide a good indication of proper combustion.

Response: Under the Part 63 general provisions, an owner /operator can always request an alternative monitoring method. EPA agrees with the commenter's general point that there will be situations in which alternat ives to the methods specified in the rule can provide a reasonable assurance of compliance.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Duke Energy strongly disagrees with EPA’s current proposal to set enforceable operating limits based on control device parameters measured during performance testing. Establishment of such limits reduces operational flexibility, deprives sources of the us e of any control device margin, and allows enforcement for events beyond the control of the owner/operator.EPA’s proposal is based the faulty assumptions that the values of the parameters identified by EPA have a direct relationship to the level of emis sions, and that exceedances of those limits therefore indicate an exceedance of the emission limit as well. To the extent possible, source owners and operators will contract for control equipment that is designed to provide a “margin of compliance” with th e applicable emission limitation.[Footnote: For example, it is relatively common for new ESPs to be purchased with extra fields and sections which will allow the source to continue to operate in compliance with applicable emission limits even when there ar e problems with other parts of the controls. Fabric filters and scrubbers can also be purchased with extra capacity (i.e., additional modules) for the same purpose.] In addition to reducing the possibility of an exceedance of an emission limit, this margin is intended to provide flexibility for the source to account for the inevitable control equipment or operational problem. Any source that is able to normally operate with a margin of compliance will lose part of that margin of compliance if they conduct p erformance testing under normal operations, because they will establish operating limits that would require them to continue to over

- control forevermore. The only way such sources could avoid surrendering whatever margin of compliance they have would be to deliberately reduce performance of their controls to attempt to generate the least stringent operating limits that are consistent with achievement of the applicable emission standard. EPA’s proposal thus could have the perverse outcome of encouraging sour ces to focus their attention on learning how to manipulate their operations to allow testing as close as possible to their emission limit by reducing performance of their controls.

Unfortunately, even the “detuning” of a control device during performance testing will not ensure that the operating limits established during the test are reasonable, or necessary for achievement of the applicable emission limit. As EPA has previously recognized in the context of the NSPS and the CAM rule, “many sources operat e well within permitted limits over a range of process and pollution control device operating parameters,” and requiring sources to continuously maintain parameters that “happened to exist” during the most recent performance test “may not be possible or wi se.” 62 Fed. Reg. 54907, 54926

- 27. This is because control device parameters, such as those identified by EPA for scrubbers and ESPs, do not necessarily have a direct relationship to emissions, but instead are interrelated with the design of the control de vice and the interaction of various parameters. As a result, a single parameter may vary widely with little effect on emissions. For example, total ESP power may be completely unrelated to ESP performance for a multi

- sectional ESP. This power approach for ESPs simply does not work and that fact is easily demonstrated by real world operating experience. Precipitator power will vary depending upon a number of factors including operating conditions, coal quality, etc, a fact that Duke Energy routinely sees in the operation of its own units. Similarly, scrubber pressure drop is a direct function of boiler load. A basic engineering principles is that pressure drop through a restriction such as a scrubber vessel is a directly related to velocity. As the velocity i ncreases, the pressure drops. Recording pressure drop during a performance test will not be indicative of emissions levels at a different load. Industrial boilers operate at variable load levels because they follow process demand. As the load drops, the sc rubber pressure drop decreases. This change does not necessarily indicate a drop in scrubber performance. In fact, the scrubber performance is likely to improve at reduced load. Unfortunately as EPA has proposed the standard, simply reducing load will put a source in a condition of non

- compliance.”Similarly scrubber flow will also change depending upon operating conditions and system chemistry requirements such as the required slurry density. Many sources do not normally install flow meters in this situa tion and installing them in this application will be costly and fraught with monitoring difficulties and inaccuracies. If EPA feels that it needs a metric to ensure proper scrubber operation, it should limit its requirements to operating the same number of scrubber flow pumps that a source used during the performance test, and demonstrate that the flue gas is indeed going through the scrubber module and not being bypassed.

Although EPA’s provision of a 10 percent difference from the average tested value recognizes some of the normal operational variability of control devices, it will not be sufficient in many circumstances. Without a clear correlation between such operating parameters and the applicable emission limit, imposition of those values as enforceable limits would unreasonably restrict source and control device operation and subject sources to potential enforcement without any evidence that an emission limits has bee n violated. This is particularly important where EPA’s proposal runs counter to basic engineering principals.

Units that use an ESP in combination with a wet scrubber (and thus cannot monitor opacity) must comply with operating limits on the voltage and secondary current (or total power input) of the ESP collection plates. Proposed 63.7530(b)(3)(ii). EPA’s proposal to use opacity and ESP voltage and power measurements as enforceable operating limits is flawed. The use of total power is not at all reliable as an indicator of ESP performance or problems.

Finally, EPA’s proposal to require the use of ESP parameters has similar flaws. Total ESP power input is not directly related to particulate removal performance, particularly for the modern multi

- section E SPs that are likely to be installed to comply with a MACT. Moreover, none of the ESP parameters are likely to have any relationship to PM for units that also have a wet scrubber, because a wet scrubber is also highly effective in controlling high levels of particulate matter coming out of an ESP that is not performing at its intended control efficiency.

Under EPA’s proposal, units that use a wet scrubber must also comply with operating limits for pH, and units that use a dry scrubber must comply with an o perating limit on sorbent injection rate. Proposed 63.7530(b)(3)(i) and (iii). EPA’s proposal to use these parameters is subject to the same flaws as EPA’s other proposed operating limits

-- namely the lack of a sufficient relationship between the paramete rs measured during performance testing and actual emissions. For example, as described above, because pH and sorbent injection rate vary with boiler load and coal chemistry, establishment of a limit based on conditions during performance testing may tell E PA little about actual emissions under other load conditions. Moreover, when EPA in 2008 considered the relationship between liquid flow rate and PM in the context of the NSPS for electric steam generating units at 40 C.F.R. Subpart Da, EPA concluded that, at the level of the NSPS (i.e., 0.015 lb/mmBtu), PM emissions controlled by an ESP were not particularly sensitive to the actual liquid flow rate. EPA Response to Public Comments on Rule Amendments Proposed June 12, 2008 (73 FR 33642), EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2005

- 003 1

- 0284, at 2.5.3.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, Comment Excerpt Number 38.Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 0

Comment: Rather than establish enforceable operating limits, EPA should use the approach taken in the CAM rule and require sources to establish site

- specific operating parameter ranges to define conditions under which compliance with the applicable limi t can be reasonably assured. This approach already has been upheld as sufficient to satisfy the CAA’s requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rejecting NRDC’s argume nt that the CAM rule’s “reasonable assurance of compliance” is not sufficient to assure continuous compliance as required by the CAA). Source owners and operators would then be required to monitor those parameters and respond to changes that indicate probl ems with the controls that could jeopardize compliance.

Whether using a single control device or combination of devices, sources are in the best position to determine what parameters and levels are consistent with compliance. In many cases, multiple
para meter relationships or supplemental operational data will provide a higher level of compliance assurance than the level that happens to be measured during a discrete performance test. This is particularly true for sources with a significant margin of compl iance. In addition, units with significant margins of compliance should be allowed to establish operating levels by extrapolating parameter data beyond that obtained during a performance test based on other information. Allowing such extrapolations is esse ntial for some sources to provide needed operational flexibility. Attempting to establish “worst case” test conditions on a scrubber or multi

- section ESP, where the possible combinations of parameters are numerous, would at the least be difficult and could be impossible without a major research effort. Allowing extrapolation of results avoids the necessity of repeated testing.[Footnote: A similar approach has been used in CAM protocols, including a protocol developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for ESPs (allowing extrapolation up to 1.25 times the recorded value for measurements taken at less than 80 percent of the applicable emission limit).]

Once sources have established appropriate operating parameter ranges based on data collected d uring performance tests, as well as other operating data and engineering principles, those parameters would be monitored and any deviation from them would trigger a requirement for investigation and corrective action to return the parameter to the appropri ate range. Although this range may in some cases be similar to the minimum values that would be established under EPA’s proposed rule, allowing sources to respond with corrective action (rather than simply record exceedances and report deviations) achieves EPA’s intended result without subjecting sources to potential unreasonable enforcement.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1, Comment Excerpt Number 38.

### Other

- Testing and Monitoring

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Based on this approach, the initial and interim recommended limits and practices include: Initial independent third party certifi cation test for biomass boilers to prove compliance. Once a boiler (or range of boilers) is tested, that boiler would be approved for installation until a change was made in the boiler design; Work practice standard for biomass boilers, consisting of an a nnual boiler tune

- up according to manufacturers’ specifications.

Combined with the revised limits above, initial emissions testing and work practice standards for maintenance will ensure that clean

- burning boilers are installed and that they consistently achieve high emission standards. NEWP believes that superior emission performance can be best achieved and be cost effective over the long

- term with on

- site tune

- ups rather than onerous annual emission testing requirements for boiler owners. The proposed annual tune

- up of boilers to meet manufacturers’ specifications is consistent with typical manufacturers’ recommendations for regular maintenance and is consistent with what the EPA has proposed for existing Area Source Boilers.

Response: Please see the rule for changes to emission limits and work practice requirement.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 73

Comment: All burning facilities must be subject to these standards and controls for air quality monitoring and reporting requirements.

Response: Please see the final preamble for EPA’s rationale for determining the appropriate standar ds, testing, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the different subcategories of boilers subject to this rule.

Commenter Name: Gailyn Messersmith Commenter Affiliation: Messersmith Manufacturing, IncDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1949.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Require initial 3rd party emissions compliance testing with annual tune

- ups to insure the original manufacturer’s specifications are maintained.

Response: Please see preamble for discussio n of compliance requirements in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Eric Trauner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2286 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Stack testing demands should be lowered to biennial at fir st, then trending toward once per five years after two successful tests. It must be underlined that there are relatively few stack testing firms that are qualified to conduct such testing, and excessive testing will result in a rush of unqualified, inexper ienced stack testers hitting the market. In turn, there would be a rush of flawed emissions data hitting the very database that US

- EPA is seeking to create.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 18 59.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The EPA proposes that facilities conduct yearly performance tests for the first three years for affected sources that elect to demonstrate compliance with any of the emission limits through performance testing. Facilities could establish an every three

- ye ar schedule if the performance tests for the pollutant show that emissions are at or below 75 percent of the emission limit for at least three consecutive years.

The EPA proposes that affected sources conduct performance tests at the "maximum normal
oper ating load." However, this maximum normal operating load is not defined in the proposed rule. Facilities use different fuels depending on many variables such as availability and cost. Fuels are also combusted in different proportions throughout the year. T he EPA should provide a clear definition of maximum normal operating load proposed in 63.11237. The EPA should also clearly define how a source that utilizes more than one fuel should comply with this requirement. Having this clearly defined is necessary n ot for only determining compliance with the emission standards, but also for adequately approving site

- specific test plans that would be required in 63.11212.Response: The final rule specifies the use of representative operating conditions.

Commente r Name: Richard Rosvold Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Services, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2259.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: §63.11223(b) states if you demonstrate compliance using a stack test, you have to
prepare a s ite specific monitoring plan. However, the language related to monitoring plans applies to continuous monitoring systems that are used with add

- on control devices. For CO in all categories, and possibly for PM on liquid

- fueled units, this would not apply. EPA needs to clarify this language.

Response: The EPA has minimized the testing and monitoring in the final rule. Please see the preamble for discussion on this topic.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: Clarification is needed as to how temporary tube blowing is factored into compliance tests for particulate matter for new oil fired units. It is unclear to what exten t these periods have been factored into the data base for coal and oil fired units or are to be considered when conducting performance tests for particulate.

Response: The PM limits for new oil units are based off NSPS standards and no data was used
to calculate the GACT floor. When performing stack tests for compliance boilers shall run at representative operating load conditions; temporary tube blowing should not occur during this testing.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: The Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) has developed a suggested approach to developing common

- sense regulations, which we be lieve will achieve improvements in airquality while balancing the costs of implementation. Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc. agrees with the recommendations of BTEC to

1) begin with an initial minimum performance standard for Carbon Monoxide and Particula te Matter with reductions thereafter based on data collected the first two years of the Rule’s implementation and

2) an initial third party certification test with required annual tune

- ups without on

- going costly stack testing. Once a boiler or range of boilers is/are tested that boiler/range of boilers would be approved for installation until a change was made in the boiler design.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: UARG agrees performance testing should not be required any more frequently than annually, and supports inclusion of a reduced testing provision. However, UARG does not believe that the 75 percent criterion (or a 90 percent criterion) is reasonable given the extremely low levels of EPA’s proposed limits. UARG requests that EPA remove this restriction, which EPA did not deem necessary in the 2004 rule. EPA has provided no reason for this restriction, or data suggesting that any source could achieve 75 percent (or even 90 percent) of the proposed emission limits, some of which are established at or near the det ection limit. UARG does not understand how a source could test at a percent of the detection limit. The requirement that source and control device operation remain consistent with prior successful testing should be sufficient to ensure representativeness o f the prior test(s).

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: Wellons does support testing wood fired units when they are first put into service. This helps ensure that the equipment was designed and built in order to meet regulations. Having
to test t he units once every year, will put significant financial burden on the system users, especially in the smaller end range. Good maintenance programs and yearly shut downs andinspections should be sufficient in order to maintain the equipment performing as it was when it was initially tested.

Response: Work practice standards are now in place for all units under 10 MMBtu/hr, no testing is required.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 43

Comment: To ensure that the proposed 24

- hour block opacity standard is achievable during periods that include startups and shutdowns, when PM controls may not be at full efficiency, EPA should include a minimum data requirement for calculation of compliance with the proposed opacity standard. If EPA has established the 10 percent standard based on data showing that compliance is achievable with 24 hours of data, including startup and shutdown d ata, EPA should either (1) limit the compliance calculation to any day upon which the unit operates for at least 24 hours, or (2) combine data from the partial operating day with data from the prior or next day full operating day. This approach would be si milar to that taken in 40 C.F.R. Subpart Da, 60.48Da(g)(3) (stating that averages for compliance with the daily PM standard are only calculated for “boiler operating days that have valid data for at least 18 hours of unit operation during which the standar d applies”), except that standard would apply at all times. If EPA does not have data demonstrating that the standard is achievable on a 24

- hour block basis including startup and shutdown, EPA must provide a higher limit or a longer averaging period consis tent with the data it has. EPA also must provide that data in the docket.

Response: See the preamble for how SSM periods are handled in the final rule. EPA believes that a 24

- hour block period for opacity is an appropriate period to ensure continuous c ompliance with good operating practices to minimize emissions.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 44

Comment: Under EPA’s propo sal, units that use a fabric filter (whether or not using a wet scrubber) that choose to demonstrate continuous compliance using a BLDS (instead of monitoring opacity) must install, operate, calibrate and maintain a BLDS “for each exhaust stack of the fabr ic filter” consistent with the “manufacturer’s written specifications and recommendations” and in accordance with EPA’s “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,” EPA

- 454/R

- 98

- 015 (Sept. 1997). The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capableof detecting PM at a concentration of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter or less. Id. The BLDS must be operated such that the “system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during any 6

- month period.” Proposed § 63.7530(b)(3)(iv) . Records must be kept of each alarm period. If inspection of the bag demonstrates that no corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is required, the alarm time is counted as the actual time taken to initiate corrective action with a minimum of 1 hour counted for each alarm. Proposed § 63.7540(a)(7). In short, EPA largely proposes to simply repromulgate the BLDS requirements from the 2004 final rule. When UARG questioned several aspects of that rule as proposed, see UARG Comments, EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058

- 0413 at 24, EPA simply referred back to its 1997 guidance. See EPA Response to Public Comments, EPA

- HQ

- OAR2002

- 0058

- 0611 at 114.

The proposed requirement to follow all manufacturer specifications and recommendations and EPA ’s 1997 guidance is not reasonable. With respect to manufacturer requirements, EPA has not reviewed these procedures and cannot assure that a particular manufacturer’s installation, operation, and adjustment procedures will be compatible with the proposed or final regulatory requirements. Manufacturers may have written recommendations that are suitable for some applications and are not suitable for other applications. Many of the manufacturers also are foreign entities that rely on other companies to repres ent their products in different countries and develop written “recommendations.” The source owner or operator is responsible for the selection, installation, operation, and maintenance of the monitoring equipment. While manufacturer’s specifications and re commendations may be useful to a source owner/operator’s understanding of the equipment, they are not necessarily appropriate regulatory requirements. EPA has offered no data to demonstrate that any BLDS will work as the manufacturer claims.

EPA’s guidance also has no place as a regulatory requirement. EPA’s guidance addresses only one type of BLDS (the “triboelectric”) and is based on information provided by a single manufacturer. The definition of BLDS clearly allows use of a variety of tech nologies, including electrodynamic, light scattering, and light transmittance. Proposed § 63.7575. The guidance explains that the alarm setting procedure is dependent on the type and configuration of the fabric filter and filter cleaning cycle. But it addr esses only one baghouse configuration. The document excludes all other technologies (e.g., light scattering, light transmission, optical scintillation, and electro

- dynamic devices). In short, the existing Guidance Document is out of date and is technically flawed.

Response: The EPA has no reason to believe that the “Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance" document needs updating or is inadequate. EPA has no knowledge that the QA procedures within th e Bag Leak Detection Guidance is inadequate. Technical specifications, installation procedures, operation and maintenance procedures, quality assurance procedures, or alarm setting procedures are contained within the EPA guidance document for bag leak dete ctors and are supplemented in manufacturer’s specifications , installation procedures, and directions. Performance specifications and quality assurance procedures found in Appendix B and F, respectively, of Part 60 are for the purpose of certifying a CEMS and for continual quality assurance for CEMS that are used for continual compliance with an emission limit and therefore are not applicable toBLDs. False alarms and instrument malfunctions or misapplication of BLDs is a site specific issue and can be aver ted by careful selection of an appropriate BLD and manufacturer with a vendor guarantee of acceptable performance. EPA’s guidance for BLDs is not a certification procedure like performance specifications in Appendix B of Part 60 and therefore will not
cont ain tests for certification. The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer and not the owner/operator. The operator must consider any operational changes and stack gas changes when selecting an appropriate BLD. BLD setup procedures an d BLD system adjustments found within EPA’s BLD guidance is sufficient for accounting for these changes. The EPA BLD guidance is applicable to charge transfer type devices but several different manufacturer’s instruments can be used that are applicable to this guidance. The EPA BLD guidance addresses only one suggested approach to the use of bag leak detectors. However, proper setup and operation of a bag leak detector can vary with site

- specific conditions and those conditions may dictate variances from th e approach suggested in this guidance.

Commenter Name: Thomas A. Nyquist Commenter Affiliation: Princeton University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1764.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: With regard to the proposed testing timeframe s, 48 hours during any calendar year may be insufficient for some operators. Princeton is required by its Title V permit to perform compliance testing of all Cogeneration plant sources while firing both primary and backup fuels, with the sources operating at maximum firing rates. It is not uncommon to encounter operational difficulties during testing, especially while trying to achieve maximum loads, which results in testing that takes weeks rather than days. One year, Princeton pilot tested the use of biod iesel in its plant as part of ongoing efforts to introduce renewable fuels to achieve sustainability goals. This testing exceeded 48 hours since it was the first time the fuel was burned in this type of turbine and various scenario’s of operation were cond ucted to obtain valuable emission data. Under the proposed rule, biodiesel is classified as oil, and rule language may discourage testing of certain alternative fuels based on this limitation.

Response: Although the example provided by the commenter is for a turbine and outside the scope of this rulemaking, the Agency recognizes unique circumstances that some units may face with respect to introducing new fuels. However, since the 48 hours is applicable generally and is appropriate in the majority of cas es, we have retained this language in the final rule. As part of the Title V permit compliance testing program, you may develop a site

- specific test plan that can be approved by the relevant delegated authority.

Commenter Name: Ashley B. Peterson Commen ter Affiliation: American Meat Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1486.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Comment: Finally, we suggest that annual stack testing is not necessary in order to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. Perfor ming a stack test on each boiler annually is burdensome and provides no additional valuable information or safeguard. One test is sufficient as is required for current new construction permits. If the stack test is passed at that time, emissions from the

s ystem will not appreciably change unless the system is modified.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Section 63.11214(a) of EPA’s proposed rule requires annual retesting for carbon monoxide (CO).

EPA provides no insight or justification in the preamble or otherwise for requiring annual retesting. Annual retesting is an unnecessary and burdensome requirement. A number of the MACT Standards for major stationary sources have no scheduled retesting requirements and only require event driven retesting such as a major modi fication.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Rich Raiders Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1958.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The Boiler and CISWI standards regulate a variety of pollutants, some of which may not be present in the combustion stream nor emitted from the products of combustion. For instance, many CISWI units combust organic streams or organic and aqueous mixtures that do not contain halogen concentrations beyond trace salt chlorides. The potential of such a unit to emit HCl, chlorine, or dioxins and furans (“D/F”) is insignificant. These same streams often do not contain detectible amounts of metal HAP or metallic CISWI constituents. The potential of such units to emit cadmium, lead, and mercury, among other metals, is minimal. In these situations, EPA should allow affected sources to combine a one

- time compliance stack test with process knowledge of the m aterial being combusted to streamline the compliance demonstration for certain parameters. We understand that EPA has far less flexibility in streamlining compliance demonstrations for common products of combustion, such as particulate matter,oxides of ni trogen (“NOx”), and sulfur dioxide (“SO2”). But when feasible, EPA should allow owners and operators to use process knowledge and chemistry to show that some regulated emissions are not of concern from certain regulated units.

Response: We disagree that the performance testing requirements are excessive. Th e combination of periodic compliance emissions testing and continuous monitoring of operational and parametric control measure conditions is appropriate for assuring continuous compliance with the emi ssions limitations . Without recurring testing, we would have no way to know if parameter ranges established during initial performance testing remained viable in the future. See the preamble for discussion of testing requirements, and reduced testing frequency if certain conditions are met.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: EPA should also allow testing of representative units. If one unit is representative of multiple units (e.g., same size/type/fuel), that unit should be tested.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Each and every unit that is part of the affected source is subject to an emission limit or work practice standard. From a compliance perspective it is too difficult to establish representative criteria given the multiple variables of fuel and operations cited by many other commenters.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: The proposed frequency of testing is unreasonable and out of character with other MACT and NSPS standards and other state performance testing requirements. EPA has proposed the most aggressive performance testing requirements we are aware. The Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT (Subpart EEE), for example requires a Comprehensive Performanc e Test only once every five years. Many MACT standards and NSPS standards only require one initial performance test unless there is a physical change to the control device. Given the very stringent limits EPA has proposed, very few, if any units are likely to qualify for this provision, so we are not sure of its value. CIBO proposes that EPA use a testing frequency that is the standard for other criteria pollutants of once per permit term (i.e., every five years), using the language from major source MACT d ocument section XIX Emissions Testing.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1958.1, Excerpt Number 9.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA should require periodic monitoring for units between 10 and 100MMBtu/hr. The Maine DEP recommends that EPA require initial and biennial CO compliance testing for units in this size categor y. We believe that installation of continuous monitoring systems for these units is impractical. Existing units should be required to perform an annual tune

- up, which will ensure good combustion efficiencies.

Response: CO CEMS are not a requirement of t he final rule. Please see preamble for this and other changes.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: There are a multitude of requirements for performance testing, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), continuous parameters monitoring systems (CPMS), operating parameters, instrument calibration and other quality assurance requirements embedded in the rule. We urge EPA to carefully evaluate the many recommended improvements the AWC and CIBO comments deliver on these rule provisions. EPA should streamline the requirements where possible, correct discrepancies identified in comments submitted by th e trade groups and respond to opportunities to minimize the monitoring burdens these extensive and complex provisions carry with them.

Response: EPA has taken all comments into consideration and has modified a number of the monitoring provisions. Pleas e see the final preamble, and responses throughout this document.

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 12

Comment: One consideration EPA does not appear to address is the capacity for stack testing firms to conduct sucha high number of tests as would be required each year under this rule as proposed. Even if new firms take up the task, many will ta ke time to gain the necessary experience to do it well and provide accurate results.

Response: See the preamble for certain changes to the testing provisions that will reduce the overall number of tests, including changes for boilers under 10 mmBtu/hou r capacity.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 66

Comment: Table 6 of the proposal identifies Part 63 General Provisions that will apply to this subpart. We believe the Agency should specify that §63.8(a)(d) does not apply. This is essentially a QA/QC planning requirement, but proposed §63.11223 alre ady covers this and the two sets of requirements will conflict.

Response: Section 63.8(a)(2) is intended to apply to this subpart and imposes general provisions that work together with the specific requirements in the rule.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 77

Comment: To reduce the cost of complying with this rule would be to allow facilities to group like units an d test one representative boiler instead of requiring them to test each and every boiler at the facility. For example, if a facility has multiple 25 MMBtu/hr boilers that are of the same design and fire the same fuel, they should be able to test one of the se boilers to represent emissions of the rest of the group. The periodic testing could “rotate” among the boilers in the group. This option would reduce the cost associated with emissions testing for facilities with many similar boilers.

Response: EPA d isagrees with the commenter. Each and every unit that is part of the affected source is subject to an emission limit or work practice standard. From a compliance perspective it is too difficult to establish representative criteria given the multiple variab les of fuel and operations cited by many other commenters.Commenter Name: Leon Lataille Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1896.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: 63.11212 (c) requires that stack tests be conducted at the "maximum normal operating load while burning the type of fuel or mixture of fuels that have the highest content of mercury..". In the case of the Deer Island boilers, which use digester gas as the preferential fuel and fuel oil only for startups and to augment heat input, digester gas would constitute the normal operating load condition, and as an existing boiler rated at greater than 100 MBtu/hr, the applicable emissions limit is for carbon monoxide with no li mit for mercury. For existing boilers with a carbon monoxide limit, requiring a maximization of mercury containing fuel does not seem to be the relevant issue. In the case of carbon monoxide and the Deer Island dual fuel boiler, at maximum normal operating load the emissions are very low for either digester gas or fuel oil, or dual fuel. Accordingly, the appropriate test condition would be the maximum normal operating load using the predominant fuel.

Response: The testing requires the fuel with the highe st emissions potential for each regulated pollutant. So, if a boiler is subject only to a CO standard, then that would be the regulated pollutant under this section of the rule.

Commenter Name: Brad Hunter Commenter Affiliation: GreenWood Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2099.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The rule should institute an initial third party certification test with required annual
tune

- ups without ongoing costly stack testing. Once a boiler (or range of boil ers) is tested, that boiler would be approved for installation until a change was made in the boiler design.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Michael T. Palko Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The rule should institute an initial third party certification test with required annual
tune

- ups withou t ongoing costly stack testing. Once a boiler (or range of boilers) is tested, that boiler would be approved for installation until a change was made in the boiler design.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: If initial compliance with the mercury emission limit is demonstrated b y a fuel analysis performance test, the proposed rule requires monthly fuel analyses for each type of fuel burned. Specifically, EPA indicates that “for new and existing area source boilers with applicable emission limits, we are proposing that you must co nduct initial stack tests or fuel analysis (for mercury) to determine compliance with the PM, mercury, and CO emission limits.” The proposal also specifies that when burning a new type of fuel, a fuel analysis must be conducted prior to burning the new typ e of fuel. Fuel usage (type and amount) must be recorded on a monthly basis for each unit. We believe the monthly fuel analysis requirement is too frequent and burdensome for area source units complying with the mercury emission limit using fuel analysis. RMA recommends that EPA require fuel analysis on a quarterly basis for units complying with mercury using fuel analysis. Additionally, we recommend that EPA clarify that no fuel analysis is need for single fuel units complying with applicable mercury emissions using stack testing.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783 .1, Excerpt Number 39.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: Section 63.11223(e) does not reference an installation requirement fo r the oxygen analyzer.

It seems that either 40 CFR 60 PS

- 3 should be referenced here for the installation requirements for the O2 analyzer or PS

- 4B be referenced for both CO and O2.

Response: These requirements are addressed through incorporation of t he applicable general provisions.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 52Comment: The Frequency Of Fuel Analyses Should Be Reduced. For units complying with the proposed mercury emission limits using fuel analysis, EPA proposes to require monthly fuel analyses. In order to reduce the regulatory burden on area sources, we propose reduci ng the frequency to quarterly fuel analyses. In addition, no fuel sampling should be required in any period if the unit does not operate during the period.[ 63.11214(f) at 75 Fed. Reg. 31927]

The proposed Boiler MACT rule includes an exemption for single fuel fired affected sources from the initial compliance requirements for conducting a fuel analysis for each type of fuel in 63.7510(a). This exemption should also be included in this area source rule for coal fired units that have a mercury limit (if tha t limit remains in the final rule). We also urge EPA to specifically note that for single fuel fired units, the exemption from fuel analysis still applies for coal fired boilers that startup on natural gas or fuel oil, or that are burning process gases in a boiler for emissions control and not for heat value. Where EPA is requiring fuel analyses for multi

- fuel boilers for determining fuel operating limits for mercury, EPA should not include gaseous fuels in the fuel testing requirements since collecting sam ples of these gases is dangerous; concentrations of chlorine and mercury in gaseous fuels will be very small; and these concentrations have virtually no effect on the total amount of mercury and chlorine being input to the boiler.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, Excerpt Number 39.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 52

Comment: EPA proposes to require monitoring at all times the source is operating except for “monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustmen ts).” In addition for CO CEMS, and COMS, EPA proposes to define each period in which the monitoring system is “out of control,” and not providing data for calculations, as a “deviation” of monitoring requirements that could result in enforcement. Proposed §§ 63.7525(a)(6), 63.7525(c)(6), 63.7575. Although EPA does not define “out of control,” EPA provides the following examples for COMS

-- “including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a daily calibration drift assessment, a quarterly performance audit, or an annual zero alignment audit.” EPA generally defines “out

- of

- control” to include failure of a calibration or performance audit.

EPA’s proposed definition of these periods as a deviation is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Part 63 general prov isions. Section 63.8(c)(3) specifically includes “out

- of

- control” periods as one of the exceptions to continuous operation. All monitoring systems will have out

- of

- control periods and EPA has provided no data to suggest that it has proposed use of technolo gy or applicable performance standards that would not result in some failures of applicable performance specifications. Rather than subject source owners/operators to potentialenforcement (and citizen suits) for routine and unavoidable failures of perform ance specifications, EPA should (consistent with its general provisions) revise the list of occurrences to specifically exempt “out of control” periods from the requirement for monitoring operation. [Footnote: EPA’s proposed language also does not explicit ly include “maintenance periods” even though such periods also are excluded under the monitoring provisions in § 63.8(c)(3). To avoid confusion, EPA should include maintenance in § 63.7525(b). Maintenance is a process that is (continued...)] An out

- of

- con trol monitor may need to be taken off

- line for evaluation and corrective action, or be calibrated in order to bring it back into control.

For PM CEMS, EPA does not define such periods as “deviations,” but instead proposes to require the source owner/oper ator to obtain data “by using other monitoring systems as approved by the Administrator or EPA Reference Method 19 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 60” to provide data for all operating hours during which data are not obtained from the PM CEMS because of “brea kdowns, repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments.” This proposal is even more unreasonable in that EPA has neither established that PM CEMS are capable of operating without missing any data

-- they cannot

-- nor provided any other method capable of providing continuous PM data during such periods. PM CEMS downtime will occur both frequently (in the case of calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments) and unexpectedly (in the case of breakdowns and repairs). EPA has identified no EPA

- approved “system” that could provide data during such periods (and UARG is aware of none) and the cited reference method

-- Method 19

-

- “does not include any sample collection or analysis procedures” (it only provides data reduction procedures). Method 19 , § 1.1.

Although EPA has previously adopted a provision with some similar language, that provision was in the context of an “option” for PM CEMS (not a requirement) and it limited the need for data collection to those instances when data were not collec ted for a minimum of “90 percent (only 75 percent is required prior to January 1, 2010) of all operating hours” in the 30

- day rolling average period. 40 C.F.R. § 60.48Da(p)(8). When UARG objected to the proposed requirement in Subpart Da, EPA provided the following response:

EPA concluded that the data availability requirements are appropriate. While EPA encourages the optional use of PM CEMS, we are aware that no PM CEMS is presently being used for compliance purposes in the United States. EPA, therefor e, encourages steam generating unit owners or operators who elect to apply PM CEMS to notify EPA as soon as data are collected so that EPA can evaluate the data and, if the data supports doing so, propose revisions to the data availability requirements.

essential to avoiding breakdowns or malfunctions, and generally requires the monitoring systems to be taken off

- line.

EPA “Summary of Public Comments on Reconsideration and Amendments Proposed February 9, 2007 (72 FR 6320)” (Apr. 13, 2007), EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 05

- 0031

- 0260 at 13. In short, EPA acknowledged it lacked data to support even a 75 percent availability requirement, but asserted it did not need to because use of CEMS was optional. EPA also agreed to examine data when theybecame available. EPA has provi ded no data in this rulemaking to support the proposed requirement. If EPA wants to impose a minimum data availability requirement for PM CEMS that are required under this rule, EPA must examine available PM CEMS data and propose a data availability requi rement that is achievable. EPA has never considered one hundred percent data availability to be reasonable or necessary under command and control programs like the NSPS and NESHAPS, and it should not do so here. Attachment B at 4

- 5.

Response: We have no t included any specific minimum data availability requirement, and are not defining deviations in the manner described in this comment. We believe that numerical missing data allowances quickly become targets or excuses, not incentives to conduct monitorin g in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices. For all monitoring required or applied as an option under this rule, we have included provisions that would require you to operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required in tervals at all times the affected source is operating except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, a s applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments). Further, you may not use data recorded during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures tha t are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeug in Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 74

Comment: For units with heat input greater than 100 lb/106 Btu/hr, EPA’s proposed section 63.7525(a) requires the continuous measurement of CO and 02. This requirement is the direct and unfortunate result of EPA’s choice of units for the CO emission limit (i.e., x ppm by volume, dry basis corrected to 3% 02). By choosing 02 as the basis for correction (instead of CO 2 ), EPA has precluded the use of dilution

- based monitoring systems, which have proved to be so reliable and accurate in other regulatory programs such a s EPA’s Acid Rain Program. Dilution

- based systems measure on a wet basis and can accurately measure CO 2 . Dilution

- based systems cannot be used to measure 02 and generally do not measure on a dry basis. The monitoring and compliance determination procedures for CO would be much more straightforward, if the units of the emission limit were lb/106 Btu instead of ppm by volume, dry basis corrected to 3% 02.

Response: Please see preamble for discussion on the removal of CO CEMS from the requirements.

### Star tup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM)

SSM

- Regulatory Text Provisions

Commenter Name: Cynthia Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0838.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comme nt: The proposed requirement for an annual report with effluent stream measurements and fuel use before the “annual adjustment” also conflict with the requirement for a tune

- up once every two years. With the biennial tune

- up requirement, adjustments would be made once every two years, and any measurements or records related to the boiler and its tune

- up should be completed on a biennial basis rather than on an annual basis.

Response: Section 63.11222(b) has been revised in the final rule based on the com ment.

Commenter Name: Sheldon Schultz Commenter Affiliation: Yanke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: There is one set of laws that come from a court room and another that we deal with from chemistry and physics. A boiler start up begins with temperatures near ambient but CO and VOC’s don’t ignite until the temperature reaches 1100 degrees F so start up a nd shut downs are special events and require separate rules dictated by the laws of science. The rule appears to consider only base load boiler operation and many boilers operate differently.

Response: Commenter is correct that EPA lacks data for start up and shutdown. However, in the final rule, the actual emission measurements are required to be performed at maximum load and continuous compliance for all pollutants is demonstrated through the various parameter monitoring that is required by the rules.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1947.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: With due consideration to safety and operational require ments, some of the pollution control equipment (such as baghouses) of already permitted sources are designed to have different procedures of operation during SSM events. As a consequence, these sources will not be able to comply with the proposed standards during SSM events.

Per Section 63.11201(c), the standards set forth in the rule apply at all times. There is no specific allowance for SSM periods relative to the emission limits in the rule. EPA discusses in section 1V.E. on page 31901, that startup an d shutdown periods were taken into account when setting the standards which are daily or monthly averages and thus achievable even when a startup or shutdown occurs. However, in Table 1 of the proposed rule, the emission limit for particulate matter from n ew units operating on any of the listed fuels is not based on an average over a time period. This is an unachievable standard since some pollution control devices cannot be in service until temperatures rise and conditions stabilize, during which emission s are known to exceed such low emission limits. For example. a DoD facility operates baghouse control devices that must be bypassed during startup and shutdown due to explosion risk. This requirement is a documented standard operating procedure implemente d at the facility and is based on recommendations of the equipment manufacturer. Because of these requirements for safety considerations, the Agency should adopt procedures similar to what was done in the Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FFFF [40 C.F.R. § 63.2450(q)]. This provision allows facilities that cannot meet an emission limit for safety reasons, to submit documentation in their precompliance report explaining why an undue safety hazard would be created if the air emission controls were installed, and to describe the procedures that you will implement to minimize HAP emissions from these vent streams. This provision is provided where it is unsafe to control the source at any time but it could be used as a m odel in the boiler rule to allow sources to avoid control during startup and shutdown when safety issues prevent use of controls.

The final rule should contain a provision similar to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart FE IF, 63.2450(q) to exclude SSM events from th e emission limits when it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to bypass emission controls for safety reasons.

Response: In the final rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and has not established differen t standards for tho se periods. The standards that we are promulgating are based on short term stack tests for pollutants that generally are not expected to vary significantly at startup and shutdown. For CO, which in some cases varies at startup and shutdown, the operating limits will ensure that combustion conditions are optimized and CO emissions are minimized. Boilers, especially coal

- fired boilers, do not normally startup and shutdown more the once per day. Thus, w e are not establishing a separate emission standard fo r these periods because startup and shutdown are part of their routine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operation. We have evaluated whether it is appropriate to have the same standards apply during startup and shutdown as applied to normal operations, and as the rule is structured, well operated and controlled units should be able to meet the standards at all times.In the final rule, the actual emission measurements for compliance are required to be performed at maximum load and continuous compliance for all pollutants is demonstrated through the various parameter monitoring that is required by the rules.

Commente r Name: Rob Barton and Ralph Roberson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1978.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Specifically, EPA should reconsider setting standards that apply during startup, shutdown , and malfunction (SSM), since as explained in our major source comments EPA did not collect data during these events. Southern Company’s experience with our coal

- fired power plants has shown that SSM events have an effect on emissions. Certainly, work pra ctice standards would be more appropriate during SSM events.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Douglas J. Fulle Commenter Affiliation: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Document Control N umber: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1798.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final CO standard for n ew biomass fired boilers to be not achievable by even well designed new affected boilers, such as OPC’s Warren County project. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

EPA explains in the preamble that , "Based upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and sh utdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards." 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- O AR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Douglas J. Fulle Commenter Affiliation: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1798.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: Second, EPA’s emissions database provides CO continuous emissions monitoring system ("CEMS") data from several of the better performing sources in the biomass subcategory. (see submittal for graphical depiction of the data for these seven units). Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average CO emissions should be expected to vary considerably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed level of the standard. While it is difficult to discern the reaso ns for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data for relevant boilers in the

area sour ce biomass subcategory indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns.

Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. In our case, the boiler vendors for our Warren County project indicate that startup of the unit will last up to 18 hours. During that period of time, combustion conditions will not be optimum due to the generally low tiring rate, the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the star tup period, and the need to shift from biodiesel as a startup fuel to biomass for normal operations. Thus, 18 hours of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

- even on a daily average basis

- that will be markedly different tha n performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed CO standard arbitrary.

Furthermore there are no proven or reliable technologies available to control CO during star tups and shutdowns. Oxidation catalysts have been used to control CO with very unfavorable results. According to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRJ), only one facility is operating a biomass boiler with an oxidation catalyst at about 80% CO oxidat ion efficiency (April 2008). The oxidation catalyst works efficiently only at an optimal temperature window; however, under startup conditions the lower temperatures encountered make the catalyst ineffective. Second, for catalysts built on a ceramic base, the temperature rise inherent in startup must be carefully controlled to prevent thermal cracking and subsequent catalyst failure. See submittal Attachment 2 for EPRI White Paper "Implications of EPA ‘s Proposed Industrial Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Rule/or Biomass Power Plants", page 7, Area Sources Boiler Rule, dated July 2010.

For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice standar d is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant CO startup data and the fact that CO emissions monitoring during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the avai lable CEMS data from the better performing biomass fired boilers in the Area Source database.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Lisa BealCommenter Affiliation: Interstate Natural Ga s Association of America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1919.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA should clarify that startup, shutdown and malfunction plans and associated reporting are not required. In Table 9 of the proposed rule, items 1(d) and 2 delineate requirements regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plans and reporting. However, EPA indicates it is changing SSM requirements in response to recent Court decisions, and multiple citations in Table 10 of the proposed rule indicate that SSM plans and associated reporting are not required. These two tables are contradictory. Items 1(d) and 2 from Table 9 should be deleted.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, sect ion 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA’s proposed rule requires that emission limits apply at all times, including times of Start

- up, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM). EPA needs to further develop the requirements for boilers during times of SSM. At major source and area source sites, it is well known that both CO and oxygen levels will be significantly higher during an initial period of start

- up. This is due to the boiler operating during this transition time between zero load and the desired operating load. Also, oxygen concentrations will vary during times of start

- up, making the correction to 3% oxygen a very significant one if a CEMS is used to demonstrate compliance. For example, during times of start

- up, the oxygen concen tration may be ~ 15%, so the correction to 3% oxygen would be 17.9/5.9 or approximately a factor of 3. Note that oxygen concentrations closer to 20.9% can result in very high correction factors. Even a small number of hours with high CO concentrations (corrected to 3% oxygen) would likely create a situation where the source would not meet a low CO concentration level over a daily average as required for existing oil units. Dow believes that all sources in the existing oil source category will experience the se difficulties during times of start

- up. Furthermore, EPA’s General Provisions require that performance testing be conducted during conditions other than a start

- up, shutdown, or malfunction (see Section 63.7(e)).

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affil iation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Boilers that combust liquid fuels

- These sources should be subject to management practices, as allowed under Section 112(d)(5) of th e Clean Air Act, during SSM periods that require the boiler and any air pollution equipment to achieve steady state operating conditions within 24 hours from the commencement of start

- up. In addition, since most boilers do not start

up more than 1 time per quarter, EPA could limit the use of management practices to 96 hours per year. Thus, similar to the recently promulgated Engine RICE MACT rule amendments, the boiler would not be subject to a numerical concentration

- based standard for the hours that it
ta kes to ramp up steam production and pressures. Dow believes that this approach would continue to minimize any HAP emissions from these sources without jeopardizing the ability of the source to meet a CO emission level over a daily average period.

Respon se: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: N/ A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment: [See Exhibit B of submittal for manuscript discussing why SSM events should not be exempt; “Gaming the System: How OFF

- the

- Books Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of Clean Air.”

Response: SSM events are not exempt from the rule. Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded du ring a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Comment: Boiler startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events also contrib ute to higher CO emissions. EPA did not adequately take these conditions into account when setting the limits.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Jef fery S. Hannapel Commenter Affiliation: National Association for Surface Finishing Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1840.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The proposed Boiler GACT does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdo wn for area source boilers. Without this provision, the final emissions limitations may not be achievable, even by well designed and operated boilers. EPA should, therefore, include a separate standard for startup and shutdown for area source boilers in th e final rule.

EPA explains in the preamble that, “Based upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutd own, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. This justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the proposed Boiler GACT rule is flawed for the foll owing reasons.

First, the continuous monitoring data that EPA presents in the major source Boiler MACT proposal is for units that will not be subject to the Boiler GACT and that are not the unit(s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the pro posed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determining the area source standards because these data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is not needed can only be based on data from the source(s) that are actually used by EPA to set the area source standards or on a showing that the data from some other boilers are representative of the performance of the area source b oilers used as the basis for the proposed area source standards.

Second, EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data from several of the better performing sources. These data show that daily average emissions shou ld be expected to vary. Undoubtedly, startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, EPA’s own data indicate that the Boiler GACT needs to include a specific accommodation for startups and shutdow ns.
Third, basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditionswill result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly different than perform ance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles is an arbitrary and capricious process for establishing applicable standards for area source boilers.

A separate standard for startup and shutdown is, therefore, needed and is sufficiently justified. A work practice standard would be more appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that emission testing during startup is not technically and e conomically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should then rely on the available long

term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 3 0

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative de fense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Joe Muehlbach Commenter Affiliation: Quad/Graphics Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1961.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: In previous MACT standards EPA provi ded companies with the flexibility to employ alternative compliance approaches that were shown to be protective of public health and approved by the U.S. EPA as well as flexibility during start

- up and shut down of the boilers when there can be compliance i ssues that are due simply to the action of turning on or shutting off the boiler. Removing this flexibility will only serve to catch an otherwise compliant boiler with relatively small exceedences that are only present due to the nature of the start

- up or shut

down and not indicative of how that boiler performs during hours of normal operation. The proposed rules do not provide this compliance flexibility which may needlessly increase the costs of compliance without achieving any measurable environmental p rotections.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Christian Richter and Jeff Hannapel Commenter Affiliation: American Foundry Society Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1857.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Comment: EPA should also provide a more thorough variability analysis and set a separate standard for periods of startup and shutdown.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: EPA has chosen to assume for the proposed rule that emissions during SSM events are either (a) already incorporated into the emission limits they proposed based on a view that at least some of the stack test data in the database adequately represent such periods, or (b) the averaging periods EPA proposes provide sufficient room to smooth out emission spikes during those events so that compliance can be planned and engineered.

Based on our e xperience with boiler emissions during SSM events, we believe EPA’s assumptions will prove inadequate in many cases, putting our sources at compliance risk for events that EPA failed to adequately consider in the MACT floors. We refer EPA to the very
exten sive technical discussions contained in the AWC and CIBO comments reaching the same conclusion. Those comments demonstrate how such events are not adequately included in the database nor are existing combustion units capable of meeting the emission limits. At some of our wood products mills their biomass boilers are operated on a four or five day schedule, so
start

- ups and shutdowns occur twice a week, making this a routine concern.

As a remedy, we encourage EPA to consider establishing work practices to address emissions during these SSM periods, but urge EPA while doing so to take care not to create redundant new regulatory burdens (i.e., either work in concert with or exempt from, the current Part 63 General Provisions that address the minimization of e missions consistent with safety and good combustion practices). We refer EPA to the NEDA and AWC comments for detailed discussion of the legal requirement for addressing SSM periods so that the standards established under CAA § 112(d) are "achievable." In the longer term EPA could collect the data to ensure that such events are truly represented in the database before establishing emission limits including SSM periods.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. A lso, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Robert L. Garfield Commenter Affiliation: Food Industry Environmental Council Docu ment Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1835.1Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Finally, EPA’s analysis failed to properly address the variability of the data, as well as emissions associated with startup, shutdown and malfunction. Thus, EPA’s propos ed limits do not appropriately address the variability in emissions of various HAPs.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an aff irmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: While the Maine DEP recognizes that the courts decreed that emission standards established under the Clean Air Act must apply at all times, EPA must still consider the practical limitations of implementing this directive. Reality shows that during periods of startup and shutdown, all types of boilers emit more pollutants than during steady state operations. This is particularly true for biomass boilers, where the fuel is introduced onto the combustion chamber more gradually during start up and ceas es combustion more gradually than liquid or gaseous fuels. Maine’s experience is that the amount of time to reach the desired steady state for minimizing emissions depends on a number of factors such as the design of the system, its size, and the type of f uel that is combusted. The Maine DEP also recognizes that insufficient data is currently available to establish alternative emission standards for start

- up and shutdown period. Therefore, we recommend that EPA require facilities to develop and implement pl ans to minimize the amount of time for startup and shut

- downs and to minimize the amount of pollutants emitted during these periods. Accompanying emission standards with long averaging periods will ensure that overall emissions from affected units are mini mized.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Provisions for start

- ups and shutdowns will need to be incorporated into the rule. Wood and multi

- fueled fired boilers produce large CO variations during startups as the boiler heats up. Start

- up can take up to 14 hours for som e units. Shutdowns can also result in significant CO variability.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: The Proposed Approach for Emissions from Landfill Gas Units During Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Periods Is Arbitrary, Capricious, Not Supported by the Record, and Not in Accordance with the S tatute. In § 63.7505(a) of the proposed Boiler MACT rule, sources would be subject to emission limits and operating limits at all times.[ See id. at 32,050.] This would mean that units using landfill gas would have to comply with the emission limits under any and all conditions. EPA’s proposed approach to addressing startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) periods for other gas units in the Boiler MACT is contrary to the statute’s requirement that the standards established under section 112(d) be “achievab le.”[ See CAA 112(d)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2).] Furthermore, EPA’s claims that the MACT standards reflect startup and shutdown periods are not supported by the record. To address the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA,[ 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265(2010).] which vacated the exemption in 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM periods, EPA proposes emissions standards in the MACT for boilers and process heaters that apply at all times, including periods of SSM. EPA clai ms in the preamble that startup and shutdown periods were taken into consideration when setting the MACT standards.[ See 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,012

- 13.] According to the preamble, CEM data from the best performing units, which include startup and shutdown peri ods, are used to set the floor levels in the proposed rule.[ See id. at 32,013] EPA further notes that startup and shutdown are part of “routine operations” and are therefore “already addressed” in the MACT standards.[ See id.] While the Auto Group
agrees with EPA that startup and shutdown are part of routine operations, these periods have not been adequately addressed by EPA’s proposed emission limits or analyzed properly when setting the floors. As discussed below, work practices should be established to accommodate startup and shutdown periods.

With regard to malfunctions, however, EPA states that these periods should not be viewed as a “distinct operating mode,” and thus, emissions from these periods do not need to be factored into developing the MACT floor levels.[ See id.] Moreover, EPA states that even if malfunctions were to be considered a distinct operating mode, it would be “impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for major source boilers and process heaters” given that these episodes are by definition sudden and unexpected events which vary in degree, frequency, and duration.[ See id.] The Auto Group agrees that it would be impracticable to establish emission limits for malfunctions as they vary in degree, frequency and duration. As discussed in detail below, work practices also should be established to accommodate malfunction periods.When setting standards in the early 1990’s under CAA section 112(d), EPA used its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program as a model. The section 112 standards were acknowledged by EPA to be “essentially equivalent to [section 111] performance standards” and that “unpredicted and reasonably unavoidable failures of air pollution control systems” would occur.[ See 58 Fed. Reg. 42,760, 42,777 (Aug. 11, 199 3).] To address this situation, EPA adopted a similar exemption to the one in the NSPS Program for SSM events and imposed a “general duty” to minimize emissions. Thus, EPA acknowledged, as early as 1993, that SSM events are not appropriate for inclusion in a MACT standard and that an alternative approach should be used to address these situations. While the D.C. Circuit has ruled that sources cannot be exempt from complying with MACT standards, the court noted that Congress recognized in some instances that it may not be feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard under section 112, and so section 112(h) “work practices” or “operational” standards are available in certain limited situations.[ See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d at 1028.]

The D.C. Ci rcuit also has recognized that standards based on what sources achieve must account for the limitations inherent in the technology used to reduce emissions. For example, in a case reviewing NSPS under section 111 of the CAA, Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckel shaus,[ 486 F.2d 375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973).] the court acknowledged that “’startup’ and ‘upset’ conditions due to plant or emission device malfunction, is an inescapable aspect of industrial life and that allowance must be made for such factors in the stan dards that are promulgated.”[ Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d at 399] Furthermore, in National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,[ 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980).] the court noted that. “a uniform standard must be capable of being met under most adverse cond itions which can reasonably be expected to recur.”[ National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d at 431 n.46.] The D.C. Circuit acknowledged this same principle almost 20 years later when reviewing emission standards for new sources in the medical waste incinerato r rule under section 129 in Sierra Club v. EPA.[ 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999).] In that case, while the court did not find the record sufficient to support EPA’s approach for new sources, the D.C. Circuit did not object to a standard

- setting approach whi ch would account for the performance of technology under the “worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances.” [Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d at 665.] Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit reiterated the principle in National Lime that “where a statute requires that a standard be ‘achievable,’ it must be achievable ‘under the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur.’[Id. at 665 (citing National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).]

EPA’s MACT floor

- setting approach in the proposed Boiler MACT ignores these longstanding principles and mischaracterizes the role startup and shutdown data play (or rather, does not play, as the case is here) in EPA’s floor

- setting process. As noted above, EPA claims that the agency consid ered startup and shutdown periods when setting the floors because CEMs data, relied on by EPA in “establishing the standards,” included data from those periods.[ See 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,012.] Despite this claim, however, EPA does not rely on the CEMs data w hen setting the floors for boilers and process heaters. To the contrary, as indicated by the ERG memorandum in the docket, EPA uses test run data collected through the ICR phase II testing process, which reflect normal (often steady state) operating condit ions, to set the proposed floors.[ See Memorandum from A. Singelton, ERG, to J. Eddinger, U.S. EPA, MACT Floor Analysis (2010) for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollu tants

– Major Source at 3 (April 2010).] Thus, according toEPA’s own docket materials, the data used to set the proposed floors fail to account for the dynamic conditions and variable emissions occurring during startup and shutdown episodes. Furthermore, as the ERG memorandum makes abundantly clear, EPA’s approach does not make use of the CEMs data (with the startup and shutdown information) in its variability analysis.[ Id.]

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Numb er 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Britt S. Fleming Commenter Affiliation: Auto Goup Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1916.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: In light of the absence of startup and shutdown emissions information from the test run data relied on by EPA to set the proposed standards and the difficulty of collecting data from such br ief operation periods, including data from CEMs, it is appropriate for EPA to set work practices for these events for boilers and process heaters. As discussed earlier, section 112(h) allows EPA to set work practice standards for situations where “it is no t feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . .”[ CAA § 112(h)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(1).] Gathering data from startup and shutdown periods would be challenging given the brief nature of these periods a s well as the need to define the exact time period for what is considered “startup” and/or “shutdown.” Moreover, the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” is defined in the CAA as any situation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”[ CAA § 112(h)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(2).]

Attempting to measure combustion emissions while the boiler (or process heater) is in a state of flux does not lead to reproducible or reliable data and is not economically feasible. Startup and shutdown episodes, therefore, fit with this definition and would justify the agency setting work practices to address emissions during these periods . Furthermore, a work practices approach for these periods would be in keeping with the statute’s requirement that MACT standards be “achievable” as well as with the requirement that a MACT standard apply at all times.

A work practices approach for these periods also would be consistent with EPA’s recently promulgated MACT standards for compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion engines (CI

- RICE).[ See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combusti on Engines, 75 Fed. Reg. 9648 (Mar. 3, 2010).] Based on comments received from stakeholders, EPA finalized work practice standards for startup because the agency determined that it was “not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would apply during startup because the application of measurement methodology to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.”[ Id. at 9656] According to EPA, applicable test methods that would be needed to measure during these eve nts“do not respond adequately to the relatively short term and highly variable exhaust gas characteristics occurring during these periods.”[ Id. at 9665.] Furthermore, EPA determined that the cost for testing all the engines affected by the rule to get th e necessary data could be more than $1 billion.[ See id.] Startup and shutdown periods for boilers encounter similar testing challenges and costs.

With respect to malfunctions, as noted earlier, EPA argues in the preamble to the proposed Boiler MACT that these periods should not be considered a “distinct operating mode” and uses this to justify not factoring these emissions into the proposed MACT standards. Considering that EPA’s proposed MACT standards are supposed to apply at all times, the implication is that periods of malfunction also are covered by the MACT standards that apply during normal operations. This directly conflicts with the statutory requirement that the MACT standard be “achievable.”

Given that the floor data does not consider malfunct ions and that the statute requires that the MACT standard be “achievable,” EPA should set work practice requirements to address periods of malfunctions as well. As noted above, section 112(h) allows EPA to set work practice standards for situations where “ it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . .” Similar to startup and shutdown, malfunctions fit with the situations described in the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emis sion standard” as any situation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Emission testing for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct give n the sporadic, short term, and unpredictable nature of the events. As noted earlier, EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the proposed Boiler MACT that it is “impracticable” to take periods of malfunctions into account when setting emissions standards give n the “myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category” and that “malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating” the standard setting process.[ 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013.] Section 112(h ) work practice standards, therefore, are well

- suited to address malfunction periods and the complexities and challenges surrounding collecting data and establishing numerical standards for those events.

For these reasons, the Auto Group recommends that for startup and shutdown periods, EPA consider a work practices requirement similar to the approach used in the CI

- RICE MACT noted above, that would limit these periods to three hours or require sources to comply with manufacturer specifications, if available. For startups, boilers and process heaters need to be brought up to normal firing rates slowly, and three hours, as a default, is a sufficient period of time to ensure that the unit reaches the optimal firing rate without damaging the unit. With regard to malfunction periods, the Auto Group suggests that EPA require owners and operators to minimize emissions during malfunctions to the greatest extent practicable and follow safe operation practices.

Re sponse: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.Commenter Nam e: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 73

Comment: With regard to malfunctions, EPA argues in the preamble to the Proposed Boiler MACT th at these periods should not be viewed as a “distinct operating mode,” and thus, emissions from these periods do not need to be factored into developing the MACT floor levels. See id. Moreover, EPA states that even if malfunctions were to be considered a di stinct operating mode, it would be “impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for major source boilers” given that these episodes are by definition sudden and unexpected events which vary in degree, frequency, and duration. Id. These circumstances apply to area sources as well.

Considering that EPA’s proposed standards are supposed to apply at all times, the implication is that periods of malfunction also are covered by the standards that apply during normal

o perations. This directly conflicts with the statutory requirement that the standard be “achievable.” EPA has failed to recognize that it is likely that even best performers will experience malfunctions. It is possible for pollution control equipment to fai l in various ways. Electrostatic fields trip, power failures do occur, fabric filters fail, scrubber pumps fail even at best performers and despite the best efforts of companies to prevent and minimize such events. Industry can and does work to minimize su ch periods, but they do occur. Further, manufacturers of such equipment routinely make emission guarantees for normal operations and although they sometimes oversize equipment to account for some of the variability described above, it is very doubtful that vendors would provide sufficient numerical guarantees for equipment under such situations.

Given that the floor data does not consider malfunctions and that the statute requires that the standard be “achievable,” EPA should set management or work practi ce requirements to address periods of malfunctions as well. As noted above, section 112(h) allows EPA to set management or work practice standards for situations where “it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emis sion standard . . . .” Similar to startup and shutdown, malfunctions fit with the situations described in the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” as any situation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Emission testing for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the events. As noted earlier, EPA acknowledg es in the preamble that it is “impracticable” to take periods of malfunctions into account when setting emissions standards given the “myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category” and that “malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating” the standard setting process.57 Section 112(h) management or work practice standards, therefore, are well

- suited to address malfunction periods and the complexities and challenges surrounding colle cting data and establishing numerical standards for those events.For these reasons, AF&PA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to revisit this issue. We suggest that EPA propose management or work practice standards that would allow sources a certain time period for start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events and as long as certain procedures are followed, then compliance would be met. Those management or work practice standards should require the development and implementation of an emissions minimizat ion plan that will result in (a) minimizing emissions during such events that would exceed otherwise applicable emission limitations, and (b) for malfunctions that will cause the unit to exceed otherwise applicable emission limitations, promptly identifyin g and implementing measures to remedy the malfunction. While there may be some instances where standard management or work practices can be identified for a type of source, we caution that overly prescriptive and non

- facility

specific requirements can actu ally be counterproductive, restricting the operators’ flexibility in a way that hampers their ability to troubleshoot or respond to an event, or that compromises safety. The plan itself should not be incorporated into the Title V permit. The plan should be an evolving document, and it would be very cumbersome to have to seek a modification of the Title V permit every time the plan changed. If the details of the emissions minimization plan had to be made part of the permit, facilities would tend to make the plans less specific and therefore probably less useful. For the same reason, these plans should be maintained at the facility rather than being required to be submitted to the permitting authority with the Title V application or otherwise.

Alternatively, EPA could establish a threshold of exceedances either a number or percentage of operating times that could occur during a quarterly or six month period before a violation occurs. This methodology is consistent with other standards such as 40 CFR 63 Subpar t S and MM.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1941.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Provisions for start

- ups and shutdowns will need to be incorporated into the rule. Wood and multi

- fueled fired boilers produce large CO variations during startups as the boiler heats up. Start

- up can take up to 14 hours for some units. Shutdowns can also result in significant CO variability.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Mary GrahamCommenter Affiliation: Charles Metro Chamber of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1953.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be unachievable even by well designed and operated boilers. As a result, E PA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not b e optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

— even on a daily average basis

— that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Robert Klemans Commenter Affiliation: Florida Ele ctric Power Coordinating Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1955.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA Should Not Treat HAP Emissions During Startup and Shutdown the Same as HAP Emissions During Normal Operation. The IB ICR did not req uire any testing during start

up, shutdown and malfunction events. Without emissions data during these periods, EPA has no factual basis for concluding that the best performing units can achieve the proposed MACT limits during start

- up, shutdown and malfun ction events. Operations during boiler start

- ups are different than normal plant operations. Certain plant components must be started in a specific sequence in order to ensure that steady state operations can be achieved. During start

- up, not all pieces of control equipment will be operating at peak efficiency. The FCG urges EPA to exempt these events based on the lack of data availability and its unrestricted operational control. In addition, FCG believes that startup, shutdown and malfunction events shoul d be excluded from all emission averaging requirements in the IB MACT proposal. These events were not included in the ICR data gathering used to develop the emission standards, thus many of the proposed standards will be impossible to meet if these periods are included in the averaging periods.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is ex ceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Mark DenzlerCommenter Affiliation: Illinois Manufacturers' Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2004 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Requirements Are Unrealistic. The EPA proposal specifies that its emission limits apply during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In support of this proposal, EPA states that startup and shutdown emissions ar e equivalent to normal operation emissions based on continuous emission monitoring data obtained from best performing units that included periods of startup and shutdown. However, the test data does not show a sufficiently representative sampling of startu p, shutdown, and malfunction conditions that represent their duration and variety of characteristics. By considering these periods to be part of “routine operations” EPA ignored the circumstances that justify the establishment of work practices or alternat ive emission limits that would apply in such situations.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emiss ion limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA makes a similar mistake with regard to its proposal not to set a separate standard for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On the one hand, EPA asserts that “[t]he standards we are proposing are daily or monthly averages ... [t]hus, we are not establishing separate emission standards for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of their routine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards.” On the other hand, EPA uses short term performance test results to set the standards rather than the results of lon g

- term CEMS monitoring. As a result, the emissions data on which the standards are based do not, in fact, reflect or adequately accommodate emissions from periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: John C. deRuyter Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Do cument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1964.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9Comment: EPA has proposed that their averaging time basis for compliance with the emissions limits would be adequate to cover startup and shutdown periods, and malfunctions are simply not addressed in that they should not occur. DuPont believes this approach is un workable and fails to recognize the realities of operating the many types of boilers currently in operation. As a base issue, EPA has not utilized long term emissions data such as CO CEMS data to adjust emissions test data to be representative of actual op erating data over time. Additionally, while a couple of the 30 day CEMS test units included startups and shutdowns within the period, that was not done for all units, and there was no long term CEMS data for oil fired boilers.

It is not feasible to condu ct emissions testing during SSM periods due to the variable nature of those conditions. It is not feasible to conduct emissions testing during malfunctions since by definition there are operational problems that could indeed be safety issues during those p eriods. Therefore, trying to incorporate SSM periods into an emission limit that must be met at all time is fraught with problems. We are concerned that if such limits were set, operators could be placed in an untenable position of trying to operate equipm ent and not exceed emissions limits, and be tempted to take shortcuts that could place equipment and personnel at risk relative to equipment integrity and safety. However, the approach in this rule of limiting CO limit applicability to 50% operating rate o r greater avoids much of the SS issues for CO, but those issues still exist for the other MACT limits.

Therefore, we urge EPA to utilize its discretion to allow facilities to establish site and unit

specific startup and shutdown plans as a work practice approach during SS periods so that appropriate practices are followed with minimization of emissions during those periods to the extent practical. Malfunctions should also be managed similarly with a malfunction plan, so that operators are knowledgeable an d trained to recognize potential malfunctions and to take appropriate actions which allow for safety as of utmost importance with protection of equipment integrity.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also , section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Bob Perry Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The MACT floor analysis does not account for effects of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) on CO emissions for new or existing units. This is critical for units that are required to demonstrate co ntinuous compliance with the CO limit using a CO CEMS since Part 63 no longer includes exemptions for SSM periods. Unfortunately, EPA has not presented sufficient data for those units in the MACT floor pool to address load

- related variability. EPA will ne ed to obtain additional data (e.g. CO CEMS data) inorder to conduct this analysis. In obtaining this data, RMB recommends that EPA include periods of startup/shutdown (particularly cold

- start) that are representative of each boiler class.

Response: Ple ase see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Start up, shut down, and malfunction rules: The previous boiler MACT proposal and the prior solid waste incinerator rules contained exceptions for otherwise applicable emissions limits during “periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. [Footnote: 75 F ed. Reg. at 32,035.] In accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA (2008), [Footnote: 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265 (2010).] the current proposed rules do not contain any such exemptions, and the pro posed standards would apply to regulated sources at all times. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,012.]

In addition to the legal reasons contained in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, this change is also justified on policy grounds. As the proposed rule notes, startup and shutdown are entirely predictable events and can be included in the general emissions standar d by EPA. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013.] By contrast, malfunction events should be entirely unpredictable and, as the preamble for the Major Source Proposal notes, the best performing sources should not be malfunctioning at all. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg . at 32,013.]

Response: We agree that standard should apply at all times. Please see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Robert E. McKenna Commenter Affiliation: Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1920.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Finally, EPA’s analysis failed to properly address the variability of the data, as well as emissions associated with startup, shutdown and malfunction. Thus, EPA’s proposed limits do not appropriately address the variability in emissions of various HAPs.Respon se: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Dav id Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: If an unrepresentative steady state emission limit and/or compliance averaging time is implemented (e.g.. 1 or 2 pp mvdc CO using a daily average of CEMS data) with this regulation both of which obviously were not developed to take into consideration startup/shutdown/load changing/non

- routine operations, we request an alternative compliance method during startup/shutdow n/load changing/non

- routine operating times for units that are required to install CEMS.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: For units that will be required to install CO CEMS we request the option to use the facility CO CEMS data to develop site specific startup/shutdown/load changing/non

- routine operating times emission limits based upon historical CEMS data. This way required CEMS data could be put to good use to develop limits that would apply to a given facility. Data during startup/shutdown/load changing/non

- routine operating times wou ld be evaluated separately from steady state operations. The limits developed by a facility would be maintained in the facility’s monitoring plan and would be available to EPA upon request. Although this recommendation would require additional work from fa cilities it would allow facilities that could not satisfy the steady state emissions limit during startup/shutdown/load changing/non

- routine operating times to evaluate these transient operating conditions separately. This data analysis process would also better serve the concept of emission limits applying during all operating time frames. If this alternative method would be adopted by a facility the data analysis option of including only data greater than 50% of its rated load would not be necessary consi dering startup/shutdown/load changing/non

- routine operating times would be evaluated separately. We recommend EPA review the following reference regarding the application of the upper prediction bound when developing emission limits during startup and shut down operating times. We are available to discuss this reference further, if requested.Suess, D.T., Suess, E.A., Gregory, S.R. Development of startup and shutdown permit limits based upon historical data from combustion sources monitored by continuous e mission monitoring systems, Extended Abstract AWMA, 2009

- A597

- AWMA

Response: First, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Second, the requirement for certain area source boilers to install and operate CO CEMS has be en removed from the final rule. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hamp shire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA should use portable analyzers to evaluate SSM emissions at smaller boilers in the ICR that do not have CEMs concurrentl y during future compliance testing. This should give EPA sufficient information within five years from promulgation of the regulation to develop appropriate limits and averaging times for SSM emissions.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 06

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be not achievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule. EPA explains in the preamble that, “Based upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and pro cess heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justifica tion for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule. The continuous monitoring data that EPA presents in the major source industrial boiler MACT proposal is for units that will not be subject to the Area Source Rule and that are not the unit (s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the proposed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determining the area source standards becausethese data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is not needed can only be based on data from the source(s) that are actually used by EPA to set the area source standards or on a showing that the data from some other boiler s are representative of the performance of the area source boilers used as the basis for the proposed area source standards.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system (“CEMS”) data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be expected to vary cons iderably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747. 1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the sta rtup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed standards arbitrary. We believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. RMA suggest that a work practice standard is most appropriate due to the l ack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the available long term data from the better performing a rea source boilers to establish a standardwith a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: Another complication of establishing a CO emission limitation in PPM, corrected to O2, is that it is not practical to use this type of emission limit during startup and shutdown events. This problem would not be detectable for a source that does periodic stack testing at normal load. However, for sources such as ours that are required by permit to oper ate continuous emission monitors at all times that we are combusting any fuel, this problem is very obvious. All of our air permits were long ago revised to remove corrected PPM limits for all pollutants with CEMs during startup and shutdown. (Limits in th e form of lb/MMBtu share the same problem.)

There are mathematical problems in using concentration levels corrected to an O2 level under startup conditions. Elevated O2 levels seen during startup result in highly inflated PPM values (we refer to this as “data blowup”) that cannot be compensated for in a longer averaging time. For example, in the first hour of startup when the O2 levels are very close to ambient levels, the O2 correction calculations provided for in Method 19 of 40 CFR 60 Appendix B yield invalid number. If the O2 monitor reads 20.9% (common for the first hour in startup), the emissions in corrected PPM is equal to infinity. If the O2 monitor reads 21% at the beginning of a startup (possible, given the accuracy of the instrument), the corre cted PPM value will be a very large negative number. It is not uncommon to see corrected PPM in the tens of thousands in the first couple hours of startup. This happens despite the fact that actual emissions (raw PPM) values are quite low.

Excessively hi gh PPM corrected values will continue for several hours in a cold startup, and it can take up to 12 hours for our sources to approach an O2 level of 7%. The same mathematical problem occurs in a shutdown, although for a shorter amount of time. No averaging time will compensate for the invalid values seen when using a concentration corrected to a given % O2 during startup. We have corrected our operating permits in all cases to eliminate the use of a PPM corrected value (or a lb/MMBtu value, which in Method 19 carries the same mathematical problem see equations 19

- 1 to 19

- 3) during startup or shutdown conditions. We instead rely on mass emission rate values, which is practical on a unit

- by

- unit basis considering actual size. See data in Attachment D which use s an arbitrary raw CO concentration value of 20 PPM and calculates the corrected PPM value at various O2 levels. The same problem occurs during shutdown, only the timeframe is shorter.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Ex cerpt Number 1.Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: US EPA requests comment on whether additional provisions should be added to

r egulatory text in light of the absence of an SSM exemption. Ameren believes that US EPA errs by not including an exemption for Startups, Shutdowns and other transient events such as malfunctions which are inherently uncontrolled or difficult to control. US EPA has not even attempted to show that given the add

- on controls and fuel mixes required for compliance with this standard sources will be able to achieve the vary stringent limitations. US EPA merely states that boilers do not normally startup and shutd own more than once per day and therefore are part of their routine operations and are already addressed by the standards.

This premise is flawed. The standards proposed are not based on any startup or shutdown operations. None of the stack test data coll ected during the ICR includes any startup or shutdown periods and therefore the MACT standards do not reflect the emission limitation achievable by the best performing 12 % of sources during these periods. US EPA can not definitively state that based on t he record, the standards reflect emission rates that are achievable during startups, shutdowns, malfunctions or other transient events by the best performing 12 % of sources. Because US EPA cannot definitively state that, US EPA needs to revise the standar ds to reflect levels achievable during these periods by either collecting additional data or by exemption. US EPA also apparently maintains that because boilers “normally” do not startup and shutdown daily so it isn’t important for the standards to reflec t SSM periods. Whether or not boilers startup and shutdown daily, however, is irrelevant to the standards setting process. US EPA professes that these periods are “routine operations” and if this is the case, the standards should reflect emission rates tha t the best performing boilers are able to achieve during these “routine operations”. US EPA states it believes boilers can meet these standards during startup and shutdown periods, but provides no data which supports that argument. US EPA needs to provide actual data to support its claims that the best performing sources have achieved these standards in practice during startups, shutdown and/or malfunction periods.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Thompa s P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: The proposed rule does not provide exemptions from emissions limits during periods of star tup, shutdown, malfunction, and other non

- routine operational scenarios. The intentions of the limits represent mainly steady state operations for boilers since an oil

- fired boiler frequently operating in a non

- steady state manner (i.e. startup/shutdown/lo ad change...) could not satisfy a daily average emissions limit at the proposed levels (i.e. 1 ppmvdc for new boilers and 2ppmvdc for existing boilers). This approach raises questions/challenges for our members with respect to “averaging” emissions and req uirements for installation of Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) equipment.

While the proposed rule requirements for CEMS compliance data does not take into consideration emissions data taken at less than 50 percent of a boilers rated capaci ty (i.e. startup/shutdown data), some startup, shutdown, malfunction and other non

- routine operational data would still be included. For boilers that regularly startup or shutdown or operate in a manner that requires regular load changes, the proposed limi ts may be unattainable on a daily average. Considering 40 CFR 60 Subpart Db, which also applies to boilers >100mmbtu/hr, utilizes 30

- day CEMS averages for NOx compliance for residual oil firing boilers and that the CO proposed limits in this proposed rule are extremely low, it seems as if a 30

- day averaging time frame would be more appropriate than daily averaging time frames to allow for units to better average transient operating events over a longer portion of time. Recommendation: We suggest a 30

- day a verage time frame excluding startup, shutdown, malfunction, and other non

- routine operational scenarios. If 30

- day averages are adopted by EPA, we would suggest adopting the data reduction requirements found in 40 CFR 60 Subpart Db.

If daily averages a re deemed necessary by EPA, we request a discussion regarding the health benefits to justify daily averages in lieu of 30

- day average compliance time frames. After revisiting the limit magnitudes and CEMS installation requirements as described in greater d etail below, we suggest that the daily average calculation require at least 18 operating hours (i.e. 75% of hours per day) to calculate a daily average to avoid calculating averages that may consist of mainly startup, shutdown, malfunction or other non

- rou tine operational scenario data. For reference, the most recent version of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Continuous Source Monitoring Manual Revision Number 8 requires 18 valid hours to calculate a daily average.

Response: Ple ase see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Caroline Choi Commenter Affiliation: Progress Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2226.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: EPA Should Not Treat HAP Emissions During Startup and Shutdown the Same as HAP Emissions During Normal Operation The IB i nformation collection request (ICR) did not require any testing during start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events. Without emissions data during these periods, EPA has no factual basis for concluding that the best performing units can achieve the proposed M ACT limits during
start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events. Operations during boiler start

- ups are different than normal plant operations. Certain plant components must be started in a specific sequence in order to ensure that steady state operations can be achieved. During start

- up, not all pieces of control equipment will be operating at peak efficiency. Progress Energy believes that work practice standards are far more appropriate during periods of start

- up, shutdown and malfunction.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2260.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed NESHAP does not have an exemption for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM), and Table 6 removes the requirements for an SSM plan and the requirements to maintain and operate the facility according to that plan. Compliance with the 2 ppm carbon monoxide emissions limit for existing liquid fueled boilers will be difficult for some boilers if the startup emissions must be included in the daily average emissions value. For example, one NACWA member has boilers with a design that req uires the use of diesel fuel during startup. The startup sequence typically takes about six hours for a cold start, to control thermal expansion of the boiler. While carbon monoxide emissions are well below the 2 ppm limit during normal operation on digest er gas, oil, or mixed fuel, inclusion of boiler startups will cause the carbon monoxide emissions to exceed the 2 ppm limit. The boilers employ low NO), burners and flue gas recirculation, and the operation has been evaluated and optimized by combustion ex perts to ensure efficient combustion. The rule should address a source specific exemption for situations in which emissions have been minimized to the extent possible to avoid noncompliance due to startups.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: William Rogers Commenter Affiliation: DTE Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2159.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: Operations during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction are different those of steady state operation. Yet, EPA did not require any testing during these periods of upset conditions. EPA suggests that startup and shutdown periods have been taken into account "in establishing the standards in this rule", but there is no demonstration that the best performing units can achieve the proposed MACT limits during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. EPA must obtain emission data during these periods and utilize this data while setting MACT emission limits.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Cont rol Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: An affected source required to use a continuous emission monitor (CEM) that fails to comply with an emission limit should be considered a violation even during startup and shutdown events. Continuous emission monitoring data obtained from best performing units, and used in establishing the standards, include periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA did not establish separate emission standards for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of routine operations and are being addressed by the propo sed standards. There should not be discretion for what constitutes a violation when an affected source required to have a CEM fails to meet the specified emission limit.

Response: First, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Nu mber 1. Second, the provision requiring CO CEMS has been removed from the final rule. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commente r Name: Terry Walmsley Commenter Affiliation: Fibrowatt LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2201.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: While Fibrowatt has concerns about uniform treatment of biomass fuels, the categorization of boiler types u nder the Major Source Boiler Rule, the methodology utilized to arrive at emission limits under the Major Source Boiler Rule and the Area Source Boiler Rule, and the means prescribed for demonstrating compliance with said emissions limits, the primary

conce rn of Fibrowatt relates to the Major Source Boiler Rule and the Area Source Boiler Rule’s intention to apply the proposed emission limits during "startup, shutdown, and malfunction."As stated in the Major Source Boiler Rule at 32050 and the Area Source B oiler Rule at 31926, a source must meet emission standards at all times during the operation of the plant, therefore this presumably would uniformly include during periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction ("SSM") . While EPA suggests that a uniform em ission limit can encompass normal SSM, Fibrowatt believes that continuous compliance can be adversely impacted by a truncated daily averaging period. Fibrowatt further believes that this requirement can have practical problems associated with normal transi tions through periods of SSM and supports an approach that would stipulate an alternative but enforceable limit during periods of startup and shutdown as opposed to a single uniform limit. Fibrowatt further requests that EPA provides more definitive guidel ines on how periods of malfunction will be appropriately addressed in the rules and address emission limit applicability during such unpredictable occurrences. As an example, under normal and predictable startup operations, a requirement to continuously

m eet uniform emission limits may be difficult for certain types of biomass fuels as the unit progresses through the normal transition from startup fuel to biomass fuel. Although Fibrowatt utilizes a low emission startup fuel (expected to be propane) and it is reasonable to maintain emission standards while on startup fuel, the switch from propane to certain biomass fuels in a spreader=stoke boiler can typically result in a significant variation in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions that can adversely effect the CO average (especially during truncated daily operations) and therefore compliance demonstration. Including such startup period in the normal compliance determination for CO may not be achievable under all conditions and all biomass fuels where the normall y startup period can run for a long period of time, for example during a "cold=start ." Furthermore, the Major Source Boiler Rule at 32013 and the Area Source Boiler Rule at 31901 suggest that emissions during malfunction events would represent an alterna tive operating mode but does not resolve how this alternative operating mode would be adequately dealt with in the proposed rule. While the supporting language in the Major Source Boiler Rule at 32013 and the Area Source Boiler Rule at 31902 suggest that E PA will determine an appropriate response to the malfunction event, this is not adequately addressed in the proposed Major Source Boiler Rule and the Area Source Boiler Rule as it relates to limit applicability "at all times." Fibrowatt requests that EPA better=defines its "appropriate response" to malfunction events so regulated parties under the Major Source Boiler Rule and the Area Source Boiler Rule can properly evaluate measures required during such malfunction events. Fibrowatt further requests an ad ditional comment period be given for regulated parties to assess what EPA establishes as good operating practices during malfunction events and associated consequences to EPA’s "appropriate response" to such events.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Thomas D. Emero Commenter Affilia tion: Beaver Wood Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2166.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Comment: BWE also takes exception with the proposed rule allowing no exemptions of the emission limits during start up, shutdown, or malfunctions. BWE will strive to operate in full compliance with all emission limits at all times, but as stated earlier the use of biomass fuel in northern climates presents operating challenges that may result in occasional CO spikes due to frozen or wet fuel being introd uced to the boiler, BWE believes allowances for unavoidable malfunctions and during startup/shutdown periods must be included in the proposed regulation.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Paul L yskava Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2223.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Furthermore, If EPA adopts numeric emissions limitations, the final rule must include a separate standard for periods of startup and shutdown.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. .

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2140.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The MACT floor analysis does not account for effects of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) on CO emissions for new or existing units. This is critical for units that are required to demo nstrate continuous compliance with the CO limit using a CO CEMS since Part 63 no longer includes exemptions for SSM periods. Unfortunately, EPA has not presented sufficient data for those units in the MACT floor pool to address load

- related variability. E PA will need to obtain additional data (e.g. CO CEMS data) in order to conduct this analysis. In obtaining this data, RMB recommends that EPA include periods of startup/shutdown (particularly cold

- start) that are representative of each boiler class.

Res ponse: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name : Keith M. KromCommenter Affiliation: AT&T, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA should define standards for start

- up, shutdown, and malfunction Citing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [Footnote: Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)], EPA has determined that affected sources will not be exempted from the standards proposed during periods of time involving start

- ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions ("SSM"). Instead, EPA indicates that its proposed standards would apply at all times. EPA’s stated rationale is that because the standards apply on a daily or monthly basis, this amount of averaging tim e means that the “achievability of the standard[s]”with regard to startups and shutdowns is not affected. With respect to malfunctions, EPA simply indicates that such should not be viewed as a distinct operating period and that "[i]n the event that a sourc e fails to comply with the applicable section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, EPA would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction perio ds, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions." If EPA believes that judicial decisions constrain its ability to exempt sources from SSM periods, it should otherwise establish r elevant requirements for such periods. Where the Agency is setting an achievable standard with reference to the "best performing 12 percent of the existing sources," the Agency should develop the technical basis for any decisions it makes that are applicab le to SSM periods. The Agency should not rely on a standard that is derived from normal operations of a source to define the performance required during inevitable SSM periods. In the context of this proposed rule, AT&T is not aware of any specific analysi s within the record of this rulemaking that separately established the technical basis for the standards EPA seeks to apply during SSM periods. Instead, it appears that the Agency assumed that start

- up and shutdown periods were achievable based simply on t he averaging period of the proposed standard. With regard to malfunctions, EPA clearly made no effort to assess achievability of the standards it is proposing during such periods. Instead, EPA proposes that AT&T and other entities subject to this rulemaki ng should be placed a position where the Agency will decide on a future, undefined "appropriate" response. In effect, the Agency is indicating that it will decide the appropriate standard to apply for malfunctions outside the context of this rulemaking. Th is is clearly unacceptable to sources seeking to ensure their compliance with promulgated regulations. In effect, EPA is making it impossible to comply during a malfunction period where, by definition, a source is addressing "sudden and unexpected events."

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Comment er Name: Abbie Krebsbach Commenter Affiliation: Montana Dakota Utilities Co Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1975.1Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Another concern of Montana

- Dakota’s is that the rule does not provide a startup, shutdown, malfunction (SSM) exemption, and based on review of data from its applicable unit(s) that the numeric emissions limitations on particulate matter (PM), opacity, mercury and carbon monoxide (CO) will be unachievable, even with the proposed pollution control s required. The EPA must carefully reconsider how periods of SSM should be addressed, especially when requiring very stringent emission limits as proposed in the rule. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods when boiler operations are not as efficient as during full load operations. If SSM periods are not addressed appropriately, unachievable standards will result for not only older boilers, but for newer boilers as well. As a result, EPA must either i nclude a separate standard for SSM conditions, or provide a longer averaging period, such as a semiannual or annual rolling average for all proposed MACT standards.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Als o, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2198.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The MACT floor analysis does not account for effects of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) on CO emissions for new or existing units. This is critical for units that are required to demonstrate continuous compliance with the CO limit using a CO CEMS since Part 63 no longer includes exemptions for SSM periods.

Unfortunately, EPA has not presented sufficient data for those units in the MACT floor pool to address load

- related variability. EPA will need to obtain additional data (e.g. CO CEMS data) in order to conduct this analysis. In obtaining this data, RMB reco mmends that EPA include periods of startup/shutdown (particularly cold

- start) that are representative of each boiler class.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to th e final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Robert W. Glowinski Commenter Affiliation: American Wood Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1930.1Comme nt Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: In addition, provisions for start

- ups and shutdowns will need to be incorporated into the rule. Wood and multi

- fueled fired boilers produce large CO variations during startups as the boiler heats up. Start

- up can take up to 1 4 hours for some units. Shutdowns can also result in significant CO variability.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. .

Commenter Name: Duane Mummert Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Chamber of Comm erce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2247 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the fi nal standards to be not achievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule. Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standar d for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significan t period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

— even on a daily average basis

— that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747 .1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Chris V. Isaacson Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2060 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: If EPA adopts numeric emissions limitations, the final rule must include a separate standard for periods of startup and shutdown.

The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be not achievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

EPA explains in the preamble that, "Base d upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heaterrulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards." 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule.

First, the continuous monitoring data that EPA present s in the major source industrial boiler MACT proposal is for units that will not be subject to the Area Source Rule and that are not the unit(s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the proposed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determining the area source standards because these data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is not needed can only be based o n data from the source(s) that are actually used by EPA to set the area source standards or on a showing that the data from some other boilers are representative of the performance of the area source boilers used as the basis for the proposed area source s tandards.

Second, EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system ("CEMS") data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be ex pected to vary considerably on a day

to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doub t that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns.

Third, basic scientific and engineering princ iples support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped u p over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

— even on a daily average basis

— that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to ack nowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed standards arbitrary.

For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice standard is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the available long term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0 790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Richard Rosvold Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Services, IncDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2259.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The EPA intends the listed limits to apply at all ti me periods, including during startup and shutdown. Their justification for this is that the limits are considered daily or monthly averages, and thus any spikes experienced during startup and shutdown would be smoothed out in the averaging. This is explain ed on page 31901 in the preamble to the rule, but not in the regulation itself. At a minimum, Table 1 of the regulation should be edited to indicate the appropriate averaging time for each pollutant. However, we question the validity of establishing limits during startup and shutdown in this manner. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions spike during periods of startup and shutdown, often to levels that are orders of magnitude greater than the average values achieved during normal operations. The magnitude of these spikes is so severe in comparison with the limit, that we doubt any existing units would be able to meet a limit of 2 ppm. And while it is true, as EPA states on page 31901 of the preamble, that solid fuel boilers do not normally start up and shut down mo re than once per day, liquid fuels boilers have that capability. Imposition of such severe limits would eliminate that operating scenario. Also, there are many units that are primarily run to test the unit’s operating capabilities. These units are run for only a short time at high loads in a given operating run. The high concentrations during startup and shutdown severely skew the average concentrations. This also creates issues with compliance demonstration, as for many units, compliance is demonstrated wi th the average of three 1

- hour long stack tests using EPA Method 10 conducted at maximum operating load. This testing method was not developed with startup and shutdown operations in mind.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Lewis F. Gossett Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2196.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Com ment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be not achievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a re sult, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions wil l not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.Commenter Name: John Donahue Commenter Affiliation: Sappi Fine Paper North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2210.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not correc ted, will cause the final standards to be not achievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule. EPA explains in the preamble that, “Based upon continuous em ission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule. The continuous monitoring data that EPA presents in the major source indust rial boiler MACT proposal is for units that will not be subject to the Area Source Rule and that are not the unit(s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the proposed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determining the area source standards because these data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is not needed can only be based on data from the source(s) th at are actually used by EPA to set the area source standards or on a showing that the data from some other boilers are representative of the performance of the area source boilers used as the basis for the proposed area source standards.

Response: Pleas e see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Cleaves Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Power Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1992.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: A significant problem, as will be noted by others, is that the emission standards make no accommodation for startup and/or shutdown.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: John T. Heard C ommenter Affiliation: Virginia Coal Association, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2155.1Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA makes a similar mistake with regard to its proposal not to set a separate standard for periods of startup, shu tdown, and malfunction. On the one hand, EPA asserts that "[t]he standards we are proposing are daily or monthly averages „. [t]hus, we are not establishing separate emission standards for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of their routin e operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards." (see submittal for footnote 6) On the other hand, EPA uses short term performance test results to set the standards rather than the results of longterm CEMS monitoring. As a result, the emissions data on which the standards are based do not, in fact, reflect or adequately accommodate emissions from periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, sec tion 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: John Donahue Commenter Affiliation: Sappi Fine Paper North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2210.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system (“CEMS”) data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be expected to vary cons iderably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns. Also, basic scientific and engineering principles support the nee d for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup pe riod. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed standards arbitrary. For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice standard is most appropriate d ue to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the available long term data from the better p erforming area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Nu mber 1.

Commenter Name: John Hopewell Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: EPA requests comment on whether there are any provisions that were inadv ertently incorporated or overlooked in the proposal in light of the absence of an SSM exemption. EPA addressed the Startup and Shutdown periods by establishing daily or monthly average limits.

- However, there is no provision to address Malfunctions. EPA’s proposed standards will apply at all times, including during Malfunctions.

EPA acknowledges the occurrence of legitimate malfunctions and the varied nature of malfunctions that can occur. However, the agency proposes to address Malfunctions by conductin g case

- by

- case evaluations to determine if “among other thi ngs, the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify e xcess emissions. EPA would also consider whether the source’ s failure to comply with the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ‘sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable’ and was not instead ‘caused in part by poor maintenance or careless peratio n.’” This approach is unacceptable to the regulated community.

EPA has identified a legitimate problem with its rulemaking but has abdicated its responsibility to address that problem by passing it to the Office of Enforcement, state and local enforcemen t agencies, and non

- government organizations. Each of these entities will have different interpretations of “malfunction” and when they are acceptable and unacceptable. This means that the standard to which industry must comply is ambiguous. EPA should cor rect this problem in the rule.

For these reasons, the ACA believes that it is appropriate for EPA to revisit this issue. ACA suggests that EPA propose work practice standards that would allow sources a certain time period for start

- up, shutdown and malfu nction events and as long as certain procedures are followed, then compliance would be met. EPA could establish a threshold of exceedances that could occur during a quarterly or six month period before a violation occurs. This methodology is consistent wit h the MACT standard such as 40 CFR 63 Subpart MM which are well

- suited to address malfunction periods and the complexities and challenges surrounding collecting data and establishing numerical standards for those events.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.Commenter Name: Wayne J. Galler Commenter A ffiliation: Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1997.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. GIEC believes that this approach will cause the final standards to be unachievable by even well designed and operated boilers. Therefore, GIEC recommends a separa te standard for startup, shutdown, and malfunction in the final rule.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defe nse if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Sheila C. Holman Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2222.1 Comment Excerpt Number : 9

Comment: [See submittal for Attachment A, Topic 2, which discusses SSM provisions.]

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert a n affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Jay C. Moon Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2000 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment : EPA’s analysis failed to properly address the variability of the data, as well as emissions associated with startup, shutdown and malfunction.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Wayne J. GallerCommenter Affiliation: Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1997.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system ("CEMS") data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, thes e data show that daily average emissions should be expected to vary considerably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the infor mation provided in the database, startups and shutdowns can contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data suggest that EPA should accommodate startups and shutdowns.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Ted Michaels Commenter Affiliation: Energy Recovery Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1951.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Citing a 2008 court decision (Sierra Club v. EPA) related to General Provisions under 40 CFR Part 63, EPA has proposed that Boiler MACT emission standards apply at all times, including during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). EPA acknowl edges that the Court’s decision did not specifically address category

- specific SSM provisions. We believe that EPA is over

- stepping its authority to void longstanding category

- specific SSM provisions.

Aside from this legal deficiency, EPA’s proposed floo r setting methodology fails to adequately consider biomass unit emissions that occur during SSM periods. In its proposal EPA uses short term performance test results to set the floors for CO. EPA inappropriately concludes that the CO standard reflects star tup and shutdown periods citing CO CEM data from two major source biomass boilers which are not area source boilers, claiming “over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards.” (75 FR 31901). The inapp licability of the major source CO data invalidates EPA’s conclusion for CO. In addition, EPA offers no SSM data for PM or opacity, two other pollutants with proposed standards under the Area Source Boiler Rule. As a result, EPA’s standards do not, in fact, reflect or adequately accommodate SSM emissions at area source boilers.

Emissions can be significantly higher during SSM due to the unavoidable less

- thanoptimal emissions control performance during transitional (non

- steady state) conditions. For example , at biomass

- to

- energy facilities combustion

- related emissions such as CO, particulate (smoke) and opacity increase during the startup period when load and temperature are coming up to full load steady

- state conditions. The Maine Department of Environmenta l Protection has stated “Wood and multi

- fueled boilers produce large CO variations during startups as the boiler heats up. Start

ups can take up to 14 hours for some units. Shutdowns can also result in significant COvariability.” [Letter James P. Brooks, Bureau Director, State of Maine Bureau of Air Quality to James Eddinger, USEPA, February 4, 2010. ] [See submittal for letter.] Startup burners reduce emissions by preheating the combustion chamber and downstream equipment but are not sized to achieve full load temperatures and even if they were could not completely avoid temporary sub

optimal combustion conditions as heat load shifts from auxiliary fuel to waste during startup and from waste to auxiliary fuel during shutdown. Air pollution control equipmen t goes through similar transient temperature and flow conditions. These conditions are distinct from the variable conditions that occur during normal operation. EPA’s emission database excludes SSM periods and therefore does not capture this component of v ariability, leading to MACT floors that have not been achieved in practice.

Consider for example Covanta Energy Corporation’s biomass

- to

- energy facility in Delano, California. The Delano plant combusts biomass in two bubbling fluidized bed combustors eac h equipped with natural gas fired auxiliary burners for startup and shutdown. The following table compares CO emissions observed during startup and shutdown periods with those during normal operations for the most recent four calendar quarters. Hourly aver ages from each unit were collected from the certified CEM system. Startup consisted of 2 hours worth of data before boilers were online and shutdown consisted of 2 hours of data after the boilers were offline. Normal emissions constitute the remaining hour s. As can be seen both the average CO emissions and the standard deviation are far greater during startup and shutdown indicating a variability that EPA’s floor methodology does not consider. [See submittal for table.]

EPA should set standards which cons ider SSM emissions. ERC suggests that work practice standards are most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable.

Response: Please see response to DCN E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Martin T. Booher Commenter Affiliation: Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1974.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: EPA stated that its use of emissions averages should address any need for start

- up and shut

- down emissions. 75 Fed.Reg. 31.901 . EPA’s averages were based on emissions from major source boilers. Given the wide variance in emissions between biomass

- fired boilers, especially with respect to area source boilers, which tend to have different operating parameters than major source boil ers, EPA’s use of averages may not adequately address this issue. Given this variability in facility use among industries, and the widely ranging emissions that can result, EPA also should consider setting specific start

- up and shutdown limits that would g ive biomass

fired area source boilers additional flexibility to meet regulatory requirements.Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Wayne J. Galler Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1997.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Combustion conditions wil l not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions can result in emissions performance

- even on a daily average basis

- that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations.

For these reasons, GIEC believes that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed. GIEC suggests that a work practice standard is most appro priate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, GIEC urges the Agency to rely on the available long term data fr om the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 174 7.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Ted Michaels Commenter Affiliation: Energy Recovery Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1951.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed there are a few options. First, EPA could set standards applicable at all times which reflect the emissions variability inclusive of SSM. Second, EPA could set distinct standards which would apply only duri ng SSM periods. Both these options are problematic

- since its area source boiler emission database does not contain SSM data EPA would need to gather additional test data for the various categories and units. There are also difficulties trying to set conc entration

- based standards corrected to a standard diluent concentration (e.g., ppmdv @ 3% O2) for startup and shutdown periods. Emission concentrations soar artificially due to the exponentially increasing correction factor as the stack oxygen concentratio n approaches ambient levels and CO 2 concentrations approach zero. At low unit loads at the beginning of startup or at the end of shutdown corrected emission concentrations could be very high giving the appearance of significant emissions when the actual

ma ss emissions (pounds per hour) are small due to the low stack volumetric flow rates. If EPAdecides to set concentration standards for SSM periods it should recognize the diluents caps of 14 percent for oxygen or 5 percent for carbon dioxide in emission ca lculations as is currently done in the Large MWC MACT rule (40 CFR 60.58b (b)(8)).

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affi rmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Ted Michaels Commenter Affiliation: Energy Recovery Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1951.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: ERC supports a t hird option for numeric Area Source Boiler SSM standards which solves both the data availability and concentration

- based standards problems. This approach would require that each State address SSM emission standards in its State Implementation Plans (SIP). The SIP would specify a procedure which would be used to set mass emission standards for CO and PM (e.g., pounds per startup period) and % for opacity for each subcategory and unit

case

- by

- case based on emissions reductions achieved using accepted startup , shutdown and malfunction related procedures. For example, for a unit using auxiliary burners for startup, the startup CO limit would be set considering the limitations of a properly operated burner and boiler design during the defined startup period. SSM emissions would be minimized by the same emission reduction technologies that would enable units to comply with Area Source boiler standards and would thus represent a small component of a unit’s annual emissions. The case

- by

case SSM emission limits woul d be written into facility permits and become federally enforceable mass emission standards. The unit’s continuous emission rate monitoring system (CERMS) would measure and report mass emissions during SSM periods.

Response: Please see response to DCN E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Aff iliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Start up, shut down, and malfunction rules: The previous boiler MACT proposal and the prior solid waste incinerator rules contained exceptions for otherwise applicable emissions limits during “periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,035.] In accordance with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA (20 08), [Footnote: 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265 (2010).] the current proposed rules donot contain any such exemptions, and the proposed standards would apply to regulated sources at all times. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32 ,012.]

In addition to the legal reasons contained in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, this change is also justified on policy grounds. As the proposed rule notes, startup and shutdown are entirely predictable events and can be included in the general emission s standard by EPA. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013.] By contrast, malfunction events should be entirely unpredictable and, as the preamble for the Major Source Proposal notes, the best performing sources should not be malfunctioning at all. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013.]

Response: First, the standards in the final rule do apply at all times. Second, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an e mission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: The IB ICR did not require any testing during start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events. Without emissions data during these periods, EPA has absolutely no factual basis for concluding that the best performing units can achieve the proposed MACT limits du ring start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,012

- 13. Operations during boiler start

ups are different than normal plant operations. Certain plant components must be started in a specific sequence in order to ensure that steady sta te operations can be achieved. During start

- up not all pieces of control equipment will be operating at peak efficiency. Furthermore, manual compliance monitoring methods may not provide accurate measurements during start

- up conditions. Work practices stan dards are far more appropriate during periods of start

- up, shutdown and malfunction.

If EPA insists on setting emission limits for these periods of operation then the Agency must obtain emission data during these periods of operation and properly analyze those data in order to set MACT emission limits.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission li mit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Compliance with the proposed CO limits is p roblematic particularly during unit startups. As discussed in section I.H. above, there is no factual support for EPA’s conclusion that the CO standard is “achievable” during plant startup. No CO emissions testing was conducted during plant startup of biom ass units. Startup of a biomass can take up to a day. During startup, work practice standards are more appropriate than CO emission limits.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Kevin M. Dempsey Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2061 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: If EPA Adopts Numeric Emissions Limitations, the Final Rule Must Include a Separate Standard for Periods of Startup and Shutdown

The Proposed Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be unachievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

EPA explains in the preamble that, “Based upon continuo us emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affec t the achievability of the standards.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule.

EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring sys tem (CEMS) data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be expected to vary considerably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the propos ed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performanc e of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns.

Basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutdown. Particularly for CO emiss ions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly differentthan performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed standards arbitrary

. For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice standard is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the agency should rely on the available long term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: The Proposed Rule does not include a separate standard for start

- up and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not correcte d, will cause the final standards to be unachievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule. EPA explains in the preamble that, “Based upon continuous emissi on monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the ach ievability of the standards.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including start

- up and shutdown standards in the rule. The continuous monitoring data that EPA presents in the major source industria l boiler MACT proposal is for units that will not be subject to the Proposed Rule and that are not the unit(s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the proposed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determ ining the area source standards because these data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for start

- up and shutdown is not needed can only be based on data from the source(s) that ar e actually used by EPA to set the area source standards or on a showing that the data from some other boilers are representative of the performance of the area source boilers used as the basis for the proposed area source standards.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals InstituteDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be expected to va ry considerably on a day

- to

- day basis and that the variability spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that start ups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variable emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for start

- ups and shutdowns.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 07 90

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Bruce A. Steiner Commenter Affiliation: American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2007 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: Basic scientific and engineering pri nciples support the need for a separate standard for start

- up and shutdown. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during start

- up periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramp ed up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

– even on a daily average basis

– that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders the proposed standards arbitrary.

For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for start

- up and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice sta ndard is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact that an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the agency should rely on the available long term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a standard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40Comment: EPA’s Approach To Addressing SSM Violates The Clean Air Act. EPA’s approach to addressing startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) periods in the proposed rule is contrary to the statute’s requirement that the standards established under 112(d)(2) be “ach ievable.” Furthermore, EPA’s claims that the standards reflect startup and shutdown periods are not supported by the record.

To address the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265 (2010), which v acated the exemption in 40 C.F.R. 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM periods, EPA proposes “daily or monthly averages” standards in this area source rule that apply at all times, including periods of SSM. EPA claims in the preamble that startup and shutdown per iods were taken into consideration when setting these standards based on CEMS data obtained from major sources pursuant to the proposed MACT standards. 75 Fed. Reg. 31901

- 02. According to the preamble, continuous emissions monitoring data from the best
per forming units, which include startup and shutdown periods, are used to set the floor levels in the proposed rule. See id. EPA further notes that startup and shutdown are part of “routine operations” and are therefore “already addressed” in the MACT standa rds. See id. With regard to malfunctions, however, EPA states that these periods should not be viewed as a “distinct operating mode,” and thus, emissions from these periods do not need to be factored into developing the MACT floor levels. See id. Moreover , EPA states that even if malfunctions were to be considered a distinct operating mode, it would be “impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for area source boilers” given that these episodes are by definitio n sudden and unexpected events which vary in degree, frequency, and duration. Id.

When setting 112(d) standards in the early 1990s, EPA used its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program as a model. The 112 standards were acknowledged by EPA to be “essentially equivalent to [section 111] performance standards” and that “unpredicted and reasonably unavoidable failures of air pollution control systems” would occur. 58 Fed. Reg. 42760, 42777 (Aug. 11, 1993). To address this situation, EPA adopted a sim ilar exemption to the one in the NSPS Program for SSM events and imposed a “general duty” to minimize emissions. Thus, EPA acknowledged, as early as 1993, that SSM events are not appropriate for inclusion in a 112 standard and that an alternative approach should be used to address these situations. While the D.C. Circuit has ruled that sources cannot be exempt from complying with MACT standards, the court noted that Congress recognized in some instances that it may not be feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard under 112, and so 112(h) “work practices” or “operational” standards are available in certain limited situations. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d at 1028.

The D.C. Circuit also has recognized that standards based on what sources achi eve must account for the limitations inherent in the technology used to reduce emissions. For example, in a case reviewing 111 NSPS, Portland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the court acknowledged that “ ‘startup’ and ‘upse t’ conditions due to plant or emission device malfunction, is an inescapable aspect of industrial life and that allowance must be made for such factors in the standards that are promulgated.” Id. at 399. Furthermore, in National Lime Ass’n v EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the court noted that “a uniform standard must be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can reasonably be expected to recur.”Id. at 431 n.46. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged this same principle almost 20 years later w hen reviewing emission standards for new sources in the medical waste incinerator rule under 129 in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that case, while the court did not find the record sufficient to support EPA’s approach for new source s, the D.C. Circuit did not object to a standard

- setting approach which would account for the performance of technology under the “worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances.” See id. at 665. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit reiterated the principle in Nation al Lime that “where a statute requires that a standard be ‘achievable,’ it must be achievable ‘under the most adverse circumstances which can reasonably be expected to recur.’” Id. at 665 (citing National Lime Ass’n v EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). EPA’s MACT floor

- setting approach ignores these longstanding principles and mischaracterizes the role startup and shutdown data plays (or rather, does not play, as the case is here) in EPA’s floor

- setting process. As noted above, EPA claims that the agency considered startup and shutdown periods when setting the floors because CEMS data, relied on by EPA in “establishing the standards,” included data from those periods. This representation is a serious misstatement of the Agency’s record. As discu ssed in the following subsection, EPA does not rely on the CEMS data when setting the floors for boilers. Thus, according to EPA’s own docket materials,[See e.g., Memorandum from A. Singelton, ERG, to J. Eddinger, U.S. EPA, MACT Floor Analysis (2010) for t he Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– Major Source at 3 (April 2010).] the data used to set the proposed floors fail to account for the dynamic conditions and var iable emissions occurring during startup and shutdown episodes. Furthermore, as the ERG memorandum makes abundantly clear, EPA’s approach does not make use of the CEMS data (with the startup and shutdown information) in its variability analysis where it wo uld be the most helpful in reflecting real world fluctuations in emissions. Id.

Given the absence of startup and shutdown emissions information from the test run data relied on by EPA to set the proposed standards and the difficulty of collecting data fr om such brief operation periods, it is appropriate for EPA to set work practices or management practices for these events for area source boilers.

Section 112(h)(1) of the CAA allows EPA to set work practice standards for situations where “it is not feas ible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . .” Gathering data from startup and shutdown periods would be challenging given the brief nature of these periods as well as the need to define the exact time perio d for what is considered “startup” and/or “shutdown.” Gathering data during a malfunction event would be even more challenging. Moreover, the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” is defined in 112(h)(2) as any situation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Startup, shutdown and malfunction episodes fit with this definition and would justify the agency setting work practices to address emissions during these periods. Alternatively, when establishing emission standards for area sources EPA has the authority to establish “management practices” in lieu of MACT or GACT. Section 112(d)(5) states in pertinent part: “With respect only to ... area sources ... the Administrator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) of this section, elect to promulgate standards or requirements... which provide for the use of [GACT] or management p ractices to reduce emissions of [HAP.]” EPA should use this statutory authority to require management practices to reduce HAP emissions during periods of SSM at area sources.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Num ber 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 41

Comment: UARG also is very concerned about the potential for enforcement of operating parameter and opacity limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and in the event of equ ipment malfunction. When EPA finalized its rule in 2004 with enforceable operating parameters, it did so with a rule that also made clear that those limits did not apply during periods of “startup, shutdown, and malfunction.” 40 C.F.R. 63.7505(a), 69 Fed. Reg. at 55,254. EPA’s current proposal contains no such exception, but instead would allow enforcement of deviations from operating parameters during periods of startup and shutdown, when controls would not be expected to be operating at the same levels as during performance tests, and due solely to equipment malfunctions. In the preamble, EPA discusses its approach to these events. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,013. Regarding startup and shutdown, EPA asserts that it has taken these periods into account by using CEMS data from best performing units that include periods of startup and shutdown, and by proposing use of “daily or monthly averages.” Regarding malfunctions, EPA asserts that it would use a variety of information to determine an appropriate response to

excee dances caused by equipment malfunction. Id.

EPA’s preamble assertions regarding startup and shutdown are inapplicable to control device operating parameter limits, which are based on 12

- hour averages (not daily or monthly averages) established during per formance test (not based on CEMS data that include startup and shutdown). Even a daily block average, as proposed for opacity, does not provide sufficient protection if the unit does not startup or shutdown at exactly midnight, since there might not be suf ficient data under normal operating conditions to compensate for the startup or shutdown period. In short, EPA has made absolutely no allowance in its rules for periods of startup and shutdown. To the contrary, EPA has proposed to require sources to establ ish control device operating parameter levels that are dependent upon load during periods of “maximum normal operating load,” and then maintain those levels during periods other than maximum normal operating load, including startup and shutdown. EPA’s prop osal is patently unreasonable. EPA must address these periods in some other manner, for example by establishing simple work practice standards in lieu of operating parameters.EPA’s promise to address periods of equipment malfunction by considering other information before enforcing exceedances of operating limits also provide little comfort, especially given the risk of citizen suits. Although UARG appreciates EPA’s proposal to make clear that “deviations” of operating limits are not necessarily violatio ns, nothing in EPA’s proposal would prevent EPA, a state, or a plaintiff in a citizen suit from simply determining in their “discretion” that any particular exceedance constitutes a violation. Proposed 63.7575. MACT standards are technology

- based standards and must recognize that even the best performing technology occasionally fails.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirm ative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42

Comment: It is very commo n in industry for certain control devices to be out of operation during periods of start

- up due to the nature of the equipment. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) must typically warm

- up to be effective. It is also necessary to establish proper O2 levels in the flue gas prior to ESP energization to prevent ignition of flammable mixtures in the ESP due to sparking. This practice is necessary to ensure that boilers are started up in a safe manner. Premature starting of this equipment will lead to short term st ability problems that could result in unsafe actions and longer term degradation of ESP performance due to fouling, increased chances of wire damage or increased corrosion within the chambers. Vendors providing this equipment make it part of the standard o perating procedures.

During periods of startup, combustion starts and as fuel is introduced the boiler and ESP warm up on a designated curve that could last for between 5 and 8 hours. As the boiler and control device heats up, additional fuel is added un til the ESP meets its design temperature, the O2 level is correct, and normal fuel firing then is resumed. During such periods it is likely that emissions will exceed the standards proposed and would never be able to recover to meet the average opacity lim itations.

Given the limited carbon monoxide data and total absence of startup and shutdown emissions information for other pollutants from the test run data relied on by EPA to set the proposed standards and the infeasibility, if not impossibility, of co llecting data from such brief operation periods for other pollutants, it is appropriate for EPA to set work or management practices for these events for boilers.

Furthermore, a work or management practices approach for these periods would be in keeping

w ith the statute’s requirement that standards be “achievable” as well as with the court’s requirement that a standard apply at all times.A work or management practices approach for these periods also would be consistent with EPA’s recently promulgated st andards for compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion engines (CI

- RICE). See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 9648 (Mar. 3, 2010). Based on comment s received from stakeholders, EPA finalized work practice standards for startup because the agency determined that it was “not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would apply during startup because the application of measurement methodol ogy to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Id. at 9656. According to EPA, applicable test methods that would be needed to measure during these events “do not respond adequately to the relatively short term and highly variable exhaust gas characteristics occurring during these periods.” Id. at 9665. Furthermore, EPA determined that the cost for testing all the engines affected by the rule to get the necessary data could be more than $1 billion. See id. SSM period s for area source boilers encounter similar testing challenges and costs.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Alici a Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: In addition, during Start

- up, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) periods, boilers and process heaters ope rate under conditions that are likely to generate unavoidable increases in CO emissions. These conditions are driven by safety considerations (e.g., ensuring sufficient air flow to avoid explosive fuel

- rich scenarios), operational concerns (e.g., gradually warming up the equipment in order to prevent thermal damage), and warranty requirements (e.g., equipment vendors require gradual warm

- up as a warranty condition). Thus, setting the proposed inappropriately low CO emissions limit will encourage quick start

- up and shutdown of equipment in order avoid exceedances of limit. EPA should not promulgate a rule that promotes such unsafe and improper operation of boilers and process heaters.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerp t Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufactur ers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment: EPA’s approach to addressing startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) periods in the Proposed Boiler MACT is contrary to the statute’s requirement that the standa rds established under section 112(d) be “achievable.” See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(2). Furthermore, EPA’s claims that the MACT standards reflect startup and shutdown periods are not supported by the record.

To address the decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F .3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2265(2010), which vacated the exemption in 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1) for SSM periods, EPA proposes emissions standards in the MACT for industrial boilers and process heaters that apply at all times, including periods of SSM. EPA claims in the preamble that startup and shutdown periods were taken into consideration when setting the MACT standards. See Proposed Boiler MACT Rule at 32,012

- 13. According to the preamble, continuous emissions monito ring data from the best performing units, which include startup and shutdown periods, are used to set the floor levels in the proposed rule. See id. at 32,013. EPA further notes that startup and shutdown are part of “routine operations” and are therefore

“ already addressed” in the MACT standards. See id.

With regard to malfunctions, however, EPA states that these periods should not be viewed as a “distinct operating mode,” and thus, emissions from these periods do not need to be factored into developing t he MACT floor levels. See id. Moreover, EPA states that even if malfunctions were to be considered a distinct operating mode, it would be “impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for major source boilers and process heaters” given that these episodes are by definition sudden and unexpected events which vary in degree, frequency, and duration. Id.

When setting standards in the early 1990’s under CAA 112(d), EPA used its New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) program as a model. The section 112 standards were acknowledged by EPA to be “essentially equivalent to [section 111] performance standards” and that “unpredicted and reasonably unavoidable failures of air pollution control systems” would occur. 58 Fed. R eg. 42,760, 42,777 (Aug. 11, 1993). To address this situation, EPA adopted a similar exemption to the one in the NSPS Program for SSM events and imposed a “general duty” to minimize emissions. Thus, EPA acknowledged, as early as 1993, that SSM events are n ot appropriate for inclusion in a MACT standard and that an alternative approach should be used to address these situations. While the D.C. Circuit has ruled that sources cannot be exempt from complying with MACT standards, the court noted that Congress re cognized in some instances that it may not be feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard under section 112, and so section 112(h) “work practices” or “operational” standards are available in certain limited situations. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 55 1 F.3d at 1028.

The D.C. Circuit also has recognized that standards based on what sources achieve must account for the limitations inherent in the technology used to reduce emissions. For example, in a case reviewing NSPS under section 111 of the CAA, Po rtland Cement Ass’n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the court acknowledged that “‘startup’ and ‘upset’ conditions due to plant or emission device malfunction, is an inescapable aspect of industrial life and that allowance must be made f or such factors in the standards that are promulgated.” Id. at 399.Furthermore, in National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the court noted that “a uniform standard must be capable of being met under most adverse conditions which can

rea sonably be expected to recur.” Id. at 431 n.46. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged this same principle almost 20 years later when reviewing emission standards for new sources in the medical waste incinerator rule under section 129 in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3 d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that case, while the court did not find the record sufficient to support EPA’s approach for new sources, the D.C. Circuit did not object to a standard

- setting approach which would account for the performance of technology under t he “worst reasonably foreseeable circumstances.” See id. at 665. Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit reiterated the principle in National Lime that “where a statute requires that a standard be ‘achievable,’ it must be achievable ‘under the most adverse circumsta nces which can reasonably be expected to recur.’” Id. at 665 (citing National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 431 n.46 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment: EPA’s MACT floor

- setting approach in the Proposed Boiler MACT ignores these longstanding principles and mischaracterizes the role startup and shutdown data plays (or rather, does not play, as the case is here) in EPA’s floor

- setting process. As noted above, EPA claims that the agency considered startup and shutdown periods when setting the floors becaus e CEMS data, relied on by EPA in “establishing the standards,” included data from those periods. See Proposed Boiler MACT Rule at 32,012. This representation is a serious misstatement of the Agency’s record. EPA does not rely on the CEMs data when setting the floors for boilers and process heaters. To the contrary, as indicated by the ERG memorandum in the docket, EPA uses test run data collected through the ICR phase II testing process, which reflect normal (often steady state) operating conditions, to set the proposed floors. See Memorandum from A. Singelton, ERG, to J. Eddinger, U.S. EPA, MACT Floor Analysis (2010) for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– Major Source at 3 (April 2010). Thus, according to EPA’s own docket materials, the data used to set the proposed floors fail to account for the dynamic conditions and variable emissions occurring during startup and shutdown episodes. Furthermore, as the ERG mem orandum makes abundantly clear, EPA’s approach does not make use of the CEMs data (with the startup and shutdown information) in its variability analysis where it would be the most helpful in reflecting real world fluctuations in emissions. Id.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: Given the absence of startup and shutdown emissions information from the test run data relied on by EPA to set the proposed standards and the difficulty of collecting data from such brief operation periods, it is appropriate for EPA to set work practices for these events for boilers and process heaters. As noted earlier, section 112(h) allows EPA to set work practice standards for situations where “it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standar d . . . .” CAA 112(h)(1); 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(1). Gathering data from startup and shutdown periods would be challenging given the brief nature of these periods as well as the need to define the exact time period for what is considered “startup” and/or “shutd own.” Moreover, the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” is defined in the CAA as any situation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” CAA 112(h)(2); 42 U.S.C. 7412(h)(2). Startup and shutdown episodes fit with this definition and would justify the agency setting work practices to address emissions during these periods. Furthermore, a work practices approach for these periods would be in keeping with the statute’s requirement that MACT standards be “achievable” as well as with the requirement that a MACT standard apply at all times.

A work practices approach for these periods also would be consistent with EPA’s recently promulgated MACT standards for compression ignition reciprocating internal combustion engines (CI

- RICE). See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 9648 (Ma r. 3, 2010). Based on comments received from stakeholders, EPA finalized work practice standards for startup because the agency determined that it was “not feasible to finalize numerical emission standards that would apply during startup because the applic ation of measurement methodology to this operation is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Id. at 9656. According to EPA, applicable test methods that would be needed to measure during these events “do not respond adequately to t he relatively short term and highly variable exhaust gas characteristics occurring during these periods.” Id. at 9665. Furthermore, EPA determined that the cost for testing all the engines affected by the rule to get the necessary data could be more than $ 1 billion. See id. Startup and shutdown periods for boilers present similar levels of testing challenges and costs.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 58Comment: With respect to malfunctions, EPA argues in the preamble to the Proposed Boiler MACT that these periods should not be considered a “distinct operating mode” and uses this to justify not factoring these emissions into the proposed MACT standards. Considering that EPA’s proposed MACT standards are supposed to apply at all times, the implication is that periods of malfunc tion also are covered by the MACT standards that apply during normal operations. This directly conflicts with the statutory requirement that the MACT standard be “achievable.”

Given that the floor data does not consider malfunctions and that the statute requires that the MACT standard be “achievable,” EPA should set work practice requirements to address periods of malfunctions as well. As noted above, section 112(h) allows EPA to set work practice standards for situations where “it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard . . . .” Similar to startup and shutdown, malfunctions fit with the situations described in the definition of “not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard” as any situ ation where “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.” Emission testing for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct given the sporadic and unpredi ctable nature of the events. As noted earlier, EPA acknowledges in the preamble to the Proposed Boiler Rule that it is “impracticable” to take periods of malfunctions into account when setting emissions standards given the “myriad different types of malfun ctions that can occur across all sources in the category” and that “malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating” the standard setting process. Proposed Boiler MACT Rule at 32,013. Section 112(h) work practice standards, t herefore, are well

- suited to address malfunction periods and the complexities and challenges surrounding collecting data and establishing numerical standards for those events.

Response: Section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may as sert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment : EPA’s underlying database contains no data for start

- up, shutdown or malfunction
events

— yet these periods of operation are not excluded from compliance obligations. This is yet another example of how the Agency has failed to show that the proposed emis sion limits are achievable. Another critical issue with respect to the achievability of the proposed emission limits is the absence of an exemption for start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events. Clearly, the data upon which EPA characterized the best perfo rming similar source and the best performing 12 percent of existing sources contain no start

- up, shutdown or malfunction events. EPA has absolutely no technical basis to claim the proposed emission limits are achievable

-- as is required by law.12 If EPA i nsists on not exempting start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events, the Agency must deal with emissions that occur during such events.The simplest approach is to suggest that EPA obtain data representative of start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events, in clude such data in a proper analysis and choose a numerical emission limits that can be achieved in practice. However, the data collection approach may not be realistic in every case. For example, manual test methods, such as EPA Method 5 for PM, are desig ned to be used under steady state conditions. Trying to conduct a Method 5 test during a boiler start

- up may neither be practical nor accurate. Likewise, PM CEMS may not be the answer because a PM CEMS must be correlated with manual test data to be accurat e. Thus, in cases where data collection during start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events is not feasible, EPA should set work practice standards. However, EPA cannot simply ignore emission variability during start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events and pr etend that the emission limits are achievable without addressing this fundamental issue.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1. Also, section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 33

Comment: If CO CEMS are required in the final rule, ACC supports the proposed CO CEMS data averaging approach in 40 CFR 63.11223(e)(6) wherein data must not be used during periods of monitoring malfunction, associated repairs, out

- of

- control periods, required QA o r control activities, or when the boiler is operating at less than 50% of rated capacity. As indicated above, operation at less than 50% load results in inherently increased CO emissions. When fuel input is low, as during periods of startup and shutdown, o xygen levels are higher, making the corrected pollutant concentrations much higher. EPA has recognized boiler, or burner, turndown ratio as a factor affecting performance in several contexts. See, EPA, Final Technical Support Document for HWC MACT Standard s, Vol. IV, p. 3.6 (July 1999); EPA Region 6 Center for Combustion Science and Engineering, Hazardous Waste Combustion Unit Permitting Manual, Component 1 How to Review a Test Burn Plan, p. D

- 5.5 (Tetra Tech Jan. 1998). This approach of excluding CO CEMS d ata below 50% of rated capacity should also be included in the major source Boiler/Process Heater MACT rule, Subpart DDDDD, and it is curious why this is not the case. In fact, the 2004 Boiler rule recognized that CO emissions could be higher at low loads by not requiring CO CEMS data obtained at less than 50 percent of maximum load be included in the 30

- day CO average.

Response: The requirement for CO CEMS has been removed from the final rule.

Commenter Name: Jim GriffinCommenter Affiliation: Americ an Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 43

Comment: Even Top Performers Malfunction. With regard to malfunctions, EPA states in the preamble to this proposed rule that these periods should not be v iewed as a “distinct operating mode,” and thus, emissions from these periods do not need to be factored into developing the MACT floor levels. See id. Moreover, EPA states that even if malfunctions were to be considered a distinct operating mode, it would be

“impracticable to take malfunctions into account in setting CAA section 112(d) standards for major source boilers and process heaters” given that these episodes are by definition sudden and unexpected events which vary in degree, frequency, and durati on. Id.

Considering that EPA’s proposed MACT standards are supposed to apply at all times, the implication is that periods of malfunction also are covered by the standards that apply during normal operations. This directly conflicts with the statutory re quirement that the standard be “achievable.” EPA has failed to recognize that even best performers will experience malfunctions. It is possible for pollution control equipment to fail in various ways. Electrostatic fields trip, power failures do occur, fab ric filters fail, scrubber pumps fail even at best performers and despite the best efforts of companies to prevent and minimize such events. Industry can and does work to minimize such periods, but they do occur. Further, manufacturers of such equipment ro utinely make emission guarantees for normal operations and although they sometimes oversize equipment to account for some of the variability described above, it is very doubtful that vendors would provide sufficient numerical guarantees for equipment under such situations.

Given that the floor data does not consider malfunctions and that the statute requires that the standards be “achievable,” EPA should establish separate work or management practice requirements using its authority under either 112(h) or 112(d)(5) to address periods of malfunctions.

Emission testing for malfunctions would be near impossible to conduct given the sporadic and unpredictable nature of the events, in addition to the fact that many combustion related malfunctions impose safet y risks to onsite personnel and equipment, and potentially off

- site. As noted earlier, EPA acknowledges in the preamble that it is “impracticable” to take periods of malfunctions into account when setting emissions standards given the “myriad different typ es of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category” and that “malfunctions can vary in frequency, degree, and duration, further complicating” the standard setting process.[ 75 Fed. Reg. 31902] Section 112(h) work practices or 112(d)(5) ma nagement practices are well

- suited to address malfunction periods given the complexities and challenges surrounding collecting data during these potentially dangerous episodes and establishing numerical standards for those
events.

For all of the above re asons, ACC believes that EPA must revisit the SSM issue. ACC suggests that EPA propose work/management practice standards that would allow sources a certain timeperiod for start

- up, shutdown and malfunction events and as long as certain procedures are fol lowed, then compliance would be met. Those work/management practice standards should require the development and implementation of an emissions minimization plan that will result in (a) minimizing emissions during such events that would exceed otherwise ap plicable emission limitations, and (b) for malfunctions that will cause the unit to exceed otherwise applicable emission limitations, promptly identifying and implementing measures to remedy the malfunction. While there may be some instances where standard work practices can be identified for a type of source, ACC cautions that overly prescriptive and non

- facility

- specific requirements can actually be counterproductive, restricting the operators’ flexibility in a way that hampers their ability to troublesho ot or respond appropriately to an event, or that compromises safety. The plan should be an evolving document, and should be maintained at the facility and, upon request, be available for review by EPA or the State regulatory authority.

Alternatively, EPA could establish a threshold of exceedances, either a number or percentage of operating times that could occur during a quarterly or six month period before a violation occurs. This methodology is consistent with other MACT standards such as 40 CFR 63 Subp art S and MM.

Response: Section 63.11226 has been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.



### Other

- SSM

Commenter Name: Norman Bujold Commenter Affiliation: Cleaver Brooks Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0392.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: START UP, SHUT DOWN AND MALFUNCTION (SSM) ALL AREA CLASSIFICATIONS Depending on the boiler size, FGR usage, steam pressure and temperature, the start up conditions will change. The following is a non exhaustive list of parameters that will affect the start up period: During cold start, the furnace temperature is low which will result in higher CO emission. High pressure boilers take longer to come up to temperature. Super heated steam applications take longer to reach their normal operating conditions. Low NOx high FGR applications have very low air velocities at the burner during cold start. This is because the FGR cannot be introduced to the burner before it reaches a certain temperature therefore reducing the volumetric flow of the air at the burner by a significant amount, again resulting in higher CO emissions. Combustion air temperature in temperate climate and for applications using steam air heaters.Including startup periods in the average emission calculations could lead to out of compliance results. For example, if we look at a typical IWT low NOx gas burner application with a 24 hour average. The guaranteed emissions are <30ppmv NOx and < 25ppv CO. With the burner mounted on a super heated steam IWT boiler that take five hours to get on line and 4 hours to reach its minimum burner operating conditions. The calculated average CO emissions on a 24 hr period including the cold start would b e:
200ppm x 2hr/24hr + 100ppm x 2hr/24hr + 15 ppm X 18hr/24hr = 36.25 ppm

We can see that the 24 hours average does not meet the 25ppm limit even if its normal operating CO emission is 15ppm.

The same reasoning will apply to PM emission.

We think that the SSM must be considered in the emission calculations. Their impact will be different depending on the application thus a general rule would be hard to come up with. We have included below some typical boiler and burner warm up numbers (act ual numbers depend on application):

Typical boiler warmup time 1

- 2 hours for FT boilers. 3

- 4 hours IWT 150psig 4

- 5 hours super heated IWT packaged boiler 5 hours and more, super heated field erected boilers

Burner typical cold start CO emissions G as: 100 ppmv to 300 ppmv Oil: 50 ppmv to 250 ppmv .

Response: In the final rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and has not established differen t standards for those periods. The standards that we are promulgating are based on short term stack tests for pollutants that generally are not expected to vary significantly at startup and shutdown. For CO, which in some cases varies at startup and shutdown, the operating limits will ensure that combustion conditions are optimized and CO emissions are minimized. Boilers, especially coal

- fired boilers, do not normally startup and shutdown more the once per day. Thus, w e are not establishing a separate emission standard for these periods because startup and shutdown are part of their r outine operations and, therefore, are already addressed by the standards. Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operation. We have evaluated whether it is appropriate to have the same st andards apply during startup and shutdown as applied to normal operations, and as the rule is structured, well operated and controlled units should be able to meet the standards at all times. In the final rule, the requirement for CO CEMS has been removed, the actual emission measurements for compliance are required to be performed at maximum load, and continuouscompliance for all pollutants is demonstrated through the various parameter monitoring that is required by the rules. Also, section 63.11226 ha s been added to the final on how a source may assert an affirmative defense if an emission limit is exceeded during a malfunction.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenter s Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: I also want to underscore the importance of eliminating the malfunction exemptions. On the other rules, the exemption allows chemical plants, refineries and other maj or facilities to violate their emissions standards over and over and over again without any accountability.

And as you know, I have personally fought a very long battle with the Agency on the startup/shutdown of malfunction provisions. These provisions a t large sources of combustion like refineries, chemical manufacturing facilities, power plants, cement kilns can double or triple emissions.

And it’s very difficult with these startup/shutdown and malfunction get out of jail free cards for local citizen groups to have any kind of enforcement hook to reduce those emissions. It makes a mockery of the toxic release inventory. It makes a mockery of the permits to allow these start

- up and shutdown malfunction exemptions.

And so I actually copied pretty good case law from the D.C. Circuit on this and we want to make sure that these startup/shutdown malfunction provisions are closed.

Response: The standards contained in the final rule apply at all times. Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0392.1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of comme nters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 94

Comment: Especially important to us is EPA’s decision to eliminate the outrageous malfunction exemption. In other words, the exemptions of our chemical plants, refineries, and other major polluters to violate the emission standards and blanket our communities in toxic pollution over and over again without any accountability. Closing that loophole means that these facilities will have to run their boilers and process heaters responsibly. We know that powerful industry lobbyists are lining up to oppose this rule. They want loopholes and exemptions. They want the rules weakened and delayed, but these rules will prevent 4,800 unnecessary deaths every year and will save billions of dollars in costs. Lisa Jackson, do not cave in to industrial pressure.Make these rules stronger, not weaker, and we issue them without delay

-- please issue them without delay.

Response: The standards contained in the final rule apply at all times. Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 102

Comment: Especially important to us is EPA’s decision to eliminate the malfunction exemption. We believe that closing the loophole means that facilities will have to run their boilers and process heaters responsibly.

Respons e: The standards contained in the final rule apply at all times. Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Michael J. Hagenbarth Commenter Affiliation: RockTenn Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1473.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The proposed Area Source Rule does not include a separate standard for startup and shutdown. This is a fundamental problem that, if not corrected, will cause the final standards to be not ach ievable by even well designed and operated boilers. As a result, EPA must include a separate standard for startup and shutdown in the final rule.

EPA explains in the preamble that, "Based upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standards." 75 Fed. Reg. a t 31901. There are three fundamental problems with this justification for not including startup and shutdown standards in the rule.

First, the continuous monitoring data that EPA presents in the major source industrial boiler MACT proposal is for units t hat will not be subject to the Area Source Rule and that are not the unit(s) from which EPA obtained the data used in setting the proposed area source standards. Thus, these emissions data cannot lawfully be used in determining the area source standards be cause these data are derived from sources that do not belong to the area source category. The conclusion that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is not needed can only be based on data from the source(s) that are actually used by EPA to set the a rea source standards or on ashowing that the data from some other boilers are representative of the performance of the area source boilers used as the basis for the proposed area source standards.

Second, EPA’s emissions database provides continuous emi ssions monitoring system ("CEMS") data from several of the better performing sources. Contrary to EPA’s assertion in the preamble, these data show that daily average emissions should be expected to vary considerably on a day

to

- day basis and that the varia bility spans the proposed levels of the standards. While it is difficult to discern the reasons for this variability based on the information provided in the database, there is little doubt that startups and shutdowns significantly contribute to the variab le emissions performance of these units. Thus, the data indicate that EPA needs to include express accommodation for startups and shutdowns.

Third, basic scientific and engineering principles support the need for a separate standard for startup and shutd own. Particularly for CO emissions, combustion conditions will not be optimum during startup periods due to the generally low firing rate and the fact that the firing rate will be ramped up over the startup period. Thus, a significant period of non

- optimum firing conditions will result in CO emissions performance

— even on a daily average basis

— that will be markedly different than performance during normal operations. EPA’s failure to acknowledge these basic technical and engineering principles renders th e proposed standards arbitrary.

For these reasons, we believe that a separate standard for startup and shutdown is needed and is amply justified. We suggest that a work practice standard is most appropriate due to the lack of relevant data and the fact t hat an emission testing during startup is not technically and economically practicable. If EPA decides that a numeric standard is needed, the Agency should rely on the available long term data from the better performing area source boilers to establish a

s tandard with a reasonably long averaging time (such as a 30

- day rolling average), rather than the proposed 24

- hour averaging time.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Kerry Flick Commen ter Affiliation: Metso Power Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1490.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Startup periods are not predictable and should not be included in the emissions averaging period. We recommend that startup periods be tre ated outside the averaging period similar to "periods of malfunction" (CAA section 112(d)). The 24

- hour averaging period, proposed in the new ruling, does not provide owners/operators an adequate period of time to deal with transient operating conditions. We recommend that the averaging period for measuring emissions be based on a 30

- day rolling average. The definition of the averaging period at Area Source facilities needs to be revised, which will also be consistent with that proposed for Major Sources.The combustion of biomass has its challenges. Biomass has a low calorific value and high moisture content when compared to fossil fuels. Biomass characteristics can vary significantly based on a number of factors, including species, geographic origin, and time of year. Thus, there is variability in biomass that is not inherent to the combustion of fossil fuels. This variability along with the extreme dynamics associated with startups of a biomass fired boiler make it unreasonable to include them in the emi ssions compliance averaging period. The proposed ruling states that "Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operation." We have not found this to be the case in practice when it comes to bi omass combustion. The variability in biomass makes it difficult to standardize an optimized mode of operation on a consistent basis, particularly during startup conditions. Thus, emission control during startup is anything but predictable and consistent. T he source data supports this. The data presented for CO emissions fluctuates significantly during the performance testing period. Metso believes that no technology is commercially available, including oxidation catalysts, to control emissions of CO during startup or shutdown to the degree that would be required to satisfy the proposed rulings. These variations are further complicated by the fact that many units are not based

- loaded and must deal with fluctuations in toad that will create transient condition s, even during normal operation. This can result in frequent operating instabilities lasting several hours, compounding the unpredictable nature of biomass combustion and the resulting emissions.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 41

Comment: There are two primary issues with regard to SSM events and the Proposed Rule. First, EPA is proposing that the emissions standards it has established in this rule apply during both normal operations and periods of SSM. Second, EPA has not take n periods of SSM into account when setting the proposed standards. As stated in CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule, requiring emission controls during SSM is technically unfeasible and EPA’s failure to include periods of SSM when establishing the emission standards is unreasonable. For a comprehensive discussion of these issues, please refer to CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.]

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2137.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23Comment: EPA propose s to regulate emissions of HAPs from boilers during all phases of operations, including startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) periods. We are unsure how EPA has accounted for these emissions within the proposed emission limits, as the current data do no t include such emission measurements. Furthermore, there is significant variation in the amount and duration of SSM emissions for various fuels and sizes of boilers. For example, we anticipate that variation in SSM emissions would be greater when using boi lers firing solid fuels, such as biomass, than with boilers firing liquid fuels such as heating oil. NESCAUM recommends that EPA use facilities regulated under this effort to collect SSM emissions data and then revisit this issue no later than five years f rom promulgation to develop appropriate limits for SSM emissions. Facilities that measure emissions with CEMS could provide the basis for developing emission limits for SSM periods. In addition, EPA should examine how to evaluate SSM emissions at smaller b oilers that do not have CEMS, and how those facilities could evaluate those emissions during compliance testing.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Com menter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: Start

- up and shutdown are considered part of normal operations under this proposal. The preamble claims that the CO CEM data gathered to support this and the major source rulemaking indicate that startups and shutdowns do not require separate treatment be cause the emission limits are daily. We believe this claim is valid for most shutdowns but is not true for most startups and particularly not for initial startups and startups after any refractory work. The EPA data cited as indicating startups are not a p roblem is unrealistically limited, does not include startup periods, and was selectively collected (see the discussion of this issue in Section VI.A of our comments on the proposed major source Boiler and Process Heater MACT rule). [See DCN: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 2

- 0058

- 2960.1 for comments]

Liquid

- fired boilers will not be able to meet the proposed limits during most startups. In order to provide for dry

- out of refractory, to avoid thermal expansion failures, and to avoid other damage, boiler startups must be don e slowly as specified by the manufacturer. These startups often take most of a day, as the boiler temperature must be raised at a slow and controlled rate. Even where startups take less than a day, even an hour of high CO could cause a violation of the dai ly average limit. Since it would be almost impossible not to have high CO for at least a few hours during any startup, imposing the proposed daily average CO emission limit of 1 or 2 ppm on startup would seem to require most liquid

- fired boilers to shutdow n to avoid knowing violations of the standard. The Agency’s failure to adjust the proposed standard for the variability associated with startup or to establish a separate subcategory for startups is arbitrary andcapricious, violates the requirements of §1 12(d)(2), that any MACT standard be achievable and violates the basic legal principal of rationality.

Since it is not feasible for liquid

- fired boilers to meet the proposed CO limits during startups and no add

- on controls are economically or technically feasible for CO[footnote: The only available add

- on control for CO is oxidation catalyst. This catalyst is ineffective at low temperature and thus is technically infeasible for use during startups, as well as being economically infeasible for use on oil fi red boilers.], work practice requirements should be specified for these startups as provided for in §112(h).

As discussed in the proposal preamble, CAA section 112(h) allows the Administrator to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operation al standard, or combination thereof, in certain cases where, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard under CAA section 112(d). These cases include the situation in which the application of measu rement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technical and economic limitations. We believe startups meet these requirements and thus a work practice requirement may be specified.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Leon Lataille Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1896.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Startup of the boilers requires use of oil due to the design of the boilers. The startup sequence typically requires approximately 6 hours for a cold start, to control thermal expansion of the boiler. During this startup sequence, the carbon monoxide emis sions are in excess of the proposed standard of 2 ppm to a degree that would result in the daily average value exceeding the standard. The carbon monoxide emissions are monitored by CEMS and concentrations during normal operation are well below the propose d standard of 2 ppm for operation on digester gas or oil, or mixed fuel. In the event that boiler startups include operation at greater than 50% load, the daily average with startups included would not meet the standard. The regulation does not provide for this situation, since there is no exemption for Startup, Shutdown and Malfunctions (SSM), and Table 6 removes the requirement for an SSM plan and the requirement to maintain and operate the facility in accordance with that plan. The boilers employ low NOx burners, flue gas recirculation and the operation has been evaluated and optimized by combustion experts to ensure efficient combustion. Without the SSM exemption and SSM plan approach, compliance with the rule is problematic. The rule should address a so urce specific exemption for situations in which emissions have been minimized to the extent possible.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke En ergy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Duke Energy urges EPA to use its authority under the CAA Sections 112 (d) (h) and 111 to provide a work practice operational standard to address HAP emissions during startup and shutdown in lieu of a numerical limit.

HAP emissions during startup and shu tdown (“SU/SD”) should not be treated the same as HAP emissions during normal operations. EPA has not established a basis to conclude that SU/SD emissions of HAP are the same as during normal operations. Setting the same standard for SU/SD and normal opera tions will result in an unattainable standard for the owner/operator despite the application of MACT controls. In setting MACT standards, EPA must properly characterize the entire range of operation of the units used to determine the MACT Floor. EPA has to do this so that the units that set the MACT floor limits can actually comply with those limits. In its industrial boiler information collection request (“ICR”), EPA did not require any testing during start

- up and shutdown events. However it is well docume nted that emissions profiles during these periods are significantly different from those during normal operation. SU/SD periods have highly variable operating conditions and consequently, reference test methods cannot be utilized because the sources do not operate in a steady state as required by the methods. As such, EPA biased the ICR testing by only specifying that tests be conducted at full load operation, and missed the extended start

- up periods that electrostatic precipitators (“ESP”), selective catal ytic reduction (“SCR”), and some flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”) control systems require to achieve optimal performance. Without emissions data during these periods, EPA has no data and no factual basis for concluding that the best performing units can ac hieve the proposed MACT limits during start

- up and shutdown events.

There are inherent problems in setting SU/SDS standards the same as the standards for normal operation, particularly for any standard that is based on an averaging time that is shorter t han 30 days or based on a few isolated short

- term performance tests. Control devices and mechanisms do not perform at the same level of efficiency during these transitional periods when suitable and stable temperatures or chemical conditions have not been achieved. Certain plant components must be started in a specific sequence in order to ensure that steady state operations can be achieved, and not all pieces of control equipment will be operating at peak efficiency during
start

- up and shutdown. For exampl e, industrial boilers equipped with SCR, must achieve a minimum flue gas temperature of 535

- 600 F (depends upon SO3 concentration) before reagent can be injected and react with the SCR catalyst. Flue gas temperatures must reach 270 F for cold

side ESPs and 600F for hot

- side ESPs to effectively control particulate matter (“PM”) and HAP associated with PM. A typical hot start

- up takes 6

- 8 hours and a cold start

- up may take 8

- 24 hours. Industrial boilers equipped with FGDs that use "mag

- enhanced lime" can req uire 24

- 36 hours to build proper chemistry conditions for effective control as designed.

Setting standards for SU/SD the same as for normal operation for wood

- fired biomass boilers is also problematic. At a recent pollution control user’s group conferen ce held in Charlotte NC,Duke Energy and others learned that boiler and pollution control vendors are also concerned with the SU/SD features of the proposed industrial boiler MACT standards. Vendors are unwilling to guarantee emission rates for PM and carb on monoxide (“CO”) based on the proposed ICI boiler MACT standards, and are particularly concerned with the numerical limits for SU/SD. As a consequence, several, untreated wood biomass projects have been postponed or cancelled due to the regulatory and co mpliance uncertainties of the proposed MACT standards, including the SU/SD provisions. There is no justification or technical basis for setting a numerical SU/SD limit with no data to support the limit. Setting numerical SU/SD limits without data based on an averaging period less than 30 days or based on a single or few isolated performance tests will result in an unattainable standard.

EPA should replace the numerical SU/SD limits with a work practice/operational standard that require owners/operators to maintain and operate the industrial boiler in a manner consistent with good engineering and air pollution control practices as EPA did for the stationary RICE engine MACT rule. Owners/operators could be required to maintain a SU/SD Plan on site that ident ifies good engineering and pollution control SU/SD practices and procedures that recognize specific boiler and pollution control equipment designs. This approach is justified under the CAA Section 112 (d) and (h), and is the only practical way to address H AP emissions during SU/SD given EPA’s lack of any emissions data during these periods. EPA has not established a technical basis to conclude that SU/SD emissions of HAP are the same as during normal operations. The assignment of any SU/SD numerical limit, even based on a 30 day average, is arbitrary and capricious, and infeasible given the lack of test data. The extensive testing that would be required to establish SU/SD numerical limits is not feasible and impractical from a technical or economic perspecti ve. Setting any numerical SU/SD limit would need to be delayed until the necessary testing is completed. Testing would have to be source

- specific and based on several tests over an extended period of time to come close to being representative of variations in boiler SU/SD conditions, and specific boiler and pollution control equipment designs. One would expect results of CO, PM, and HAP test results to vary greatly from one test to the next during transition SU/SD periods. FGDs, ESPs, and SCRs do not functi on or function poorly during SU/SD transitions. Since pollution control equipment is not designed to control during this transition, SU/SD testing would need to be done on essentially an uncontrolled boiler. Mandatory use of control equipment prematurely f or the tests could damage or shorten the life of the pollution control equipment (or catalyst) and create unintended operational issues.

Emissions from industrial boilers are different during normal operation and transition periods of SU/SD and it is not feasible to establish numerical emission standards. This situation is the circumstance in which Congress envisioned a work practice standard for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in 112 (h) of the CAA, and they reserved the application of numer ical limits for normal operations. Setting MACT standards for normal operation based on suitable data and establishing a work practice/operation standard(s) for SU/SD that recognizes specific boiler and pollution control system designs will result in a MAC T standard that applies at all time and is consistent with the recent Court Decision (Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Vendors question whether the CO standards are achievable during SU/SD after CO and PM MACT controls are installed. Boiler vendors are unwillin g to guarantee emission rates based on the proposed ICI boiler MACT standards for PM and CO for new, reconstructed, and modified industrial boilers designed for wood biomass, particularly where the SU/SD standard is based on a daily averaging time or where performance testing includes SU/SD.

Owners/operators of ICI boiler sources must have alternatives that provide a suitable chance for compliance during transitional SU/SD periods when their units are equipped with MACT controls.

Response: Please see r esponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: Duke Energy is very concerned about the potential for enforcement of operating parameter and opacity limits during periods of startup, shutdown, and in the event of equipment malfunction. When EPA finalized its rule in 2004 with enforceable operating para meters, it did so with a rule that also made clear that those limits did not apply during periods of “startup, shutdown, and malfunction.” 40 C.F.R. 3.7505(a), 69 Fed. Reg. at 55,254. EPA’s current proposal contains no such exception, but instead would all ow enforcement of deviations from operating parameters during periods of startup and shutdown, when controls would not be expected to be operating at the same levels as during performance tests, and due solely to equipment malfunctions. In the preamble, EP A discusses its approach to these events. 75 Fed. Reg. 32013. Regarding startup and shutdown, EPA asserts that it has taken these periods into account by using CEMS data from best performing units that include periods of startup and shutdown, and by propos ing use of “daily or monthly averages.” Regarding malfunctions, EPA asserts that it would use a variety of information to determine an appropriate response to exceedances caused by equipment malfunction.

EPA’s preamble assertions regarding startup and sh utdown are inapplicable to control device operating parameter limits, which are based on 12

- hour averages (not daily or monthly averages) established during performance test (not based on CEMS data that include startup and shutdown). Even a daily block ave rage, as proposed for opacity, does not provide sufficient protection if the unit does not startup or shutdown at exactly midnight, since there might not be sufficient data under normal operating conditions to compensate for the startup or shutdownperiod. In short, EPA has made absolutely no allowance in its rules for periods of startup and shutdown yet it has specific evidence that these periods are distinctively different. To the contrary, EPA has proposed to require sources to establish control device o perating parameters levels that are dependent upon load during periods of “maximum normal operating load,” and then maintain those levels during periods other than maximum normal operating load, including startup and shutdown. EPA’s proposal is patently un reasonable. EPA must address these periods in some other manner, for example by establishing simple work practice standards in lieu of operating parameters.

EPA’s promise to address periods of equipment malfunction by considering other information before enforcing exceedances of operating limits provide little comfort, especially given the risk of citizen suits. Although Duke Energy appreciates EPA’s proposal to make clear that “deviations” of operating limits are not necessarily violations, nothing in EP A’s proposal would prevent EPA, a state, or a plaintiff in a citizen suit from simply determining in their “discretion” that any particular exceedance constitutes a violation. Proposed 63.7575. MACT standards are technology

- based standards and must recogni ze that even the best performing technology occasionally fails.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: W. Randall Rawson Commenter Affiliation: American Boiler Manufacturers Association D ocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1897.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In establishing achievable MACT emission standards for area sources, EPA should address the anticipated startup, shutdown and malfunction conditions that may be experie nced across the wide range of boiler designs and applications. To the extent that emission standards must apply during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction, they must be set in a manner which adequately accounts for anticipated emissions during tho se conditions. ABMA is concerned that the data on which EPA has relied does not adequately represent considerations that may affect such emissions, such as boiler size, usage of flue gas recirculation (“FGR”), steam pressure and temperature. These issues a re particularly relevant to startup conditions, which are reasonably anticipated and can be evaluated in the standard

- setting process. For example, the following factors should be considered in relation to CO emissions during startup:

During cold start, furnace temperature is low and higher CO emissions will result;

High pressure boilers take longer to come up to temperature;

Super heated steam applications take longer to reach their normal operating conditions;Low NOx, high FGR applications have v ery low air velocities at the burner during cold start, because FGR cannot be introduced to the burner before it reaches a certain temperature, thereby reducing volumetric flow and resulting in higher CO emissions;

A typical cold start CO emission level that may range up to 400 ppmvd or higher on oil, and the following wide range of boiler warm

- up periods based on boiler type may result in significantly higher average CO emissions than experienced at steady

- state ope ration:

Firetube boilers: 1

- 4 hours Industrial watertube boilers (150 psig): 3

- 6 hours Super heated industrial watertube package boiler: 4

- 8 hours Super heated field erected boilers

– 8 hours or more

EPA’s preamble to the Proposed Area Source Rule d oes acknowledge an attempt to incorporate startup and shutdown emissions through its consideration of daily or monthly average CEMS data from the best performing units. However, EPA has not demonstrated that its data set adequately addresses the variabilit y in startup length and associated emissions experienced in boilers of various design and load requirements. Therefore, ABMA believes that EPA should: (1) allow a period of time for startup, based on boiler type, during which emissions limits would not
app ly; (2) establish an alternative emission limit for startup periods based on boiler types within a subcategory and their load; or (3) review the data set and the anticipated startup conditions of various boiler types to ensure that the emission limits set for each subcategory are representative of multiple boiler designs and emission variability within the subcategory. The alternatives for defining reasonable emission standards for startup conditions should extend to startups occasioned by the range of circ umstances, such as cold start after a period of scheduled non

operation, as well as startup occurring after a malfunction during which cold

- start parameters often apply. Additionally, EPA should extend similar consideration to emissions variability during shutdown periods. During these periods, considerable volumetric post

- and pre

- purge air change requirements serve to cool boilers down in an attempt to relieve the combustion chamber of unburned fuel and of flue gases prior to re

- ignition sequence.

ABMA also supports a limited allowance for malfunction periods. The term “malfunction” should be more precisely defined to include the variabilities of malfunction. Malfunction can range from the need for immediate and complete shutdown to malfunctions like an interruption in fuel supply or an inoperative CEMs that will require only a short downtime. A plant should not be required to completely shutdown due to a malfunction of the boiler, burner or boiler

related equipment. Once defined, a malfunction should be regulated by alternative limits applied during the time it takes to complete corrective action and get the boiler back to normal operational mode.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Da niel Moss Commenter Affiliation: Society of Chemical Manufacturers and AffiliatesDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2018.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: EPA has not appropriately addressed startup, shutdown and malfunction scenarios.

I n the preamble, EPA states:

In establishing the standards in this rule, EPA has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has not established different standards for those periods. The standards that we are pro posing are daily or monthly averages. Based upon continuous emission monitoring data, obtained as part of the information collection effort for the major source boiler and process heater rulemaking, which included periods of startup and shutdown, over long averaging periods, startups and shutdowns will not affect the achievability of the standard. [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg at 31901.]

To be blunt, SOCMA believes this statement is inaccurate. We understand that all or virtually all of the emissions data on whi ch EPA is relying is 1

- hour stack test data, gathered when the boilers being tested were operating in steady

- state mode at peak efficiency. Very few boilers, particularly oil

- fired boilers, currently operate with continuous emissions monitors, and so whate ver handful for which EPA has such data are almost certainly not representative of the larger universe of such boilers. Startup in particular can take several hours, particularly when the unit is cold, and even a 24

- hour averaging time will not be sufficie nt to demonstrate compliance in such cases. SOCMA therefore believes that EPA should gather additional emissions data that includes representative emissions from startup and shutdown circumstances.

As for malfunctions, SOCMA endorses the suggestions of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and others that EPA establish work practice requirements for such conditions. These could include requiring (i) a root cause investigation regarding the cause of th e malfunction or (ii) malfunction plans. Either could be covered by the recordkeeping requirements of the rule and thus be available to EPA (and indirectly to the public).

Response: . Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1747.1, Excerpt Numbe r 1.



### Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Data Reporting Requirements

Commenter Name: R.H. Pankratz Commenter Affiliation: Babcock and Wilcox Pantex, DOE/NNSA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0466 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: Proposed §63.11237 Gas

- fired boiler. 63.11237 Gas

- fired boiler Gas

- fired boiler includes any boiler that burns gaseous fuels not combined with any solid fuels, burns liquid fuel only during periods of gas curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or periodic t esting on liquid fuel. Periodic testing of liquid fuel shall not exceed a combined total of 48 hours during any calendar
year. Comment: §63.11195(e) states that gas

- fired boilers, as defined in §63.11237, are not subject to this subpart. §63.11195 does no t make clear what recordkeeping, if any, a gas

- fired boiler, which does burn liquid fuels but meets the definition of a “gas

- fired boiler,” has. If a gas

- fired boiler meeting the definition in §63.11237 does have any recordkeeping requirements, they should be stated either in §63.11195 or §63.11237.

Response: We agree that gas

- fired boilers located at an area source are not subject to subpart JJJJJJ or any requirements in the subpart. Section 63.11195 has been revised to clarify that the listed boilers a re not subject to any requirements (e.g., notification, recordkeeping, reporting).

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: Although the rule that you have created will require reductions with major sources of air toxics and will require minimal reductions from sources that are not major, I think it’s important to note that of the 180,000 boilers and process heaters operating in America, that only 14,000 are major sources.

So EPA has proposed essentially do nothing regulatory with minimum control requirements, and no monitoring or reporting requirements for the remaining 166,000 boilers and process heaters. Schools and commun ities living or working near these plants that are not major will receive little, if any, relief from EPA.

And let me give you an example, if I may. Across the United States large schools all have boilers and there would be no notification. This is our m ost vulnerable population and no knowledge of what was actually being burned in those boilers and they would be exposed. You know, we’re living in a time today of natural and manmade disasters that are horrific.

Please, let’s try and work together to cre ate a rule that is more protective and a rule that ensures protection of human health and our environment.

Response: We disagree with the comment that schools and communities living or working near these plants that are not major will receive little, if any, relief from EPA. Industrial facilities having large boilers and process heaters are generally major sources and their boilers will be subject to the restrictive MACT

- based emission limits in subpart DDDDD. The area source facilities covered by su bpart JJJJJJ are predominantly commercial (e.g., hotels, apartment buildings) and institutional (e.g., hospitals, schools) facilities. The boilers located at area sourcefacilities that are of most concern (i.e., coal

- fired boilers) are subject to MACT

- ba sed emission limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The continuous testing and monitoring requirements create considerable new paperwork and recordkeeping burdens : These requirements will require small business owners to spend more money on outside testing. The monitoring requirement will mean less time the business owner has t o spend running the business and could become a paperwork nightmare.

Response: The final rule has been revised to remove the requirement for large area source boilers to install and operate a CO CEMS. Also, the final rule has been revised to subject only existing coal

- fired area source boilers to emission limits. Thus, the continuous testing and monitoring requirements is not applicable to most area source boilers (biomass

- fired and oil

- fired boilers).

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: EPA’s proposed section 63.11224(b) reporting requirement should be converted to a recordkeeping requirement. There is no environmental benefit in submitting of these reports on an annual basis. In addition, small sites are already subject to a number of o ther reporting obligations in the first quarter of each year, such as State Emission Inventory Reports, and Preparation of SARA Section 312 and 313 reports. The details contained in Section 63.11224(b) could also be made available upon request of the Admin istrator.

Response: Section 63.11224(b) (now section 63.11225(b)) already states that the compliance report must be prepared but only submitted if any deviations occurred during the reporting period. Section 63.11225(b) has also been revised to requir e boilers that are only subject to the biennial tune

- up requirement to only prepare a biennial compliance report.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Co mment Excerpt Number: 16Comment: The requirement to provide a report within 15 calendar days of any change in information that has already been provided is a signification burden for small sites that may have only one person covering all safety, health, and environmental requirements. As commented above, the facility should be required to keep the data on

- site for any agency inspection or request for data.

Dow recommends that Table 6 of this proposed regulation on page 58385 be changed to include that G eneral Provision in Subpart A, §63.9(j) does not apply. Thus, the column titled “Applies to Subpart JJJJJJ? Should have the entry “No” for §63.9(j). The suggested rule text in Table 6 of subpart JJJJJJ revision: [SEE PDF FOR SUGGESTED TABLE 6]

Response: WE disagree with the comment. Subpart JJJJJJ already reduces the burden of submitting reports. Only if there is a deviation from the applicable requirement does an area source facilities need to submit a report.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Com menter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Table 6 of subpart JJJJJJ notes that section 63.5 of the General Provisions is not applicable. However, Section 63.11224( a)(1) requires that the owner/operator submit all of the notifications in various sections of the General Provisions including Section 63.5(b). Thus, EPA’s final rule should clarify whether or not the notification requirements of Section 63.5(b) apply.

Response: Section 63.11224(a)(1) [now section 63.11225(a)(1)] has been revised to remove the reference to 63.5(b).

Commenter Name: Catherine Fitzsimons Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1829.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Is it an annual or biennial tune

- up report? The proposed rule requires a boiler tune

- up every two years for small boilers at area sources. The proposal includes the following: 63.11222(b)(6) Maintain on

- site and submit, if requested by the Administrator, an annual report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section, (i) The concentrations of CO in the effluent stream in ppmvd, and oxygen in percent dry bas is, measured before and after the adjustments of the boiler; (ii) A description of any corrective actions taken as a part of the combustion adjustment; and (iii) The type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment.Based o n the proposed rule, shouldn’t this specify a biennial report and biennial adjustment, rather than annual?

Response: The commenter is correct and the final rule has been revised to specify a biennial report and biennial adjustment.

Commenter Name: C atherine Fitzsimons Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1829.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Facilities are required to prepare an annual report, but do not need to submit unless
t here were deviations. The proposal includes the following: 63.11224(b) You must prepare, by March 1 of each year, an annual compliance certification report for the previous calendar year containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b )(3) of this section. You must submit the report by March 15 if you had any instance described by paragraph (b)(3) of this section. (3) If the source is not in compliance, include a description of deviations from the applicable requirements, the time per iods during which the deviations occurred, and the corrective actions taken. The report should be required to be submitted if the source experienced any deviations during the reporting year, not just if the source is out of compliance at the time when the report is being prepared.

Response: We agree with the comment and section 63.11224(b)(3) [now section 63.11225(b)(3)] has been revised to include any deviations.

Commenter Name: Marie Robinson Commenter Affiliation: National Telecommunications Safety Panel Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1960.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The EPA should adjust recordkeeping and the associated reporting requirements. The EPA is proposing to require “Records docum enting monthly fuel use by each boiler, including the type(s) of fuel, including, but not limited to, a description of the fuel, including whether the fuel has received a non

- waste determination by you or the EPA, and the total fuel usage amount with units of measure.” Small oil fired boilers at area sources are typically not equipped with individual fuel meters and may share a common fuel source with a variety of equipment

– engines and boilers. For oil

- fired boilers that are not configured to combust biom ass or coal, compliance with requirements to maintain records associated with individual unit monthly fuel consumption would be unnecessarily burdensome and provide no additional assurances of compliance or reduction of HAPs. We recommend that the EPA reco gnize this and modify theproposal to eliminate the fuel consumption information and retain the requirement to document fuel type and description. Documentation of fuel type could be supported by purchase receipts.

Response: The recordkeeping requiremen t (63.11225(b)(4) of the total fuel use for each calendar month is only applicable to affected boilers subject to an emission limit. In the final rule, only coal

- fired area source boilers are subject to an emission limit. The recordkeeping requirement (6 3.11225(c)(2)(ii)) to document monthly fuel use for each boiler has been revised to clarify that this provision is requesting information on the type(s) of fuels burned and not the amount of fuel burned.

Commenter Name: Marie Robinson Commenter Affiliat ion: National Telecommunications Safety Panel Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1960.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The EPA should correct the timeframe inconsistencies within § 63.11222. Per §63.11222(b)(6), if requested by the Administ rator, an annual report is required detailing measurements associated with boiler adjustment, however the boiler tune

- up requirement in §63.11222(b) is a biennial requirement. The EPA should adjust the report frequency to match the frequency of the biennia l tune

- up requirement.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1829.1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Cheryl Johncox Commenter Affiliation: Minneapolis Neighbors for Clean Air Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1971 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for toxic air pollutants, and to have the data released real time on websites that can be accessed by the public. Yearly stack tests do not give an accurate estimate of emissions during start

- up, shut

- down or upset conditions

– which, for some pollutants, most notably dioxins

– can be hundreds of times higher than during steady

- state operation (which is when stack testing is typically done). [DeVries, C. RauchgasemissionenundVerfahrensoptimierungen wa ̈hrend de r ausserordentlichen Betriebssituation An

- und Abfahren der Mu ̈llverbrennungsanlage in Amsterdam. In VDI Handbuch BAT

- und preisorientierte Dioxin

- /Gesamtemissionsminimierungstechniken; VDI Verlag: Du ̈sseldorf, 1999.], [Neuer

- Etscheidt, K., H. O. Nordsieck , et al. (2006). "PCDD/F and other micropollutants in MSWI crude gas and ashes during plant start

- up and shut

- down processes." Environ Sci Technol 40(1): 342

- 9 http://www.ejnet.org/toxics/cems/2006_Neuer

Etscheidt_dioxins_MSWI_gas_ashes_startup_shutdown.pd f.]Response: We agree that annual stack tests do not give an accurate estimate of emissions during all operating conditions. In the rule, we have requirements for continuous monitoring of the appropriate operating limits for the control technology us ed to achieve the applicable emission limits.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0 790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment: Proposed §63.11214 requires, in several paragraphs, that annual performance tests be performed between 10 and 12 months after the previous performance test. We support the concept of providing a window for su ch testing, rather than requiring the test be performed on the same day every year, but this window, forces more frequent testing than annual and forces sources to change the month of testing every year, making compliance more difficult. For instance if a test is done in May one year, it must be done in April or May of the following year. Since good practice requires some allowance for problems and possible delay or retesting, prudent sources will test in April. Then the next year’s test would be in March, etc. Under the proposed system, testing is actually required on an approximately 11 month basis rather than an annual basis. We suggest §63.11214 be revised to specify annual tests may be done at any time in the same calendar quarter as the initial testing was done, regardless of the particular month in which the testing occurred. If a boiler does not operate during the quarter, testing should be required within 30 days after restart.

Furthermore, because there will be thousands and thousands of such test s between this rule and the major source rule, provision is needed to allow sources to move the testing to other quarters, with agreement of the permitting authority. Stack testing, area source and local Agency resources are limited and workload needs to b e spread throughout the year to allow these resources to be efficiently utilized.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1, Excerpt Number 19.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Pet roleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 65

Comment: Proposed §63.11224(b)(4) requires annual reporting of monthly fuel usage for each af

fected source. We see no purpose for collecting such data. It does nothing to enhance compliance or reduce emissions and, in certain cases, would involve confidential data. If this is included to allow the Agency to do emission estimating, that is not an a uthorized activity under§112 of the CAA and should be done through the appropriate rulemaking. If it is included to allow estimating of CO 2 emissions, that need has already been addressed through the GHG reporting rule and does not need to be duplicated h ere. This requirement should be deleted or justified under §112.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1960.1, Excerpt Number 6.

Commenter Name: Cheryl Sonnier Nolan Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2277 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Stack Testing

The proposed subpart requires that sources conduct annual performance tests between ten months and twelve months of the previous year’s performance test. As noted above, sugar mills typically operate 100 days or less per year. Start and end dates for these seasonally

- operated sources are highly dependent on the volume and condition of the year’s sugar cane cro p.
Given that Louisiana’s sugar mills operate less than a third of the year, this industry would be required to test each boiler three to four times more often than others operating boilers at sources that typically operate year round (based on boiler op erating hours). As such, should EPA improperly conclude that all biomass

- fired sources are subject to 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ, the required stack testing frequency for bagasse

- fired boilers located at sugar mills should be reduced to once every five years , and stack testing should be allowed to be conducted any time during the operating season.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1, Excerpt Number 19.

Commenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy N orth America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Stack testing frequency requirements currently state that “Each annual performance test must be conducted between 10 and 12 months after the previous perfo rmance test.” This current requirement would force units to operate to perform a compliance stack test in certain cases when a combustion unit was not planning to fire the necessary fuel, thus adversely contributing to higher levels of air pollution.

Req uire compliance stack testing based on fuel operating months. For example, a stack test to illustrate compliance with a fuel oil emissions limit would be required between 10 and 12 fuel oiloperating months after the previous performance test. A fuel oil o perating month could be defined as a month in which a boiler operated on fuel oil for at least 168 hours. Another suggestion would be to adopt the 40 CFR 75 operating quarter language. For example, require a follow up stack test every four fuel (i.e. oil/b iomass/coal) operating quarters and define an operating quarter in which a boiler operated on the fuel of interest (i.e. oil/biomass/coal) for at least 168 operating hours within the calendar quarter.

We also recommend allowing for a “grace period” of 72 0 operating hours following the required time frame to perform the test to allow facilities adequate flexibility to perform these stack tests. We assume EPA’s intentions were not to force a facility to operate only for compliance testing purposes. These re commendations would clarify the stack testing frequency requirements.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1, Excerpt Number 19.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: Stack testing frequency requirements currently state that “Each annual performance test must be conducted between 10 and 12 months after the previous performance test.” This current requirem ent would force units to operate to perform a compliance stack test in certain cases when a combustion unit was not planning to fire the necessary fuel, thus adversely contributing to higher levels of air pollution.

Require compliance stack testing based on fuel operating months. For example, a stack test to illustrate compliance with a fuel oil emissions limit would be required between 10 and 12 fuel oil operating months after the previous performance test. A fuel oil operating month could be defined as a month in which a boiler operated on fuel oil for at least 168 hours.

In lieu of operating months, we suggest to adopt the 40 CFR 75 operating quarter language. For example, require a follow up stack test every four fuel (i.e. oil/biomass/coal) operati ng quarters and define an operating quarter in which a boiler operated on the fuel of interest (i.e. oil/biomass/coal) for at least 168 operating hours within the calendar quarter.

We also recommend allowing for a “grace period” of 720 operating hours fo llowing the required time frame to perform the test to allow facilities adequate flexibility to perform these stack tests. This “grace period” time frame is allowed within 40 CFR 75 for annual relative accuracy stack testing requirements.

We assume EPA’s intentions were not to force a facility to operate only for compliance testing purposes. These recommendations would clarify the stack testing frequency requirements.Response: Rather than requiring stack test s to be conducted between 10 and 12 months , the final requirement is that each annual stack test must be no more than 13 months after the previous performance test.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: In 63.7550, EPA requires that sources file their semiannual reports by January 31st and July 31st of each year. The regulated community is inundated with numerous other reporting requirements during this same period. Duke Energ y notes that in 63.7515 (g), EPA proposes to give sources 60 days to submit emission test reports. As a result, EPA should either directly allow, or allow local permitting agencies the flexibility to grant sources a minimum of 45 days, and preferably 60day s to file their semi

- annual reports.

Response: The comment refers to a reporting requirement in subpart DDDDD that is not in subpart JJJJJJ. If the comment was submitted to the docket for subpart DDDDD, it will be address under that rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2020 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA Should Have Minimized Facility Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.

Se veral SERs noted that recordkeeping activities, as written in the vacated boiler MACT, would be especially challenging for small entities that do not have a dedicated environmental affairs department. The SERs advocated for the most efficient way to get re ductions in HAP and requested that the Panel consider all available alternatives to reduce to a bare minimum any extraneous requirements that require a lot of paperwork that in the opinion of the SERs do not contribute to emission reductions.

Response: EPA must balance monitoring and reporting requirements with compliance assurance. EPA has determined that these requirements have been adequately minimized and are consistent with the General Provisions in 40 CFR 63 Subpart A.

Commenter Name: Alice Edw ards Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: In addition to the monitoring, the proposed record keeping requirements are unrealistic for many small boiler owners/operators in Alaska. The record keeping and reporting requirements of the proposed rule are also likely to be overly burdensome and prohibitively expensive to small, remote communities and may strain their limited technical and hu man resources. There is a high turnover rate among operators, and limited training is available for both the operators of the boilers and the administrators of the records. Proper record knowledge transfer is often lost due to the turnover of staff.

Res ponse: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2020, Excerpt Number 3.

Commenter Name: Shelley Schneider Commenter Affiliation: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2021.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA requires sources to prepare annual compliance reports and submit them only if they have experienced deviations from the applicable requirements. NDEQ requests that EPA require the reports be submitted annually, regardless if deviati ons have occurred. This will provide state/local permitting authorities, such as Nebraska, information to verify compliance and is consistent with minor source reporting requirements established within state operating permits for similar types of sources.

Response: In the final rule, the requirement regarding annual compliance reports (63. 11225(b) has been revised for submittal to the permitting agency upon request.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Document Control N umber: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2257.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA should reduce or even eliminate reporting requirements for boilers only subject to work practice standards. Since these units are not required to install control devices, perform
te sting or are not subject to monitoring requirements, reporting would only consist of general facility information, fuel usage and a statement that tune

- ups and energy assessment requirements were met. It is overly burdensome to require semi

- annual reports for this limited information.Response: We agree with the comment and the reporting and recordkeeping requirement for boilers subject only to the work practice r management practice of a tune

- up has bben revised to biennial reporting.

Commenter Name : Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1950.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Several SERs noted that recordkeeping activities, as written in the vacated boiler MACT, would be especially challenging for small entities that do not have a dedicated environmental affairs department. The SERs advocated for the most efficient way to get reductions in HAP and requested that the Panel consider all available alternatives to reduce to a bare minimum any extraneous requirements that require a lot of paperwork that in the opinion of the SERs do not contribute to emission reductions.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1631.1, Excerpt Number 5.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2257.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: We request tha t EPA provide clarification that fuel sampling and an associated fuel sampling plan is not required for boilers subject to work practice requirements.

Response: Fuel sampling and an associated fuel sampling plan is only required for boilers subject to emission limits.

Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2165.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: It is recommended that deviations resulting from EPA’s pr oposed 30

- day rolling averages be determined from the daily number of events causing a deviation instead of each value above a standard on the 30

- day rolling average. While these rolling averages make it more likely that a given standard be feasible, just one event (with a large peak concentration) can cause a series of rolling daily deviations. This is a misleading metric. It is more appropriate to report one deviation for the event that resulted in possibly several days of rolling average emissions to be over the standard.Response: The proposed subpart JJJJJ did not contain a 30

- day rolling average requirement.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: 40 CFR 63.11214(e), requires annual stack testing for CO, for boilers between 10 MMBtu/hr and 100 MMBtu/hr. 40 CFR 63.11222 (b), requires a tune

- up to be performed biennially, meaning once every 2 years. Part of the tune

- up includes measuring the concentration in the effluent stream of CO in parts per million, by volume, dry basis (ppmvd), before and after adjustments to the boiler are made [40 CFR 63.11222(b)(5)]. It appears that the CO testing done before and after the tune

- up is the same testing performed during the annual stack test. The processing and verification of these submittals will represent a significant increase in the workload of state’s environmental agencies. In order to eliminate this redundancy we sugges t that either the annual stack testing not be required for the year of the tune

- up, or that testing not be required before and after the tune

- up.

Response: To clarify, the tune

- up requirement is applicable to boilers less than 10 million Btu per hour. For boiler between 10 and 100 million Btu per hour, annual CO testing was required and they were not subject to the tune

- up requirement. Therefore, there is no redundancy for boilers between 10 and 100 million Btu per hour.

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. F inley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2260.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The proposed requirement for an annual report with effluent stream measurements and fuel use before the "annual adjustment" also conflicts with the requirement for a tune

- up once every two years. With the biennial tune

- up requirement, adjustments would be made once every two years, and any measurements or records related to the boiler and its tune

- up should be completed on a biennial basis rather than on an annual basis.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, Excerpt Number 76. Category 11J.

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Associati on of Clean Water AgenciesDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2260.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: In section 63.1124, paragraph (c)(2) states, "You must keep records to document conformance with the work practices, emission reduction mea sures, and management practices required by section 63.11215 as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section." Neither section 63.11215 nor section 63.1124 has paragraphs with these numbers, however. EPA should clarify or correct this sta tement.

Response: Section 63.11224(c) has been corrected to read “as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.”



### Records That Must Be Retained

Commenter Name: Bob Pankratz Commenter Affiliation: Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services Pantex, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0833 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: §63.11195(e) states that gas

- fired boilers, as defined in §63.11237, are not subject to this subpart. §63.11195 does n ot make clear what recordkeeping, if any, a gas

- fired boiler, which does burn liquid fuels but meets the definition of a “gas

- fired boiler,” has. If a gas

- fired boiler meeting the definition in §63.11237 does have any recordkeeping requirements, they shoul d be stated either in §63.11195 or §63.11237.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243, Excerpt Number 7.

Commenter Name: Marie Robinson Commenter Affiliation: National Telecommunications Safety Panel Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1960.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The EPA should adjust requirements for on

- site retention of records. In Subpart JJJJJJ, 63.11224(d), the EPA is proposing to require that each record be kept “onsite for at least 2 years after t he date of each recorded action . . .” Given the scope of requirements for this rulemaking, and especially the additional requirements that apply to new versus existing units, the NTSP believes that this requirement is problematic at best. Many facilities that contain area source boilers subject to this proposed rule are unmanned or located in remote areas. If supporting a telecommunications infrastructure, such facilities may also be widely spaced. It is therefore unlikely, from an enforcement perspective that the EPA or state authorities would seek to visit such facilities simply for the purpose of obtaining required records when a more efficientalternative could exist to obtain such records from a centralized office or business address. We recommend that the EPA recognize this fact and modify the proposal to allow records to maintained on

- or off

- site provided they can be made readily available to the EPA. In fact, the EPA does not require on

- site recordkeeping in other, similar contexts. For example, fi nal regulations for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines require that records be “readily accessible” without reference to specific location. [Section 63.6660 provides that, “(c) You must ke ep each record readily accessible in hard copy or electronic form for at least 5 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1).”] The EPA could adopt similar regulatory l anguage with regard to the recordkeeping requirements for area source boilers.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243, Excerpt Number 5.

Commenter Name: Kathleen Tobin Commenter Affiliation: Verizon Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2014.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Verizon believes that the provisions requiring that all recordkeeping be kept on

- site are unnecessarily restrictive and costly. While this requirement will not place undue burdens upon partie s with relatively few locations, the costs and burdens will be significant for companies, like Verizon, who have many thousands of locations. Moreover, the burdens and costs will be even greater to parties, like Verizon, who operate facilities that are nor mally unoccupied. Companies with many small locations should be allowed the opportunity to keep files in a central location, provided that copies can be quickly produced electronically or by facsimile at the local facility upon request. In addition, it sh ould be clarified that records may be kept in hard copy or electronic form. This allowance would not weaken any of the benefits of the proposed rule and would be consistent with the final NESHAP for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Rule [75 FR 964 8

— 9690 (March 3, 2010)]. It should be noted that allowing the records to be centralized also provides security benefits. It is much more difficult to assure that employees or visitors to a facility do not accidently disturb documents if they are kept in a local office. Even more importantly, by centralizing the records it becomes far easier for a party to perform audits to assure that the records are, in fact, being properly maintained.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243, E xcerpt Number 5.

Commenter Name: Kathleen Tobin Commenter Affiliation: Verizon Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2014.1Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The proposed rule requires reporting the total fuel used by each affected source. For sources subject to work practices, record keeping is required for the type and amount of fuel used over the 12

- month period. It should be noted that commercial boilers do not have totalizing fuel or hour meters on each unit. The addition of fuel or hour m eters does not appear to be included in the cost analysis; therefore, this would be an additional cost burden to facilities. Hour meters are ineffective at projecting boiler fuel consumption, due to variable operating conditions and cycles. Fuel usage is u sually best recorded during fuel oil deliveries. Verizon recommends the removal of the requirement to measure fuel usage for each boiler and replace it with maintaining fuel delivery receipts in order to demonstrate the type of fuel used and the total quan tity of fuel purchased for a site.

Response: Please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243, Excerpt Number 7.

Commenter Name: Keith M. Krom Commenter Affiliation: AT&T, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 5

Comment: EPA should adjust requirements for on

- site retention of records EPA is proposing to require that each record be kept "onsite for at least 2 years after the date of each recorded action . . . “ Given the scope of requirements for this rulemaking, and especially the additional requirements that apply to new versus existi ng units, AT&T believes that this requirement is problematic at best. Many facilities that contain area source boilers subject to this proposed rule are unmanned or located in remote areas. If supporting a telecommunications infrastructure, such facilities may also be widely spaced. It is therefore unlikely, from an enforcement perspective that, EPA or state authorities would seek to visit such facilities simply for the purpose of obtaining required records when a more efficient alternative could exist to

o btain such records from a centralized office or business address. We recommend that EPA modify the proposal to allow records to be maintained on

- or off

- site provided they can be made readily available to EPA. In fact, EPA does not require on

- site recordk eeping in other, similar contexts. For example, final regulations for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines require that records be "readily accessible" without reference to specific location . [Footnote: Section 63.6660 provides that, "(c) You must keep each record readily accessible in hard copy or electronic form for at least 5 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10(b)(1)."] EPA could adopt similar regulatory language with regard to the recordkeeping requirements for area source boilers.

Response: We disagree with the comment that many facilities that contain area source boilers subject to the proposed rule are unmanned or located in remote areas. Unlike internalcombustion engines, which burn natural gas, affected area source boilers combust coal. biomass, or oil requiring onsite operators.

Commenter Name: Keith M. Krom Commenter Affiliation: AT& T, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA should adjust and clarify recordkeeping and associated reporting requirements and that individual boilers need not be fitted with a fuel meter EPA is proposi ng to require "Records documenting monthly fuel use by each boiler, including the type(s) of fuel, including, but not limited to, a description of the fuel, including whether the fuel has received a non

- waste determination by you or EPA, and the total fuel usage amount with units of measure." For oil

- fired boilers that are not configured to combust biomass or coal, compliance with requirements to maintain records associated with individual unit monthly fuel consumption would be unnecessarily burdensome and provide no additional assurances of compliance or reduction of HAPs. Small oil fired boilers at area sources are typically not equipped with individual fuel meters and may share a common fuel source with a variety of equipment

- engines and boilers. EPA sh ould recognize this and modify the proposal to eliminate the fuel consumption information for boilers that cannot fire biomass and coal and retain the requirement to document fuel type and description. Documentation of fuel type could be supported by purch ase receipts. EPA has also proposed that annual compliance certification reports contain "the total fuel use by each affected source subject to an emission limit, for each calendar month within the reporting period . . .” Similar to our comments above, AT &T would suggest that such reporting requirements are unnecessarily burdensome and not needed for compliance. Therefore, EPA should instead allow for the use of data from fuel purchase records and other reliable information assembled in the normal course o f business. EPA should clarify that certification reports can utilize reasonable methods to determine the fuel used by individual sources. In addition, should EPA decide to impose requirements to separately determine fuel use by each boiler, EPA should no t impose requirements to specifically meter fuel use by each boiler. Many individual boilers may draw from a common fuel source at irregular intervals. This fuel source may be shared with a variety of equipment

— engines and boilers. Small oil fired boiler s at area sources are typically not equipped with individual fuel meters. Therefore records assembled in the normal course of business (e.g., for a common fuel source) should be considered sufficient to meet requirements for individual boilers, again relyi ng on reasonable methods to allocate fuel

use.

Response: In the final rule, we have minimized the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected boilers that are not subject to emission limits. In the final rule, only existing coal

fired boilers with heat input capacity of 10 million Btu per hour or greater are subject to emission limits. Since gas

- fired area source boilers are not part of the source categories covered by subpart JJJJJJ, there are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements for ga s

- fired area source boilers.Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: EPA’s proposal includes requirements for tracking of numerous data points, including fuel consumption; operating hours, startups, shutdowns including dates and times; equipment malfunctions including dates and times; numerous operating parameters including dates and times of deviations; CEMS, COMS, and CPMS calibration and quality assurance/quality control data; CEMS, COMS and CPMS maintenance information; CEMS, COMS, and CPMS out of control periods including reasons, dates and times; performance test reports; fuel sampling reports; vendor reports; and a num ber of other pieces of information. Records must be kept of virtually all information referenced in the proposal, including all CPMS data required to be collected, for 5 years. Proposed §§ 63.7555, 63.7560. Unfortunately, much of these data gathering requi rements cannot be automated, but instead will have to be collected manually. Once the data are gathered, decisions will have to be made regarding what has to be reported and a report will have to be generated and certified. This will be a massive undertaki ng and the possibility of making an error during the process will be a virtual certainty.

To reduce manpower requirements most sources will likely attempt to automate as much of the reporting and record keeping as possible. The equipment costs alone for implementing an automated (to the extent possible) data collection and report generation sys tem for a unit with multiple controls is likely to be very high and there may be little opportunity for standardization of the software. In short, UARG does not believe that EPA, in proposing its enforceable operating limit approach, has adequately estimat ed or considered the data management costs of its proposal and requests that the Agency do so.

Response: This comment pertains to requirement in the proposed subpart DDDDD and is addressed in that rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Aff iliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 63

Comment: In addition, proposed 63.11222(b)(6)(iii) requires maintaining an annual report to include the type and amount of fuel used over the 12 months prior to the annual adjustment. There are two issues with this requirement:

First, this rule stipulates biennial tune

- ups for specific affected sources, not annual.Second, this implies that fuel metering is required for every boiler subj ect to tune

- up requirements. There is no justification for a requirement to have individual boiler fuel use meters or other data since actual fuel use for a boiler is immaterial for documentation of a tune

- up. The only requirement should be for identificat ion of the fuel type used in the boiler over the prior operating period and the fuel type used during the tune

- up. If EPA can justify a requirement for the source to determine the quantity of fuel combusted, it should be sufficient for the source to

use av ailable data such as from billing records, delivery receipts, tank level drop, common fuel meter, or other data to determine that quantity.

Response: The final rule has been revised to require biennial reporting for boilers subject to the biennial tune

- up requirement. In addition, the final rule have been revised to clarify that the fuel use reporting requirement is for information on the fuel type combusted and not the amount.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Co uncil Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment: The definition of “tune

- up” is provided in 63.11237. It correctly focuses on the need to “optimize the combustion efficiency,” whereas proposed 63.11222(b)(4) r equires the source to “minimize total emissions of CO,” which as noted above is an incorrect approach to a tune

- up and will lead to lower efficiency and higher net total emissions. As stated above, EPA needs to correct the language in 63.11222. The “tune

- up” definition also implies that use of an approved specialist could be required. EPA needs to recognize that many companies have in

- house experts who are trained and well qualified to perform adjustments to burner systems and already do so. Continued use of in

- house resources should be supported.

Response: Section 63.11222(b)(4) [now section 63.11223(b)(4)] has been revised to read “Optimise total emissions of carbon monoxide ... consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications,,,”



### Electronic Reporting Mechanism

Commenter Name: Rob Barton and Ralph Roberson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1978.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: EPA proposes that, after December 31, 2011, sources must su bmit all compliance test results to EPA using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software or “other compatibleelectronic spreadsheet”. The ERT was used extensively in the Boiler MACT and EGU MACT ICRs. Our experience with this software suggests that repo rting emissions data using the ERT is time consuming and represents an unnecessary burden to the regulated community. We recommend that EPA eliminate this requirement from the proposed rule unless or until EPA can establish the necessary statutory authorit y to develop such software.

Assuming EPA can establish such authority, compliance data reporting software should minimize the burden on the regulated community by requiring only those data required to demonstrate compliance. This would include the raw em issions data and a limited amount of boiler and control device operating information from the emissions test period. It should also follow a transparent development process that includes feedback from the regulated community.5 The proposed use of the ERT d oes not meet either of these requirements.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Section 63.11224(e) of EPA’s proposed rule requires that air emission test data from stack test reports be entered electronically into EPA’s WebFire database after co mpleting a performance demonstration.

EPA provides no insight or justification in the preamble or otherwise for requiring this form of data submittal. The cost of this requirement, as compared to conventional reporting, is not evaluated or disclosed in discussion of the cost and impact of the proposed rule. Although a number of affected facilities may be already trained and equipped to accomplish such electronic reporting, many smaller affected facilities have not had to participate in such reporting procedures in the past. These facilities wil l require additional staff time, equipment, and training to accomplish this requirement. The proposed requirement means that even the initial reporting must be conducted electronically. This further burdens affected facilities in unnecessarily having to de velop new reporting techniques and procedures concurrent with the other tasks required to implement a new rule. EPA has failed to describe any benefit of this requirement as compared to these additional burdens.

It is also likely that implementation of t he initial testing, much less any later testing, will be accomplished under state authority. Unless state agencies are willing to use this same electronic reporting tool, facilities will have a dual requirement to report in one manner to satisfy State and Local requirements and in another manner to satisfy’s EPA’s Area Source regulation. EPA has also failed to describe any effort to convince state agencies to use this tool as their preferred reporting mechanism.Response: Please see the Preamble for a di scussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 67

Comment: EPA is requiring submission of data via the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). 75 FR 31903. Notwithstanding EPA’s assertions to the contrary, data submitted through the ERT is

error

- prone and imposes additional burdens on reporting sources beca use the ERT bypasses all data quality control. For the information collection process for the Boiler MACT suite of rules, EPA required sources to use the ERT. Sources had requested in the ICR proposal stage that EPA not utilize the ERT, which was going thr ough Beta testing, and informed EPA that the ERT had serious flaws including difficulty of use, content problems and inaccessibility. EPA decided to use it for data collection for these rules. The concerns proved correct, however, as sources were compelled to use the ERT, which is a difficult and time

- consuming tool for submission of test data. The ERT data compiled was riddled with mistaken entries, incorrect and missing data, and the ERT had generally faulty output. Then the problem was compounded when EP A relied on the inaccurate data, leading to multiple calculation and other inaccuracies.

Using the ERT doubles the burden on sources that take the time to enter accurate source data, only to see it distorted. They then must spend hours finding the data e rror and conferring with EPA personnel to fix the problem. Only then are they able to consider EPA’s rule proposal and its impact on their sources. In part due to the ERT and resulting data problems, regulated sources sought an extension of the comment per iod. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.3 for Comment Extension Request and Description of the Development of the Boiler MACT Database (Attachment 2).

In the past, sources did compliance tests for the state, and the state approved the data. The state effectively c onducted quality control on the data. The ERT bypasses the state, creating data quality issues. Using the ERT means that data is transmitted without any quality control, and that results in multiple data errors. The ERT does not permit the easy identificat ion or correction of errors. Reporting needs to be accomplished by whatever format permits the source to trace the same data throughout the process to ensure its integrity. This had been accomplished in the past by using the hard copy submitted to the Stat e and a human being looking at data to quality control it. If there was a problem, this could be identified and resolved in the early stage, before the faulty data was applied to formulas. CIBO urges EPA to adopt a reporting methodology that ensures the d ata is quality controlled, and errors can be traced easily to their origins. The ERT needs to be improved before it is required for data submission for compliance demonstration. Inaccuracies may be more tolerable during the rule

- writing process, but once t he rules are in place, the stakes are much higher, as faulty ERT output can create compliance issues for sources. EPA may prefer the administrativeease of the ERT, but that should not outweigh the need for regulated sources to have assurances of accurate data and compliance status.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Sharene Shealey Commenter Affiliation: RRI Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 006

- 0790

- 1839.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In cases where an ICI Boiler is part of a Title V or state only operating permit, the local permitting agency has its own unique emission and compliance test reporting format. State and local agencies also enforce the specific conditions within these oper ating permits. In all locations where RRI Energy operates an industrial boiler, we are required to submit a hard copy of all compliance test results to the local permitting authority. To comply with the proposed rule, RRI Energy would be required to prepar e a hard copy report for the state or local agency that issued the permit in addition to inputting the data into the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) or WebFIRE database when it becomes available. This is a duplication of effort, increasing the cost of repo rting test information.

RRI Energy would like EPA to provide a listing of those states who will utilize the ERT or WebFIRE as its means of collecting emission test data to determine compliance. Where a state or local agency does not adopt the ERT or WebF IRE reporting mechanism, or until such time local agencies do adopt the ERT or WebFIRE reporting, the regulated entity should not be required to duplicate reporting efforts. In these cases, compliance would be demonstrated by reporting in accordance with t he permitting authority’s requirements.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Ass istance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Recommendation: Take the burden off small sources for providing data electronically. Consultant costs will be prohibitive, alongside the alre ady high cost of testing.

At a recent training program, one of the SBEAPs reportedly learned that it can take a person

— with experience using computers

— a couple days to enter all the data into EPA’s online systemas required in 63.11224(e). The consultant fee was reportedly thousands of dollars, just for the data entry. If they cannot afford to have someone else enter the data, small business owners and their staff often lack basic computer use experience sufficient to maintain the most basic records and s preadsheets much less use a complex application on their own. In addition, many small businesses may not have the computing power to deal with a program in Microsoft Access and transfer files that it generates.

Until EPA can streamline this system and ma ke it something anyone can easily use, the burden of online data entry should be left to the major sources that are better able to afford the cost.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporti ng Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 62

Comment: EPA requests comment on the utility of the proposed requirement for electronic reporting of performance test results and associated operating data and the burden that owners and operators of boiler area source facilities estimate would be associated with this requirement. We see no value in this requirement for liquid

- fired boilers and recommend its deletion. There is no justification for imposing this requirement. The preamble attempts to justify the extra cost and burden of this requirement (which is si gnificant for the estimated 168,000 boilers subject to this proposal) on the basis that it will help improve emission factors and reduce the burdens associated with collecting data on emissions through §114 request. For liquid

- fired boilers the only emissi on limitation where performance tests are required is for CO. The proposed limits are 1 and 2 ppm for new and existing boilers, respectively. We see no way collecting any amount of additional data would significantly improve the emission factor for liquid

- fired boilers versus simply calculating the CO emissions using these extremely low concentrations. Furthermore, collecting data from hundreds of thousands of CO performance tests doesn’t help develop emission factors, because performance tests are all run at >80% of design firing and thus do not represent normal operation or normal operating variability for the vast majority of boilers. Since the 1 and 2 ppm limits apply at all times, they are a much better approximation basis for emission estimating than a ny liquid

- firing emission factor developed from performance test data on sources subject to such low emission limits.

The §114 argument is equally fallacious. §114 requests are actually very rare. The vast major of area sources never receive such a reque st. If the Agency does send out such requests to area sources in the future, it is highly unlikely historical CO performance tests will be requested, since CO will have already been addressed by this rulemaking. Similarly, enforcement based §114 requests a re always limited to a few facilities and request vast quantities of data, withperformance test information being a minor portion if requested at all. It makes no sense to require 168,000 boilers to provide data every year or two in order to save a few so urces a few incremental hours of effort if they ever were to get a §114 request.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 86

Comment: The Requirement For ERT Reporting Should Be Removed. Industry had many problems submitting Industrial Boiler MACT and CI SWI ICR data using the ERT, and there are still many problems with the tool based on experience that utilities and testing firms are having while entering Utility Boiler MACT ICR data into the tool. Use of this tool will add cost and burden to the emission s testing requirements in this rule. The tool is not a replacement for a stack test report, but rather an additional reporting burden, as permitting agencies will still require a hard copy stack test report with all supporting documentation.

The followin g are examples of issues encountered with the ERT: *It is not intuitive and it is difficult to use.

*It is not set up to handle data from multiple stacks from the same source being tested at the same time.

*It only allows for one intermittent leak che ck during a test run. Many stacks have more than two ports so the ERT should be set up to handle those scenarios rather than having to add leak check volumes together to come up with a total.

*It is not set up to handle mixed blend calibration gases, whi ch are extremely common.

*The import tool is inadequate, as it does not have enough rows for long runs and often imports data in the wrong order.

*The tool is not set up to handle blank corrections.

*The tool is “buggy” and slow to respond.

*The tool seems to only be designed to work under the most ideal of test scenarios, which is not always realistic. The EPA should ask for comments on the format and uploading tool from individuals that encounter actual real world scenarios for testing to i ncorporate into future editions.*Revisions to the ERT should have a revision number such that the users can make sure the version they are using is the most recent version available.

Requiring the ERT will add time and cost to stack testing projects, as time will have to be spent entering the test data into the tool and then quality assuring the ERT output. We do not believe that EPA has included this extra cost in their analysis.

In addition, compliance tests are submitted to the state or local per mitting agency for review and approval. At times, the agency provides comments to the regulated facilities that adjust the test results. In these cases, the information entered into the ERT at the time of the stack test would not match the final, state

- app roved emission test results. At a minimum, there needs to be a mechanism for the ERT data to be updated in these situations or a flag to indicate whether the report has been reviewed and approved by the permitting agency. Alternatively, EPA could require t he permitting agency to enter the stack test results into the ERT once approved, rather than requiring facilities to enter the data.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 87

Comment: If use of the ERT is required, EPA needs to develop a comprehensive ERT Guidance Manual that provides complete instructions with examples for:

*all entries including:

*the various facility identification codes, and where to find them

*BDL instructions

*calibration instructions

*required attachments

*the “external” spreadsheets” that are used to import certain data into the ERT

*the “external spreadsheets” that are used for reporting test methods not currently supported by the ERT*EPA should also develop an “outreach” or “training” program that p rovides instructions for specific source categories and related parameters. Such efforts need to be readily

- available

– via presentations at relevant conferences/seminars, as well as web

- based sessions (”webinars”).

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Bob Perry Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1959.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: EP A proposes t hat, after December 31, 2011, sources must submit all compliance test results to EPA using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software or “other compatible electronic spreadsheet”. The ERT was used extensively in the Boiler MACT and EGU MACT ICRs. Our exp erience with this software suggests that reporting emissions data using the ERT is time consuming and represents an unnecessary burden to the regulated community. We recommend that EPA eliminate this requirement from the proposed rule unless or until EPA c an establish the necessary statutory authority to develop such software. Assuming EPA can establish such authority, compliance data reporting software should minimize the burden on the regulated community by requiring only those data required to demonstra te compliance. This would include the raw emissions data and a limited amount of boiler and control device operating information from the emissions test period. It should also follow a transparent development process that includes feedback from the regulat ed community. The proposed use of the ERT does not meet either of these requirements.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Shelley Schneider Commenter A ffiliation: Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2021.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed standards require sources to submit their performance test data electronically to EPA through the WebFIRE software. NDEQ appreciates that having the data submitted electronically will produce a larger data set EPA can utilize to develop more accurate emission factors. Conversely, if sources are not required to submit a paper copy of the test results to the state/local permitting authority, the data can not be reviewed and quality assured. The WebFIRE software does not have quality assurance fl ags to alert EPA that a test was conducted improperly or whether the data is accurate. Utilizing inaccurate or false data could lead to nonrepresentative emission factors and potential noncompliance with the emission limits.NDEQ requests EPA include a pr ovision to require facilities to submit their testing results to their state/local permitting authority in addition to submitting the data electronically. The Nebraska Air Quality Regulations require facilities to provide emissions test results to NDEQ wit hin 45 days of completion of the test. Not including this provision in the standard may unnecessarily result in noncompliance with the state regulations and may result in inaccurate test data.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the us e and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: US EPA requests comment on the util ity of the electronic stack test reporting requirement and the burden that owners and operators of boiler area sources would face. Ameren believes the electronic stack test reporting requirement is fraught with risk to sources. Placing stack test companies in control of boiler owner stack test data leaves boiler owners with all the risks associated with reporting errors but no control over the process. Boiler owners would be responsible for the conduct of the stack tester during the test and then after the test during the electronic reporting period. Even a responsible boiler owner who monitored the testing, corrected stack test errors during the report review process (and there are always errors), could not be assured that the stack tester properly reported the data to US EPA in the electronic reporting tool. This electronic reporting tool reporting requirement is a step beyond self

- deviation reporting and goes to actual reporting of process and emissions data. This should not be a requirement, it is not
req uired to comply with standards and is not required to meet the stack test reporting requirements of Subpart A. US EPA should not require electronic reporting of stack test data.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Alice Edwards Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Administrators in these remote communities have a large array of duties with limited, systemized, electronic records management. The record systems are not part of a centralized system, and data collection is still primary a paper submittal system. In add ition, the proposed rule assumes the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) will be readily understood andavailable. Alaska’s remote communities have limited internet access; and in communities with internet, connections are often slow and experience frequent an d numerous disconnects.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Sheila C. Holman Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2222.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: [See submittal for Attachment A, Topic 3, which discusses electronic reporting.]

Response: Please s ee the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Rob Barton Commenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2140.1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 13

Comment: EPA proposes that, after December 31, 2011, sources must submit all compliance test results to EPA using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software or “other compatible electronic spreadsheet”. The ERT was used extensively in the Boiler M ACT and EGU MACT ICRs. Our experience with this software suggests that reporting emissions data using the ERT is time consuming and represents an unnecessary burden to the regulated community. We recommend that EPA eliminate this requirement from the propo sed rule unless or until EPA can establish the necessary statutory authority to develop such software. Assuming EPA can establish such authority, compliance data reporting software should minimize the burden on the regulated community by requiring only th ose data required to demonstrate compliance. This would include the raw emissions data and a limited amount of boiler and control device operating information from the emissions test period. It should also follow a transparent development process that incl udes feedback from the regulated community (see submittal for footnote 5). The proposed use of the ERT does not meet either of these requirements.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reportin g Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Rob BartonCommenter Affiliation: RMB Consulting and Research, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2198.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Inappropriate Use of ERT Software for Data Reporting EPA proposes that, after December 31, 2011, sources must submit all compliance test results to EPA using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) software or “other compatible electronic spreadsheet”. The ERT was used extensively in the Boiler MACT and EGU MACT ICRs. Our experience with this software suggests that reporting emissions data using the ERT is time consuming and represents an unnecessary burden to the regulated community. We recommend that EPA eliminate this requirement from the proposed rule unless or until EPA can establish the necessary statutory authority to develop such software.

Assuming EPA can establish such authority, compliance data reporting software should minimize the burden on the regulated community by requiring only those data requir ed to demonstrate compliance. This would include the raw emissions data and a limited amount of boiler and control device operating information from the emissions test period. It should also follow a transparent development process that includes feedback f rom the regulated community. [Footnote: EPA followed this process in their development of the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) Emission Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) software.] The proposed use of the ERT does not meet either of these requ irements.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Martha E. Rudolph Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1979.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: The State intends to continue to request sources to submit stack test reports to the State, in addition to EPA’s collecting stack testing data via the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT). The State appreciates EPA’s need to readily access stack test data and applauds efforts to improve emission factors. However, the State believes that the stack test data reported must be considered along with additional, specific information for eac h source’s operations. This evaluation cannot be easily conducted with the limited data reported in the ERT. The State believes that the stack test data submitted in the ERT, taken at face value, may be misleading unless the context in which the testing wa s completed is understood. Until the number and degree of source configuration and operation variables can be adequately accounted for and reported in one reporting tool, allowing the associated test data to be wholly considered, the State will continue to request stack test reports be submitted to the State.Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: John Hopewell Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Assoc iation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: EPA discusses the requirement to submit data via its Internet

- based portal. While we agree that electronic submittal and recordkeeping is an improvement, we also feel that EPA should account for the associated compliance costs.

EPA concluded that the r egulated sources will not need to input the data; the data input will be done by the independent contractor. EPA says that this will save industry both time and money. However, EPA ignores the fact that contractors cha rge the customer for each hour that t hey are working on our projects. Based on EPA’s description, we estimate that it would require one additional hour to input the test results into the ERT. Based on a typical professional services rate of $100/hour, this will add $100 to the cost of each st ack test for each large boiler (heat input capacity > 10 MMBtu/hour). Based on EPA’s estimate of the number of affected units (174,427 [Sum of Existing Units and New Units from Table 3. 75 FR 31914]) and the proportion of affected units that are large boil ers (6% [Ratio of Large Boilers to Total Boilers for Government units. Table 7. 75FR 31922]), the ERT data entry would cost sources a collective $1 million per year. These costs are not identified in the proposal.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: John Hopewell Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA says that there will be access to direct data submittal for WebFIRE by December 31, 2011 and requires industry to begin using it (§63.11224(e). Based on historical experience, there is a significant chance that EPA will not meet this deadline or, if th e deadline is met, there will be multiple and potentially unworkable problems with the system. In these cases, it wil l be unreasonable to hold industry accountable for the deadline. In the past, environmental agencies have said that they will use “enforce ment discretion” to not penalize industry for not entering data into an unworkable system. This is not acceptable. Following the experience with TRI

- ME, TRI

- MEweb, and other electronic systems, EPA should first make the system available for voluntary use. If and when WebFIRE is debugged, EPA can require that industry begin using the system within 6 months of a Federal Register notice. Please consider the following language: §63.11224(e) For affected facilities having applicable emission limits, you must sub mit anelectronic copy of stack test reports to EPA’s WebFIRE data base after EPA’s WebFIRE database is operational and debugged. When the database is operational and debugged, EPA will provide notice in the Federal Register. Six months after this notice, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation conducted to demonstrate compliance with this subpart, the owner or operator of the affected facility must submit the test data to EPA by successfully entering the data electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database through EPA’s Central Data Exchange. The owner or operator of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA’s data base using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) or other compatible electronic spreadsheet. , the owner or operator of an affected facility shall enter the test data into EPA’s data base using the Electronic Reporting Tool located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/ert_tool.html.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Webfire needs a mechanism to capture and protect Confidential Business Information. OCC respectfully requests that since EPA is requiring the use of Webfire to submit stack test information, EPA establish a mechanism to submit information as "confidential business information" entitled to the usual protections against disclosure to the public by EPA.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Dep artment of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: In 63.11224(e), the EPA proposes that sources that perform stack tests must submit an electronic copy of the stack test reports to EPA’s WebFIRE data base using the Electronic Reporting Tool.

The EPA should allow for other electronic reporting options t o provide flexibility for future changes in electronic reporting. In addition, the EPA should make the electronic reporting language in the Area Source Boiler Rule consistent with the Boiler MACT Rule language in 63.7550(h) to further clarify when and how stack test data should be entered into the EPA’s data base.Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regula tory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: The proposed rule states, “[a]fter December 31, 2011, within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation conducted to demonstrate comp liance” the owner/operator must “submit the test data to EPA by successfully entering the data electronically into EPA’s WebFIRE database through EPA’s Central Data Exchange . . . using the Electronic Reporting Tool (“ERT”) or other compatible electronic s preadsheet.” In the preamble, EPA states that WebFIRE will be available by that date. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,015. EPA also asserts that the information required to be reported with ERT is “already required for the existing test methods and is necessary to eval uate the conformance to the test method.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 32,016. As justification, EPA cites the benefits that will be derived from development of better emission factors.

UARG objects to EPA’s proposed requirement to report using ERT and disagrees with EPA’s assertions regarding the impact of that requirement on reporting and on emission factor development. On December 14, 2009, UARG provided comments in response to the Agency’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) at 74 Fed. Reg. 52,723 (Oct. 14, 2009) soliciting comment on a number of aspects of emission factor development, including the possibility of requiring submission of all compatible Part 60 and Part 63 to WebFIRE using ERT. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0174

- 0040 (incorporated by reference). In tho se comments, UARG noted that its members’ experience with ERT was limited, but nonetheless noted a number of shortcomings in the program that were sufficient by themselves to cause UARG to object to any requirement to use ERT. UARG members have gained more experience with ERT in recent months that has simply confirmed and elevated those objections. Use of ERT is burdensome (easily adding 10

- 20 percent to the cost of compliance testing), requiring manual inputting of significant amounts of information much o f which is not relevant to performance test results. It also is subject to significant performance issues, including software crashes and shutdowns, inoperable features (like report generation), and inadequate identification of errors preventing data analy sis. In short, even if EPA can justify a requirement to report performance test data electronically, EPA cannot justify requiring sources to use this program.

UARG also has a number of legal concerns with EPA’s proposal. First, EPA has made no effort in its proposal to identify the software it proposes to require, other than by name. If EPA finalized this rule, EPA could substitute virtually any version of this program, or even another program by the same name and attempt to mandate its use. For EPA to pr omulgate an enforceable software requirement, EPA must identify the software with sufficient specificity that it can be incorporated by reference into the rule. If EPA simply wants to require electronicreporting, EPA should limit its requirement to a spec ific format (e.g., xml) and allow sources to procure or develop their own software to comply with that format and the associated reporting elements.

Contrary to EPA’s assertion, ERT as currently designed requires the reporting of vast amounts of informat ion that are not otherwise required to be reported under the applicable EPA test methods, or EPA’s proposed rule. A brief comparison of the reporting requirements in Method 5 (40 C.F.R. Part 60, Appendix A, Method 5, 11.2.2 and 11.2.4

-- “[r]eport the resu lts to the nearest 0.1 mg”) with EPA’s description of ERT in its Electronic Reporting Users Guide Version 3.1, June 2009 (creating test plan, run data, test data, process data, etc.) illustrates this point. Similarly, EPA’s proposed requirement to report “ test data” is not sufficiently detailed to support reporting of all of the information that must be entered into ERT in order to submit data. To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act and its implementing regulations, EPA must specifically identify each p iece of information it seeks to have reported, explain how those data have practical utility, and estimate the costs of collection and EPA review of those data. EPA has done none of that. If EPA intends to require reporting of more than the test results al ready required to be reported under the applicable EPA test methods, EPA must issue a supplemental proposal identifying and soliciting comment on the information it seeks to collect.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and bene fits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: Any electronic report used to satisfy federal reporting requirements also must meet the requirements of the Cross

- Media Electronic Reporting Rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 3, including the requirement that the document include a valid electronic signatu re, as defined in the rule. EPA has made no attempt to explain how ERT or WebFIRE meet this requirement. UARG also is concerned regarding the ability of ERT to satisfy other criteria EPA deems necessary for valid electronic reporting, including whether (i) each electronic signature was a valid electronic signature at the time of signing; (ii) the electronic document cannot be altered without detection at any time after being signed; and (iii) each signatory had the opportunity to review in a human readable format the content of the electronic document that he or she was certifying to, attesting to or agreeing to by signing. See., e.g., 40 C.F.R. 3.2000(b)(5). In UARG’s experience, ERT satisfies none of these criteria. Especially troublesome is the inability of the responsible official to prevent revision of the information in ERT at or after the point of submittal. EPA cannot require sources to submit data using a mechanism that does not satisfy its own requirements for such submissions. Promises by EPA that these issues will be addressed by the time reports must be submitted are not sufficient to satisfy EPA’s obligations under the CAA to provide notice and opportunity for comment at the time of proposal.Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55

Comment: UARG does not agree with EPA’s unsupported assertion that the information required to be submitted under ERT to WebFIRE will benefit EPA and sources by improving emission factors. EPA has yet to explain in any detail how the process of emission factor development from performance test data submitted to WebFIRE will work. In its comments on the ANPR, UARG expressed concerns about the process EPA described and objected to any attempts to mandate submission of reports before EPA had more completely explained its plans,

com pleted any necessary rulemakings, and made operational its website. UARG reiterates those points here. EPA should not be promulgating requirements intended to support a larger program piecemeal before that program has been fully developed. See, e.g., UARG Petition for Reconsideration of Portions of Final Standards for Coal Preparation and Processing Plants, EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0260 (Dec. 7, 2009) at 8

- 9 (incorporated by reference). [Footnote: EPA granted UARG’s request for reconsideration of the ERT/WebFIRE rep orting requirement in Part 60, Subpart Y on March 3, 2010.] EPA should reserve the question of mandatory reporting to WebFIRE until it has resolved the questions raised in the ANPR.

Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the use and benef its of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 80

Comment: The Requirement For ERT Reporting Sho uld Be Removed. We believe that the requirement for ERT reporting should be removed. In the recent past, industry had many problems submitting Industrial Boiler MACT and CISWI ICR data using the ERT, and many problems with the tool continue to exist based on experience that utilities and testing firms are having trying to enter Utility Boiler MACT ICR data into the tool. Use of this tool will add cost and burden to the emissions testing requirements in this rule. Moreover, the tool does not replace a stack test report, but rather is an additional reporting burden, as permitting agencies will still require a hard copy stack test report with all supporting documentation.

The ERT Is Not Workable. Below are a number of issues we and others have encountered wit h the ERT:- It is not intuitive and is difficult to use.

- It is not set up to handle data from multiple stacks from the same source being tested at the same time.

- It only allows for one intermittent leak check during a test run. Many stacks have more than two ports so the ERT should be set up to handle those scenarios rather than having to add leak check volumes together to come up with a total.

- It is not set u p to handle mixed blend calibration gases, which are extremely common.

- The import tool is inadequate, as it does not have enough rows for long runs and often imports data in the wrong order.

- The tool is not set up to handle blank corrections.

- The tool is idiosyncratic slow to respond.

- The tool seems to be designed only to work under the most ideal of test scenarios. The Agency should ask for comments on the format and uploading tool from individuals that encounter real world scenarios for testin g to incorporate into future editions.

- Revisions and updates to the ERT should be apparent so that users can make sure the version they are using is the most recent version available.

Requiring use of the ERT will add time and cost to stack testing pr ojects, as time will have to be spent entering the test data into the tool and then quality assuring the ERT output. We do not believe that this extra cost is included in EPA’s analysis.

In addition, compliance tests are submitted to the state or local p ermitting agency for review and approval. At times, the agency provides comments to the regulated facility that adjusts the test results. In these cases, the information entered into the ERT at the time of the stack test would not match the final, state

- ap proved emission test results. At a minimum, there needs to be a mechanism for the ERT data to be updated in these situations or a flag to indicate whether the report has been reviewed and approved by the permitting agency. Alternatively, EPA could require the permitting agency to enter the stack test results into the ERT once approved, rather than requiring facilities to enter the data.

If use of the ERT is required in the final rule, EPA needs to develop a comprehensive ERT Guidance Manual that provides complete instructions with examples for:

- All entries, including:

- the various facility identification codes, and where to find them,

- BDL instructions,

- calibration instructions,

- required attachments;

- the “external” spreadsheets” that are us ed to import certain data into the ERT; and,

- the “external spreadsheets” that are used for reporting test methods not currently supported by the ERT.

Lastly, EPA should develop an “outreach” or “training” program that provides instructions for specifi c source categories and related parameters. Such efforts need to be readily

- available, i.e., through presentations at relevant conferences/seminars, as well as web

- based sessions (“webinars”).Response: Please see the Preamble for a discussion of the u se and benefits of using an Electronic Reporting Mechanism.



### Recordkeeping and Reporting: Streamlining NSPS

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 88

Comment: Proposed 63.11224(b) requires submission of an annual compliance report by March 1 of each calendar year, including a description of any deviations and corrective action and records of the amounts and types of fuel us e. Sources are already required to submit other reports to permitting agencies at other times of the year, so EPA should allow permitting authorities the option of streamlining compliance reporting so the facility can prepare one annual report that covers all air regulatory requirements. Alternatively, EPA could require area sources to maintain compliance records and only submit reports upon request.

Response: See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1, excerpt number 6.

Commenter Name: Charles B . Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA should eliminate the duplicative and unnecessary annual March 1 compliance report requirement for facilities that are already required to submit periodic compliance reports under an existing air permit (e.g., pursuant to Title V).

Response: The requirement in section 63.11224(b) regarding annual compliance reports only required the preparation of the report by March 1 for the previous calendar year. The report was only required to be submitted if any deviation was experienced during the reporting period. Section 63.11224(b) [now 63.11225(b)] has been revised to clarify that the ann ual report, if no deviations occurred, only needs to be submitted upon request.



### Other

- Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirments

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David FriedmanCommenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment: EPA should clearly demonstrate that resources exist for managing and ev aluating an additional 100,000 plus stack tests per year.

Response: In the final rule, the only existing area source boilers subject to emission limits are coal

- fired. We estimate that there are about 3,700 existing area source coal

- fired boilers.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: The EPA should clarify that reporting electronical ly to the EPA’s data base may not meet some state’s or other delegated authority’s reporting requirements and does not alleviate a source’s responsibilities from meeting those requirements. Delegated authorities may require different and/or additional info rmation than what is required to be submitted to the EPA’s data base.

Response: We agree that reporting electronically to the EPA’s data base may not meet some state’s or other delegated authority’s reporting requirements and that the requirement does not alleviate a source’s responsibilities from meeting those requirements.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment: Some provisions also require approval in order to move forward. [Footnote: In several places, EPA uses the phrase submit for “approval upon request.” See proposed 63.7505(d)(1) and 63.7522(g). It is not clear if EPA is referring to a source owner/operator ’s request for approval, or a regulatory authority’s request for submission. EPA should revise these provisions to remove this ambiguous phrase.] Although the provisions generally establish a required time

- frame for submittal, e.g., 60 days before the init ial performance evaluation or compliance demonstration, the rules do not impose any deadline for a response by the Administrator, permitting authority, or regulatory authority. EPA should provide that timely submitted requests for approval are automaticall y approved after 30 days if no response is received.Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment wi ll be provided there.



### Health Based Compliance Alternatives

Other

- Health Based Compliance

Commenter Name: Carl Johnson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Pressure Treaters' Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0870.1 Comment Excer pt Number: 7

Comment: The health

- based compliance option should be retained to prevent facilities from having to install unnecessary controls.

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 36

Comment: Now, it’s probably never a good idea to complain about something without offering a solution. We suggest the use of a health risk analysis in lieu of the one

- size

- fits

- all regulations
t hat are proposed.

Some years ago California enacted what is called the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, the AB2588 program, which requires a health risk analysis based on power plant emissions and toxics. This was done in California and a number of years ag o. All biomass plants were suggested to the health risk analysis and all passed. We burn clean wood chips. Unfortunately, the category of fuel known as Construction and Demolition Wastes referred to as C and D, they’re looped together.Our plants take co nstruction waste with clean cutoffs. Our permits prohibit painted or otherwise treated wood in our fuel plant. So demolition waste is generally completely ruled out. We would suggest that in lieu of either the Boiler MACT or the Area Source Rule for biomas s power plants not burning waste but burning clean wood chip fuel, be subjected to a health risk analysis based on measured stack emission and accepted health risk methodologies.

Response: In the final rule, standards for biomass

- fired area source boi lers are based on GACT, instead of the proposed MACT

- based standards, and are subject to a management practice of a
tune

- up requirement.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of comme nters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: EPA has the Clean Air Act authority through the 112(d)(4) to formulate MACT rules using a health threshold approach that would provide flexibility for sources whi le also ensuring the protection of public health. There is precedent for using that approach, and CIBO urges EPA to include that approach as a means to provide acid gas control in a cost

- effective manner.

Response: This comment pertains to the major sou rce boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Duane C. Feagley Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Anthracite C ouncil Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1052.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA should allow facilities to demonstrate that emissions of certain pollutants do not pose a public health concern. A practical health oriented standard for threshold pollutants like hydrogen chloride and manganese would allow sources to demonstrate thei r emissions of these compounds pose no adverse risk. The Clean Air Act in §112(d)(4), expressly contemplates the use of such an approach which can be implemented without sacrificing risk reduction benefits. A health threshold standard is critical to the fu ture viability of biomass and other boilers. EPA should make the health threshold standard an integral part of its final rule.

Response: Under section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator has discretionary authority to consider health ori ented standard for threshold pollutants like hydrogen chloride and manganese. In the Boiler Area Source NESHAP, hydrogen chloride and manganese are not regulated under a MACT

- based approach but under GACT

- based approach.Commenter Name: Allan Muller Co mmenter Affiliation: Green Delaware Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1104 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Stringent health

- based and technology

- based (MACT) requirements are urgently needed.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for thei r support.



### Compliance

Fuel Switching Compliance

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: While owners and operators may seek to conduct testing at reasonable worst case conditions to assure compliance during less rigorous conditions, it is entirely possible that operations during less rigorous conditions could nevertheless accommodate variati on that would not threaten compliance with the standard, but nevertheless could be relevant when the data are used to set standards on a pollutant

- specific basis rather than a unit

- specific basis. As a hypothetical example, the most rigorous testing condit ion for HCl emissions from a given boiler might be a feed with high halide content. Thus, it would be logical for testing to be performed under these conditions. However, other HAP constituents in the feed

– such as metals

– would not necessarily be at “wo rst case” levels during testing focused on halides. In this scenario, the testing might show extremely low levels of metals emissions, which would not necessarily reflect the higher levels of such emissions that might occur during normal operations.

Res ponse: As discussed in the comment above, HCl is not relevant to the area source standard. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there. Worst

- case mercu ry conditions only apply for mercury at units that are subject to a numeric emission limit. Sources must test under conditions that are representative of the source’s ability to comply continuously with the emission standards. If the source believes that c onditions at maximum normal operating load are not reflective of conditions that most challenge the source's ability tocomply, they may specify what other conditions are more reflective of continuous compliance in their test plan, as required under the Ge neral Provisions at 63.7(c). Further. the regulations have been amended to clarify that you must conduct performance stack tests at the maximum normal operating load while burning the type of fuel or mixture of fuels that has the highest content of particu late matter, as well as mercury. We have also added the clarifying language to the area source rule that is proposed in the analgous section of the Boiler MACT rule, What Stack Tests and Procedures must I use for the Performance Tests, which indicates that these requirements could result in the need to conduct more than one performance test.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 213 7.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 25

Comment: EPA has not provided a clear definition as to what constitutes new fuel. Unlike liquid fuels and coal, most biomass fuels are inherently inhomogeneous. For example, does a wood chip facility need to test for Hg and HCl for every new load or new supplier of fuel? As proposed, the language is unclear as to when a facility must conduct a test to show compliance with emission limits when fuel switching occurs, or the frequency of this testing. NESCAUM recommends that EPA clarify this rule to require testing upon use of a new fuel. Additionally, NESCAUM recommends that EPA not require facilities burning biomass to conduct fuel testing on each new load of biomass nor when a facility switches biomass fuel suppliers.

Respo nse: Biomass fuels encompass a broad range of materials which as the commenter points out are not all homogeneous. Biomass encompass a broad range of materials which as the commenter points out are not all homogeneous. The term biomass encompasses cellulo sic biomass such as forest

derived biomass, sawdust, wood chips, bark, bagasse, biomass crops used specifically for energy production, clean wood found in disaster debris, and resinated wood products. Whereas a switch in the source of wood chips would not constitute a new fuel, a switch from wood chips to a nonwood biomass, such as bagasse should be considered a switch in fuel given the differing physical and chemical characteristics of wood as compared to the nonwood biomasses. Note that the definition of fuel type does not classify individual fuel types received from different suppliers as new fuels.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Associat ion (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40

Comment: Proposed §63.11221(a)(3)(ii) requires a new performance test within 60 days of burning a new fuel if the fuel mercury level is higher than previous fuel’s mercury levels.However, 60 days is too short a period to do a performance test. Typically, 120 to 180 days is needed to plan and schedule a performance test and to meet the legal requirements in §63.7 associated with performance tests. In particular, sign ificant time is needed to comply with §63.7 requirements, such as the requirement in §63.7(b) for a notice 60 days before the test and the §63.7(c) test plan and QA/QC requirements.

Additionally, §63.11221(a)(3) should be limited to only coal

- fired boilers, since they are the only boilers with mercury limits. It makes no sense to require mercury performance tests for biomass

or liquid

- fired boilers, where mercury emissions are not re gulated.

Response: Section 63.11221(a)(3) requires a fuel analysis of mercury concentrations only if there is an applicable mercury emission limit. Therefore, no fuel analysis for mercury is required if there is no applicable limit. Testing of a fuel un der §63.11221(a)(3)(ii) is not required for 60 days after you start burning the new fuel, whereas the fuel analysis that may trigger the requirement to test, is required during the planning stages, see §63.11221(a)(3): if you have you have an applicable me rcury emission limit and you plan to burn a new type of fuel, then you must determine the mercury concentration. The results of this fuel analysis conducted during the planning stage, prior to the date you start to fire the fuel, will determine whether a p erformance test is necessary. The availablility of this time period before the source starts to fire the fuel is when the source needs to make plans for scheduling a test and may start on providing the notifications and test plan procedures in §63.7.

Co mmenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: We recommend including language to the applicability section for units that are
perm itted to fire fuel oil, but have not fired that fuel recently. Requiring boilers that are permitted to fire a fuel that is regulated under this proposed rule, but historically only fires natural gas should not be required to show compliance with this rule. Instead, an ongoing analysis should be performed to determine whether the gas fired boiler definition is no longer satisfied (e.g. the boiler would satisfy the oil subcategory and would be subject to the role at a later date). Under this situation additio nal timelines for existing boilers would need to be included within the regulation.

Response: Please see preamble for how comment is addressed

.

Commenter Name: Barry Christensen Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2227.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20Comment: EPA should allow postponement of stack testing if it is not possible to burn alternative fuels. Three of our sites are permitted to burn fuel oil, but they do not necessarily have it onsite. A mechanism to request an extension for conducting the performance test should be available in the final rule. If the price of natural gas rises dramatically, to the point that it becomes a business decision to burn fuel oil, we would then be in a positio n to conduct the compliance test with fuel oil.

Response: The facility is responsible for demonstrating that they are able to continuously comply with the emissions limits when operating under expected operating conditions. Existing sources are given 3 years to come into compliance and another 180 days to stack test. This should be sufficient time to acquire a sample of the fuels to be burned for a stack test. If a stack test does not represent the range of combined process and control measure conditions under which the facility expects to operate, the delegated agency may determine that retesting is warranted.



### Switching Subcategories

Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel Commenter Affiliation: Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs, SBEAP Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2195.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Recommendation: Clarify the requirements or consequences in the event a company switches fuel to natural gas at any point, including after the compliance deadline for the final rule. There should be a clear statement about whether sources can be allowed completely out of the rule requirements should they completely change to natural gas at any point.

Response: Consistent with the fuel switching procedures added to the regulations at 63.11225, a source may switch fuels, and this fuel switch may result in the applicability of a different subcategory, a different regulatory program (a switch to Section 129 if solid waste is combusted), or, in the example the commenter provides, a switch out of the Area Source MACT due to a switch to 100% natural gas. A source subject to the Area Source MACT that intends to make a switch to 100% natural gas is required to submit a 30 day advance notification of fuel switch, which will id entify the effective date of the fuel switch, meaning in this case, the date on which the Area Source MACT is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Contro l Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: NHDES also considers the approach of categorizing boilers based on one primary fuel type to be problematic for enforceability. Boilers today are often configured to run on multiple fuels and the percentage of any one particular fuel over another can be based in part on the cost of each fuel. Therefore, a boiler that would be considered part of one sub

- category based on the previous year’s annual heat input could be operating under an entirely different fuel loading scenario the following year. Also, without detailed requirements for tracking, recordkeeping and reporting, the 10% annualized usage number would be difficult for enforcement staff to verify. For example, if a biomass boile r co

- fired with oil were to perform a stack test for CO, it would be required to meet the 100 ppm (@7% 0?) standard even if during the stack test it burned 99% oil, simply because it burned any amount of biomass. Since a precedent has been set in 40 CFR 60 with establishing emission limitations based on a weighted average between different fuel types, NHDES recommends that EPA provide this same mechanism in order to determine the applicable emission limitations for multi

- fuel fired boilers. As an alternativ e, EPA could clarify in the regulation that if a device is operating under a dual fuel scenario, the device must comply with the lowest emission limit for each fuel burned. However, NHDES is concerned that by requiring multi

- fuel fired units to comply with the lowest emission limit for each fuel type burned, this proposal would inadvertently push units into fuel switching situations that may result in boilers being required to meet more lenient standards. Therefore, NHDES also recommends that EPA encourage fuel switching not between solid and gaseous fuels but between "dirtier" and "cleaner" burning forms of the same fuel.

Response: Consistent with the fuel switching procedures added to the regulations at 63.11225, a source may switch fuels, and this fuel switch may result in the applicability of a different subcategory, a different regulatory program (a switch to Section 129 if solid waste is combusted), or, in the example the commenter provides, a switch out of the Area Source MACT due to a switch to 100 % natural gas. A source subject to the Area Source MACT that intends to make a switch to 100% natural gas is required to submit a 30 day advance notification of fuel switch, which will identify the effective date of the fuel switch, meaning in this case, t he date on which the Area Source MACT is no longer applicable.

Commenter Name: Debra J. Jezouit Commenter Affiliation: The Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1986.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Additionally, the Group supports EPA’s decision to allow natural gas

- fired Boilers to combust liquid fuel during periods of natural gas curtailment without triggering requirements under section 112. Periods of curtailment are unpredictable, infrequent, an d completely beyond the control of a facility. These periods are akin to an emergency situation. Using liquid fuel during periods of curtailment in no way signals that a facility intends to "switch" fuels such that the Boiler would warrant regulation under section 112.Response: EPA thanks the commenters for their support on how gas

- fired boilers are defined in the final rule.



### Common Stack Provision

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: For facilities with a common stack and multiple emission units and/or types of emission units exhausting through a common stack there may be certain technical circumstances that would not allow for a CEMS installation considering the available location(s) would not satisfy the 40 CFR 60 installation recommendations and may not yield representative emissions data due to stratification problems. In addition, if stack structural improvements are require d to install CEMS whether the stack is dedicated to a single combustion unit or is a common stack, would those improvements be required or would an alternative compliance method be allowed?

Response: Oxygen monitors must be installed, operated, and main tained according to the applicable procedures und er Performance Specification (PS) 3 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and according to the site

- specific monitoring plan developed for the rule. EPA understands that CEMS installation may require some engineering planning and perhaps modifications (e.g., multiple sampling probes and sample mixing) to assure a representative sample collection. We believe that the procedures provide sufficient flexibility to satisfy most, if not all, applications.



### Comp liance Dates

Commenter Name: David Meierhenry Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0414.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: A biennial tune

- up is required for boilers < 10MMBtu/hr, as described in section IV.C of the preamble and specified in 63.11210(d) and Table 2. A tune

- up every two years is not unreasonable but 63.11196(a) allows a three year compliance schedule. There is no environmental benefit and little benefit t o the boiler owner/operator in delaying the initial tune

up for three years. The compliance schedule for the initial tune

- up should be changed to two years after publication of the rule.Response: We agree and have revised 63.11196(a) to add the requi rement that boilers subject to the tune

- up requirement must achieve initial compliance within one year after publication.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center, George Mason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1 837.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: EPA might approach the uncertainty surrounding benefits by phasing in standards slowly. The portions of the rule expected to generate the greatest or most certain benefits should be phased in first, allowing the EP A to collect data on the performance of the rule and structure future rulemakings accordingly.

Response: We agree and have revised 63.11196(a) to add the requirement that boilers subject to the tune

- up requirement must achieve initial compliance withi n one year after publication.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA does not address in this proposed rule, nor in any o f the three related concurrently

- propose CAA and RCRA rules, the timing of when a facility must stop burning a fuel that under the final non

- hazardous secondary materials solid waste definition rule would be determined to be a solid waste, to avoid subject ing the air emissions source to the incinerator rule. We request EPA address this question in the rulemaking or guidance, and suggest the first significant compliance date of the area source rule or Boiler MACT to be the proper timing. For sources subject to an existing MACT rule (e.g. PCWP MACT) that combust a fuel that becomes a solid waste by regulatory definition, we recommend the date to be when the source renews its Title V air permit after the incinerator rule guidelines become effective in the State where the source is located.

Response: Under the General Provisions [63.9(B0(2)] owners and operators of affected sources must submit the Initial Notification within 120 days after publication of the rule. We have added 63.11196(d) to the final rule that addresses this comment.

Commente r Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18Comment: Due to the broad scope of both the Area and Major Source Boiler MACTs, the re will be significant demand for stack testing and installation of monitoring and control equipment. The Maine DEP is concerned that there will an insufficient supply of qualified testing companies to meet this demand within the proposed timeframes. We re commend that EPA allow one year for facilities to conduct initial compliance testing instead of the proposed 180 day period. We are also concerned that existing sources will be unable to install the necessary control and monitoring equipment within three y ears. There will be high demand and limited supply for the required equipment, and many facilities will need to undertake significant designing, planning and construction to locate the equipment within the existing facility. We recommend that EPA establish a compliance date five years from the date the final rule is published.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the 3

- year compliance deadline is too short considering the number of sources that will be competing for the resources and ma terials from engineering consultants, equipment vendors, construction contractors, financial institutions, and other critical suppliers. However, we know that many sources will not need to install controls. As a result, since not everyone will need more than 3 years to actually install controls, the final rule does not allow an extra year for existing sources to comply with the final rule. Section 112(i)(3)(B) allows EPA, on a case

- by

- case basis to grant an extension permitting an existing source up to o ne additional year to comply with standards if such additional period is necessary for the installation of controls. The EPA feels that this provision is sufficient for those sources where the 3

- year deadline would not provide adequate time to retrofit as necessary to comply with the requirements of the standard.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: Because of the short time between proposal (June 4, 2010) and the Court Ordered finalization of this rule (December 16, 2010) and the long delivery and construction times for CEMS and contro ls it is impossible for boilers that begin construction within a year or two after proposal to install controls or CEMS by the date this proposal is finalized or startup. The delivery times for equipment required by this regulation are likely to be greatly extended beyond normal deliveries, because of the massive number of units being impacted by these three rulemakings, all requiring equipment within the first three years after promulgation. EPA should provide up to three years (or 5 years if 5 years is pr ovided for existing sources, as requested in our next comment) from the final rule publication for any boiler to come into compliance with any requirement involving facilities installation.

It is apparent that, even with the changes suggested in these co mments, owners and operators will be required to retrofit countless industrial boilers and process heaters in order to meet the final rule. The proposal would set a three

- year compliance deadline for existing affected sources.However, this is an exceeding ly short time given the extensive nature of the needed retrofits and the limited technical resources available to accomplish the retrofits (especially in light of the fact that area source boiler owners will be competing for equipment and technical resourc es with major sources and other key industry sectors such as the utility sector, which will have a similar compliance deadline for the utility MACT and also will be required to install substantial air pollution controls to meet the proposed Clean Air Trans port Rule).

To solve this problem, EPA must adopt a significantly longer compliance deadline. Nominally, EPA should adopt by rule an across

- the

- board one

- year extension pursuant to §112(i)(3)(B) for any unit subject to an emission limit. However, even a four

- year compliance period will be inadequate for many affected sources. Therefore, EPA should provide additional time by: (1) granting in the final rule a Presidential extension under §112(i)(4), given that it is in the “national security interests of th e United States” to prevent widespread noncompliance in the industrial base; (2) declaring that the statutory three

- year compliance period is impossible to meet or otherwise produces “absurd results,” which as demonstrated in EPA’s recent PSD Tailoring Rul e are doctrines that allow EPA to depart from clear statutory directives in appropriate circumstances; and/or (3) establishing phased or sequenced requirements such that certain element of the rule become effective no later than three years after promulgat ion (thus satisfying §112(i)(3)(A)), while others are phased in at later times. EPA should provide up to five years for any unit subject to emission limits to comply with this rule.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Nu mber 18.

Commenter Name: Ronald W. Gore Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Given the stringency of many of the emission limitations listed in the proposed rule, the Department is concerned that many facilities may not have sufficient time to engineer and design the emissions control systems, raise the amount of capital to purcha se the equipment, and install the required equipment. In addition, there could be hardware backlogs and/or insufficient skilled labor, which could delay compliance. The Department asks that the Agency consider a lengthy compliance timeline which would allo w facilities to achieve compliance within practical timelines.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18. In addition, the final rule has been revised such that only existing coal

- fired area source boilers are subje ct to emission limits which may require the installation of control devices.

Commenter Name: Kevin F. BiernackiCommenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: If capital improvements are necessary to show compliance with this regulation, we are concerned that the 3 year time frame to illustrate compliance is not adequate. Importantly, capital improvements may include upgrades to burners and/or add

- on controls to s how compliance with emission limits to stack structural improvements for CEMS installation on older boilers.

If capital improvements are required (e.g. burner upgrades, add

- on controls, stack structural improvements for CEMS installations...) and cannot be implemented within the 3 years currently required within the proposed regulation, an implementation plan would be required to be submitted within the initial 3 year time frame outlining a compliance timeline that must be completed within an additional 3 year time frame. This request is being made because under certain circumstances difficult and timely burner studies may be required to optimize NOx/CO/opacity emissions concurrently; add

- on controls installation and/or stack structural improvements in old er facilities will not be trivial.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: If capital improvements are necessary to show compliance with this regulation we are concerned that the 3 year time frame to illustrate compliance is not adequate. Importantly, capital improvements may include upgrades to burner s and/or add

- on controls to show compliance with emission limits to stack structural improvements for CEMS installation on older boilers.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: David Suess Comm enter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Include a discussion within the regulation that acknowledges the fact that capital improvements may be necessary under certain ci rcumstances to satisfy certain requirements within this regulation (e.g. emission limits, CEMS installations...). If capital improvements arerequired (e.g. burner upgrades, add

- on controls...) and can not be implemented within the 3 years currently requir ed within the proposed regulation, an implementation plan would be required to be submitted within the initial 3 year time frame outlining a compliance timeline that must be completed within an additional 3 year time frame. This request is being made becau se under certain circumstances difficult and timely burner studies may be required to optimize NOx/CO/opacity emissions concurrently; add

- on controls installation and/or stack structural improvements in older facilities will not be trivial.

Response: S ee response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: It is apparent th at owners and operators will be required to retrofit countless industrial boilers and process heaters in order to meet the final rule. The proposal would set a three

- year compliance deadline for existing affected sources. However, this is an exceedingly sh ort time given the extensive nature of the needed retrofits and the limited technical resources available to accomplish the retrofits (especially in light of the fact that industrial boiler owners will be competing for equipment and technical resources wit h other key industry sectors such as the utility sector, which will have a similar compliance deadline for the utility MACT and also will be required to install substantial air pollution controls to meet the proposed Clean Air Transport Rule).

To solve t his problem, EPA must adopt a significantly longer compliance deadline. Nominally, EPA should adopt by rule an across

- the

- board one

- year extension pursuant to § 112(i)(3)(B). However, even a four

- year compliance period will be inadequate for many affected sources. Therefore, EPA should provide additional time by: (1) granting in the final rule a Presidential extension under § 112(i)(4), given that it is in the “national security interests of the United States” to prevent widespread noncompliance in the indu strial base; (2) declaring that the statutory three

- year compliance period is impossible to meet or otherwise produces “absurd results,” which as demonstrated in EPA’s recent PSD Tailoring Rule are doctrines that allow EPA to depart from clear statutory di rectives in appropriate circumstances; and/or (3) establishing phased or sequenced requirements such that certain element of the rule become effective no later than three years after promulgation (thus satisfying § 112(i)(3)(A)), while others are phased in at later times.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke EnergyDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: EPA proposes to set the compliance deadline for existing affected sources at three years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Duke Energy believes this provides an inadequate amount of time for the thousands of affected sources to be retrofit as necessary to meet the new MACT standards. When finalized, EPA estimates that under the alternative solid waste definition, the MACT standards will apply to the existing fleet of 525 coal units, 239 biomass units, 791 liqu id fired units and 11,524 gas fired units. The capital costs will fall predominately to those industries which have solid fuel

- fired, i.e., predominantly coal

- fired, and bio

- mass units. In order to meet the MACT standards, these owners will, by and large, have to install add

- on controls. According to Table 9, out of a total of 13,079 existing units that will require controls, 764 are solid fuel fired, or about 6% of the total.

Duke Energy anticipates that industry will face severe time and material constr aints that will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many facilities to meet the retrofit deadline of three years. Most of the targeted solid fuel

- fired units are located at facilities that will have to undergo substantial re

- engineering, e. g., due to space constraints, to accommodate new controls. Design, procurement, installation, and shakedown of these projects will easily consume three years. In short, more time is needed. Moreover it is inevitable that many existing boilers will be force d to convert to an alternative fuel such as natural gas, or even construct entirely new boilers. According to its rulemaking to date, EPA has not adequately considered these factors. External factors will also jeopardize compliance within three years. A l arge number of companies will be competing nationwide for limited resources and materials from engineering consultants, equipment vendors, construction contractors, financial institutions, and other critical suppliers. It is likely many companies will find themselves unable to procure the necessary goods and services to complete the retrofitting of their affected units within three years. In particular, Duke Energy is concerned about sources being able to procure bag houses and scrubbers because immediate i ndustry demand will outstrip immediately available supplies. EPA must also realize that these retrofits will not occur in a vacuum. Because of EPA’s recently proposed Transport Rule and the forthcoming Utility MACT Rule, a large amount of retrofits will o ccur at the same time sources are attempting to meet the requirements of the Industrial Boiler MACT. Since many industrial boilers and process heaters can be relatively small sources, it is plausible that they will suffer from lower priorities compared to larger utility boilers. Industry must continue to operate as best as possible while retrofitting to meet the new MACT standards. In general, the existing solid fuel

- fired boilers that will be subject to this new rule comprise the most critical part of the base load energy supply for their facilities. These units typically have high capacity utilization rates. Extensive outages for retrofitting must be carefully planned. Only when all of the critical prerequisites for the retrofit have been lined up, e.g., the engineering is complete and the control equipment is staged for immediate installation, can an owner afford to shut down a facility’s base load boiler to install the new controls. This will take careful planning and coordination both within the company and outside the company that will involve with engineering consultants, equipment vendors, and construction contractors. Duke Energy does not believe three years is sufficient to allow owners of many of the affected sources the time necessary to make the retrofits without substantial disruption to the operation of their facilities.Duke Energy recommends EPA address the foregoing problems by extending the compliance deadline to four years after the publication of the final regulations in the Federal Regi ster. Duke Energy believes that the Agency would be fully justified in invoking 112(i)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act to grant owners of all affected sources a one year extension of the compliance deadline. Four years would provide critically needed time for i ndustry to conduct the necessary retrofitting with controls and absorb the great cost of these retrofits. Given the magnitude of the retrofit requirements and the likelihood of substantial difficulties fulfilling these requirements, it is essential that EP A provide all the flexibility within their authority. The one year compliance extension authorized by the Act is a legitimate and necessary solution to this problem, and Duke Energy urges EPA to incorporate a general one year compliance extension for exist ing affected sources in the final BPH MACT rule. In addition EPA must clearly articulate the conditions under which a source is eligible for this extension at the time that the rule is finalized. If it is uncertain that a source can qualify for an extensio n or it must go through an uncertain regulatory approval process, there is no way a source can effectively factor that extension into its planning process and risk possible noncompliance. Duke Energy supports giving this extension to all sources that actua lly install controls to attain compliance.

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provid ed there.

Commenter Name: Chelly Reesman Commenter Affiliation: JR Simplot Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2244 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Within 3 years after the implementation of the proposed regulation, an affected

sou rce must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions in the rule. It is anticipated that compliance will require installation of additional control equipment which in turn requires, capital equipment budgeting, design, selection, manufacturing time for the control equipment, and possibly air permitting. It is unclear that it is possible to achieve compliance within 3 years. In particular, obtaining any necessary air permits in a timely matter has been an ongoing issue in a number of areas where Simpl ot does business in the United States.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Robert Thornton Commenter Affiliation: International District Energy Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2169.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: Given both the significant cost for design and construction of facilities to meet the standards and the current constraints on access to capital (particularly for colleges, universities and o ther institutions), the three year deadline for compliance will be onerous.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Eric Trauner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 2286 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The date for compliance should be set at five years, not three. By definition, there will be facilities that will not be able to comply with this MACT. Intelligent consideration of compliance options in such cases has many steps, each taking several months. For instance, it will take several weeks for a facility to review the final MACT and develop a compliance plan. A likely first step in such a compliance plan would be evaluation of current status, like ly by stack testing. Because there are in fact a limited number of stack testers genuinely qualified to execute such work, even this seemingly simple step of compliance determination will take several months (as US

- EPA has recently learned). Then, a review of compliance options in terms of engineering and economics will also take several months to a year. Hard engineering design can take an additional year or longer, followed by what could well be two years for acquisition of equipment, installation, and st art

- up/ shakedown, with a final official stack test. A sound compliance effort cannot be completed in three years.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Christy Sammon Commenter Affiliation: S outheastern Lumber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1954.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: The Agency should provide for an extended compliance period.

Given the tens of thousands of boilers that will have to be controlled as a result of these rules, it is unlikely that the capacity of existing vendors, contractors, engineers, and state regulatory personnel is sufficient to allow completion of all of the required modifications in a 3

- year time period, or even a 4

- year time period if facilities were granted a 1

- year extension. EPA should evaluate all of the necessary capabilities and establish a compliance period based upon that evaluation.

Response: Se e response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment: EPA pro poses to set the compliance deadline for existing affected sources at three years after the date of publication of the Final Rule in the Federal Register. It will be extraordinarily difficult

– if not impossible

– for all of the entities with existing boil ers to make the changes necessary to comply with this rule in the three year timeframe that EPA proposes. Put simply, the normally herculean task of performing a boiler retrofit in three years will be made impossible by the enormous competition for critica l resources and the likely gridlock in many state permitting processes that the broad application of this rule will create. Many boiler owners will be simply unable to secure equipment and assistance and/or to obtain the state/local permits needed to retro fit their units within three years.

Even under the best of circumstances, a major retrofit of a boiler takes years from project start to finish. EPA has estimated that the installation of an activated carbon injection control system on one combustion uni t

– a comparatively simple installation

– takes about 15 months. [Footnote: EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies (2002).] However, EPA expects a range of control devices will be used to meet the standards, including fabric filters, carbon bed adsorbers, activated carbon injection, electrostatic precipitators, wet scrubbers, replacement burners, and combustion controls. [Footnote: EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emiss ion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 3

- 1 (April 2010) (“The control analysis considered fabric filters, carbon bed adsorbers, and activated carbon injection to be the primary control devices for mercury control, electrostatic precipitators for units meeting mercury limits but requiring additional control to meet the PM limits, wet scrubbers to meet the HCl limits, tune

- ups, replacement burners, and combustion controls for CO

an d organic HAP control, and carbon injection for dioxin/furan control.”)] Further, the sheer number of boilers impacted by the rule will make finding

– and then scheduling

– the design and construction resources almost impossible. EPA estimates that there a re approximately 13,555 units located at 1,608 facilities covered by this rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 32048. Given that EPA has set emissions standards that no existing unit can meet, every single existing unit subject to an emission standard may need to be retrofi tted. Boiler owners will need to hire consultants to assist them in designing and performing the retrofit. Thus, across the multitude of industries impacted by this rule, boiler owners will be competing for qualified consultants to design, permit and perfo rm the retrofits necessary to make boilers compliant with this stringent rule. There are only a limited handful of consulting companies with the expertise to assist in such retrofits, and they will likely be unable to assist all of the boiler owners in les s than three years. There will be a similar scarcity in equipment vendors, construction contractors, construction equipment (e.g, heavy lifting cranes), skilled labor (e.g., boilermakers), and other critical suppliers. Companies may even be unable to secur e the basic building materials and control equipment (e.g., baghouses and scrubbers).Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 38

Comment: EPA should extend the compliance deadline given the breadth of sources and competition for resources.

In order to retrofit a boiler, the owner will need to line up the capital necessary to pay for the retrofit. In these difficult economic times, just securing the necessary capital may take months, if not years. In addition, the owner will need to go though the relevant permitting process(es), which will similarly take months, if not years. Finally, once the finances are secure and the permitting is complete, the owner will actually need to perform the retrofit. The design, procurement, installation, and sha kedown of a retrofit project (e.g., installing a scrubber on a large boiler) can easily take more than three years.

In addition, the timing of the retrofit work needs to be carefully planned, particularly for boilers that provide the primary and/or base load energy supply for their facilities. A facility owner will only shut down a boiler when everything is properly staged to ensure minimal disruption of the facility’s operation. In addition to ensuring that the design work is completed and the control
eq uipment and other supplies are on

- site and ready for installation, the facility owner needs to make sure that the full suite of consultants and laborers are available for the installation. Based on a discussions with a number of potentially affected compan ies, the turnaround or shutdown cycles for boilers at many of the facilities is so long as to make this type of precise staging exceedingly difficult to do in a three year period without substantial business interruption.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39

Comment: In many instances, the ins tallation of pollution control equipment and associated charges to boiler must be permitted under state air pollution statutes and/or construction codes (building permits, etc.). The proposed rule will result in an increase in the number of permit applicat ions, potentially swamping the state and local agencies. Even in those areas where the rule may not result in significant increases in permitting work, the normal delays associated with permitting may make meeting the three year compliance deadline impossi ble.In light of the difficulty in meeting a three year compliance deadline, EPA and authorized states should be prepared to readily grant one

- year extensions under CAA § 112(i)(3)(B) to those units that have problems installing the necessary control equ ipment to comply with the industrial Boiler MACT rule.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40

Comment: EPA should establish an extended two

- step compliance period for situations where a boiler owner voluntarily elects to replace or retrofit a boiler to burn a cleaner fuel source. [Footnote: EPA recognizes the MACT rule should be crafted to encourage the use of cleaner fuels, such as natural gas. 75 Fed. Reg. 32025.] If a facility decides to switch to a cleaner fuel, the replacement or retrofit work required to make that switch will potentially ta ke years, for all of the reasons discussed above. Rather than require the facility to add emissions controls to its existing boiler in time for the proposed three year compliance deadline

– likely eliminating the possibility that the facility would switch to a cleaner fuel source

– EPA should allow six years total for facilities to change their boilers and meet the MACT requirements for the cleaner fuel source. This six year period would occur in two steps; a no

- backsliding provision would apply for three y ears from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, and then the facility would have three years to comply with MACT standard for the subcategory for the cleaner fuel subcatetory. EPA promulgated exactly this type of extended MACT compliance deadlin e for certain facilities that voluntarily elected to install new technology as part of the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule. See Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 18503, 18,508 (Apr. 15, 1998). [Footnote: This two

- step approach for the MACT standard is consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in NRDC v. EPA, 89 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding invalid EPA’s decision to extend the compliance deadline for a promulgated MACT rule by a year because of the substantial changes that the agency made to the rule). Rather than functioning as an extension of the compliance deadline, this MACT standard for certain facilities would become applicable in two steps. For the first three years, a no

- backsliding MACT standard would be applicable, then the three year d eadline to implement the MACT standard for the applicable “cleaner” source would begin to run.] In addition to providing an incentive for facilities to switch to cleaner fuel sources, this approach would reduce some of the competition for resources discuss ed above by extending the deadline to complete the work to replace or retrofit certain boilers.

Response: See response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1, Excerpt Number 18.

### Other

- Compliance

Commenter Name: Sharene Shealey Commenter Affiliation: RRI Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1839.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA should allow an option for compliance with the emission standards of the proposed rule via certified use of ultra

- low sulfur diesel fuel. In the preamb le to the proposed major source rule, EPA states that fuel switching can lead to the reduction of some HAP emissions and increases in other HAP emissions. Switching from traditional No. 2 fuel oil to ultra

- low sulfur diesel does not result in new or additi onal HAP emissions. Due to the reduced emissions, continuous compliance with the PM and mercury limits is obtained by the use of ultra

- low sulfur diesel in distillate

- fired sources. The annual compliance certification (supported by monthly record keeping a s required in the proposed rule) would suffice to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the PM and mercury limits of the proposed rule.

Response: In the final rule, the proposed MACT

- based emission limits for existing oil

- fired

area sourc e boilers was replaced with a GACT

- based management practice.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37

Comment: Proposed §63.11210(a) and (b) and §63.11211(a) and (b) all deal with initial compliance requirements, in some cases overlapping and in others, possibly conflicting. In any case, it is confusi ng to have these in separate sections and we recommend they be combined into one set of requirements in §63.11210 and that §63.11211 only deal with ongoing compliance.

Response: EPA has reviewed the sections which address initial compliance requiremen ts. While we agree that some of the requirements could be merged, the current structure makes a distinction between initial compliance obligations in §63.11210 and the means to demonstrate initial compliance in 63.11211, and follows a similar outline as Su bpart DDDDD, the major source rule for boilers and process heaters. EPA and has not identified any conflicting requirements in these sections, and since the commenter did not identify a specific provision that conflicts, EPA is unable to respond to this po rtion of the comment. In reviewing the sections, however, we note that the Initial Compliance Requirements heading is misplaced, and should precede §63.11210. The heading for §63.11205 should read, General Compliance Requirements. EPA has made this correct ion.Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The EPA proposes an operating limit for units controlled by a fabric filter in 63.11221(a)(4). This limit applies to units which choose to demonstrate continuous compliance by using a bag leak detection system to be operated such that the bag leak detecti on system alarm does not sound more than 5 percent of the operating time during a 6

- month period. In 63.11221(b), the EPA proposes that facilities report each instance as a deviation from the emission limit for each instance the facility did not meet an em ission limit and operating limit. Because the EPA has stated that the use of the above

- mentioned alarm system demonstrates continuous compliance, then any additional deviations above the allowed 5 percent of the operating time during a 6

- month period shoul d be considered violations.

Response: Consistent with the definition of deviation in § 63.11237, the determination of whether a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to the discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the st andards.

Commenter Name: John Hopewell Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2062.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: In the companion Major Source proposal, EPA allows emissions averaging for existing sources. EPA states that the emissions averaging “would not lessen the stringency of the MACT floor limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost, and energy savings to owners and operators.”29 The same is true for Area Sources. EPA should adopt analogous provisions in the Area Source NESHAP

Response: In the final rule, the only existing area source boilers subject to emission limits are coal

- fired boilers. We are not aware of an area source facility having multiple coal

- fired boilers. However, in the event an area source facility has multiple coal

- fired boilers, section 63.6(g) allows the source to petition EPA for an alternative means of emission limitation.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility A ir Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42Comment: Rather than establish enforceable operating limits, EPA should use the approach taken in the CAM rule and require sources to establish site

- specific operating parameter ranges to define conditions under which compliance with the applicable limit can be re asonably assured. This approach already has been upheld as sufficient to satisfy the CAA’s requirements for demonstrating continuous compliance. See NRDC v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130, 135

- 37 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (rejecting NRDC’s argument that the CAM rule’s “reasonab le assurance of compliance” is not sufficient to assure continuous compliance as required by the CAA). Source owners and operators would then be required to monitor those parameters and respond to changes that indicate problems with the controls that could jeopardize compliance.

Whether using a single control device or combination of devices, sources are in the best position to determine what parameters and levels are consistent with compliance. In many cases, multiple parameter relationships or supplemen tal operational data will provide a higher level of compliance assurance than the level that happens to be measured during a discrete performance test. This is particularly true for sources with a significant margin of compliance. EPA

- HQOAR

2002

- 0058

- 0413, Attachment C at 4. In addition, units with significant margins of compliance should be allowed to establish operating levels by extrapolating parameter data beyond that obtained during a performance test based on other information. Allowing such extrapola tions is essential for some sources to provide needed operational flexibility. Attempting to establish “worst case” test conditions on a scrubber or multi

- section ESP, where the possible combinations of parameters are numerous, would at the least be diffic ult and could be impossible without a major research effort. Id. Allowing extrapolation of results avoids the necessity of repeated testing. [Footnote: A similar approach has been used in CAM protocols, including a protocol developed by the Electric Power Research Institute for ESPs (allowing extrapolation up to 1.25 times the recorded value for measurements taken at less than 80 percent of the applicable emission limit).]

Once sources have established appropriate operating parameter ranges based on data collected during performance tests, as well as other operating data and engineering principles, those parameters would be monitored and any deviation from them would trigger a requirement for investigation and corrective action to return the parameter to t he appropriate range. Although this range may in some cases be similar to the minimum values that would be established under EPA’s proposed rule, allowing sources to respond with corrective action (rather than simply record exceedances and report deviation s) achieves EPA’s intended result without subjecting sources to potential unreasonable enforcement.

Response: EPA does not agree that corrective action programs provide the same incentive to operate the facility in the same manner as it was operated dur ing the performance test. Enforceable operating limits provide a greater assurance of continuous compliance, which is particularly appropriate when dealing with toxic air pollutants. EPA believes it is appropriate to identify specific operating parameters which sources may use to demonstrate continuing compliance. However, if a source believes that different operating parameters are more reflective of the source's emission levels, we encourage the source to submit a to establish and monitor alternative oper ating parameters, consistent with the procedures in § 63.7500(a)(2) and § 63.8(f).Extrapolating parameter data beyond that documented during a performance test is not acceptable. However sources may reestablish their operating limits during subsequent
per formance tests.



### Impacts Analysis

Costs:Controls

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: N/A Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0067.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The NESHAP does not mention what emission control equipment were u sed by these 2 sources. It is well documented that wet scrubbers are capable of removing approximately 40 to 50% of mercury emissions. However, even this removal would not be sufficient for most coal fired boilers to comply with the proposed limit. Additio nal emission control equipment such as activated carbon injection and/or bag filters will be required to comply. Installing these types of facilities would be a significant financial burden to most small area sources. The proposed NESHAP states that the es timated annualized cost for installing emission controls and maintaining compliance is $160 Million per year for all 3,710 existing sources (Federal Register, June 4, 2010). This equates to an average compliance cost of $43,127.00 per source. It is unlikel y that a source could install an activated carbon injection system and/or bag filters for this amount. Given this data on the high variability of mercury in coal, the cost estimate is most likely too low. USEPA needs to re

- evaluate this cost estimate and c onsider the high variability of mercury in coal and the impact this will have on the cost of compliance.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Carl Johnson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Pressure Treaters' Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0870.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The cost of controls at a typical wood preserving facility would be in the millions of dollars per boiler and still may not me et the proposed limits.Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The economic and cost modeling for EPA’s boiler regulation are narrowly defined and do not reflect the reality and diversity in the biomass boiler marketplace. Proposed compliance mea sures entail installing an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) or a baghouse for boilers <5 MMBtu, which could equal or exceed the cost of the boiler itself, while for larger systems (<30 MMBtu), these control technologies could cost $150,000

- $250,000. These proposed add

- ons will make most biomass boiler projects uneconomical and discourage investment.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: Los A ngeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: Unfortunately, the cost of adding controls for many biomass boilers covered by the MACT rule, and especially the GACT rule, will exceed the original capital costs of the boiler, or even the cost of a new one. If a biomass GACT source is unable to achieve the carbon monoxide limits by simple means such as combustion controls, more exotic technologies will be needed.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Comme nter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 88

Comment: We are very concerned that these proposed rules are far more restrictive than needed to protect the environment. Industry cost estimates for compliance with these rules is in the range of $20 to $50 billionand significantly higher than EPA’s cost estimates. These high costs, at a time when the nation is recovering from the recession, are not sustainable and will result in further loss of high

- quality manufacturing jobs in the United States as companies close or relocate offshore.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, exce rpt 2 for control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Jim Hickman Commenter Affiliation: Langdale Forest Product Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1379.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The cost of controls is millions of dollars per boiler at a typical wood products facility, and a facility making such an investment may still not be able to achieve the required results.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, e xcerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: Steven D. Swanson Commenter Affiliation: Swanson Group, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Specific to our operat ions, this rule will have a significant economic impact. While each boiler is different, new equipment (i.e. not including ongoing increased operating costs) will cost at least $3,500,000 at the low

- end to upwards of $6,000,000 at the high end. (And this

a ssumes these new controls can even achieve the CO limit).

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1796.1, excerpt 5 for suggestions to reduce control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Richard Bellefleur Commenter Affiliation: Wellons FEI, Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1300.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: There are different means of controlling particulate matter in the gas stream of a wood fired boiler. The most simple and basic of these is to use a Multiple cyclone in order to take the particulate out of the gas stream trough the use of centrifugal force. This method is very cost effective and eliminates approximately 75% of the particulate in the gas stream. This piece of equipment alone will not b e sufficient to reach the new proposed limits. An Electrostatic Precipitator or a bag house has to be added to the energy system in order to bring the particulate even further down. Adding these types of filtering equipment will add significant cost to the projects. In most cases, especially in smaller applications, it can greatly compromise project economics thus hindering North American efforts to transition from fossil fuels to greener heating alternatives. A limit of 0.25 lbs/MMBTU would be more reasona ble and achievable with the multiple cyclone units alone, especially when dealing with area source sized projects with limited funding.

Response: The PM limits for new biomass boilers are revised for the final rule. A new subcategory was created for biomass boilers between 10 and 30 mmBtu/hr which has an applicable limit of .07 lb/mmBtu. For biomass boilers greater than 30 mmBtu/hr the limit is the same, .03 lb/mmBtu. See the preamble for further discussion on the cost impacts..

Commenter Name: Tyler McShan Commenter Affiliation: McShan Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1380 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: We have b een told that it would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars to attempt to bring our boiler in compliance with the new regs and there would be no guaranteed result. Again, not a wise investment in what is already a marginal industry.

Response: See re sponse to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1796.1, excerpt 5 for suggestions to reduce control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Jack H. Britt Commenter Affiliation: Jack H. Britt Consulting Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1832 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Large facilities can pro

- rate equipment costs over several years and depreciate annual costs in accounting; however, public facilities such as rural schools and hospitals cannot do this to any extent.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA estimates the GACT rule will have a "total national cost impact...for existing units [of] $696 million dollars in total annualized costs" and "total annualized costs (new and existing) for installing controls, conducting biennial tune

- ups and an energy assessment, and implementing testing and monitoring requirements, is $1.0 billion." 75 FR 31914

- 15.

EPA’s estimated costs of the rule are significantly lower that the real cost impact on sources. CIBO commissioned URS Corporation to work with its members to estimate the capital costs for installation of additional control technologies on existing boilers. The approach used by CIBO and URS (CIBO/URS) to estimate capital costs differed from EPA’s in several respects, as described in CIBO’s comments on the P roposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2, Section II for related comments.]

Although EPA’s estimates indicate that the total annualized costs of the proposed Area Source Rule will be $1 billion, the total capital cost of the rule will be far in excess of that amount for all affected sources for installation of emissions controls required to meet the proposed standards. Major capital investments in add

- on control technology will be required for continued operation of the ICI power house and ene rgy base of the country.

CIBO members have sources that will be subject to either MACT or GACT proposed standards or both. The reasoning and estimated costs for controls to meet proposed MACT standards provide information from which GACT

- level controls a nd cost estimates can be extrapolated. CIBO conservatively estimates that the cost to sources to implement GACT will be significantly higher than EPA estimates.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1947.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: EPA estimates that the total national cost impact of this proposed rule for new and

ex isting units is $1.0 billion in total annualized cost (Section VI.B. What are the cost impacts?). DoD believes that EPA has significantly underestimated the compliance cost impacts of this rule by not including operational and maintenance costs in the econ omic analysis.

The U.S. Air Force (USAF) conducted a compliance cost estimate for area source facilities based on the requirements in the draft NESHAP. The USAF has approximately 460 affected boilerunits at area sources that use coal and liquid fuels, a nd has estimated that the initial compliance cost is $74.2 million with an annual compliance cost of $28.6 million. The total annualized cost for USAF area sources would be $36.7 million using 7% interest and a 15 year life for capital equipment. Based on the USAF’s compliance cost estimate and the relatively small number of affected units compared to EPA’s cost impact and number of affected units, it appears that cost impact of the area source NESHAP is significantly underestimated. From the information i n Table 3 of the preamble EPA’s annualized cost for a coal

- fired boiler is $43.000 per boiler. In contrast the USAF cost estimate for capital cost is $2.41 million per boiler and an annual operational cost of $1.41 million per boiler for a total annualized cost of $1.7 million per boiler. For oil

- fired boilers at area sources, EPA annualized cost is $2,600 per boiler. The USAF estimates are capital costs of $704,216 per boiler and an annual cost of $213,246 for a total annualized cost of $290,785 per boiler . The USAF annual unit cost includes testing and monitoring along with required

- maintenance and operations" costs. In contrast it appears that the annual costs in Table 3 did not include operations and maintenance costs for emission controls, which are si gnificant and are driven by emission limits. As indicated in the preamble discussion of Table 3, the annual cost appears to be limited to only

- installing controls, conducting biennial tune

- ups and an energy assessment, and implementing testing and monitor ing requirements." Operations and maintenance costs will be incurred for sustaining the required emissions control devices linked to this regulation. These costs should be reflected in Table 3.

Reevaluate the economic impact of this NESHAP in Table 3 to account for the capital and annual recurring operations and maintenance costs for air pollution control equipment that will be required to meet the proposed emission limits.

Response: Operation and maintenance costs are accounted for in a separate econo mic analysis; see the supporting statement and burden tables for the final rule for details on the analysis and the Paperwork Reduction Act section of the preamble for a brief summary.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1766.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Dow estimates that the cost to have an emission testing contractor conduct an annual emission test for CO is approximately $10,000 for each e mission source. This cost over a period of time is excessive when compared to the amount of air quality improvement that will be achieved. Thus, EPA should finalize a rule that requires testing after a five year period or upon a significant physical or ope rational change to a boiler.

Response: The requirement for annual testing has not changed, however, CO limits for biomass and liquid boilers are not included in the final rule. See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.Commenter Name: Ardis Almond Commenter Affiliation: Almond Brothers Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1449.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: What you are proposing is impossible

- certainly from the financial standpoint, and probably from the technical side. The additions of millions of dollars worth of pollution equipment to every boiler would be the final blow to an already battered industry. Many, many, sawmills have been shut down for sometime, due to the awful housing mar ket. I can give you a perfect example of one. There is another mill in our small rural town. It has been shut down for almost 3 years, now, and its 100 employees laid off. That company has diligently kept two employees working keeping their equipment greas ed, tested, and maintained for an expected start up at the first opportunity. That company had hopes of starting back up near the end of the year. I know they, now, can’t even consider it with the Boiler MACT proposal facing them. How can they start up a m ill when they can barely afford to do so under the best of circumstances, much less, when they will have to put out millions before they put the first employee back to work?

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, excerpt 2 for co ntrol technology costs.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: When most people think of rural America, they envision farmland and small communities with unpaved roads. In Alaska, rural encompasses a completely different meaning. Bush

Alaska is probably a more descriptive term when describing the villages of Alask a. Rural or bush Alaskan villages are not connected to roads and are not serviced by the Alaska Marine Highway with year round, drive on/drive off ferry service. The only way to access these communities is by boat or plane. All supplies

- food, clothing, co nstruction materials, fuel, etc.

— are barged into the village on boats during the summer months or delivered by planes. Most landing strips are gravel and only support small aircraft. The logistics to supply rural Alaskan villages results in some of the highest costs of living in the United States. Most rural villages rely on subsistence for some of their food. Unemployment often exceeds 50%. The high cost of living and high unemployment means the sustainability of this subsistence lifestyle is in peril. The map below illustrates the remoteness and lack of roads in rural Alaska. Source: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (2007); Northern Economics Inc., Alaska Map CompanyRural Alaska Power Generation

Over 180 communities in rural Alaska depend on diesel fuel for electricity. They are scattered over an area twice the size of Texas, and are located in remote areas of the state without road access. Access is limited to boat or air. More than 93% of these communities have a population less th an 1000. The average population is only 310 residents. Each community has a school, post office, health clinic, airport, and community building, and a few have public water and sewer. These communities are located in the most severe arctic environments in the United States and rely entirely on locally diesel

- generated electricity to maintain critical public infrastructure. Unlike the Continental U.S., they are not linked by electrical interties, but rely on a local, self sufficient, diesel power plant.

Th is system of power generation is unique in the United States. 93% of rural Alaska power generation is fueled by diesel. While costs vary by region across the state, rural Alaska communities typically pay some of the highest fuel costs in the United States. This translates into high power costs. A gallon of diesel costs over five dollars in some areas. In many communities, the cost of power ranges from over fifty cents to nearly $1 per kilowatt

- hour before a Power Cost Equalization (PCE) subsidy is provided.

Heating Systems in Rural Alaska

Heating needs in rural Alaska are typically met through burning diesel, usually Jet A fuel, barged into the communities by boat. As with the electrical generation system, the logistics of barging heating fuels to the ru ral villages results in the some of the highest heating fuels costs in the United States. Barge deliveries can only be made during the summer months, so communities must estimate their annual usage and budget for the following year’s fuel inventory. Due to fluctuations in fuel costs, accurate budgeting is extremely difficult and results in financial hardships for the communities. After freeze

- up, any shortfalls of fuel must be flown in by air tanker at even higher costs. Because these communities are locate d in the most severe arctic environments in the United States, heating needs are a matter of life or death.

Wood is growing as an important renewable energy source for Alaskans, with over 100,000 cords per year used for residential space heating statewid e. Closure of the major pulp mills in Sitka and Ketchikan in the 1990s brought an end to large

- scale wood

- fired power generation in Alaska; however, in the last few years, rural Alaska has seen an explosion in interest in using wood resources for space hea ting. Biomass district heating systems are a reliable method to provide heating to schools and other community buildings. To date, at least 30 communities are investigating the feasibility of biomass heating and at least 15communities are in construction o r have operational systems. These are almost exclusively small stick

- wood or chip heating systems that supply hot water to district heating systems.

Utilizing biomass for heating needs in rural Alaska provides far more than just heat to a community. With fuel oil heating, funds leave the community to purchase the fuel and pay for the transportation and storage. With biomass, dollars stay within community since fuel is purchased locally. In addition, jobs are created through the harvest and processing of t he wood,which is important in villages where unemployment is often over 50%. Many of the rural Alaskan villages have a history of a subsistence culture.

The power and heating systems in rural Alaska are often operated as non

- profits by city governments or regional cooperatives. Operations are tightly controlled for costs. There is little revenue margin to shield customers from increased operating costs, including rising wholesale fuel prices and regulatory compliance.

Compliance with the proposed boile r NESHAP emissions rule presents a financial and logistical challenge to rural Alaska that will gravely increase annual operating costs, and seriously hamper future development of biomass heating systems. Cost increases will occur through increased capital costs for installation of emission control devices and increased operational and maintenance costs.

The daily wellbeing of rural Alaska residents and communities depends on the ability to eLououtiLally heat their facilities. The uncertainty in fuels cos ts and ever increasing regulatory compliance costs makes it difficult for individuals, local and regional organizations to plan budgets for fuel, heat, and power costs.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: AF&PA is very concerned that the proposed requirements are overly burdens ome and will require substantial financial expenditures at levels higher than those estimated by EPA for oil fired boilers as well as biomass boilers. In the memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boi lers for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– Area Source,” EPA has followed the costing assumptions and techniques in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 452/B

- 02

- 001). The memo states that the only control technologies evaluated were “fabric filter, low NOx burner, linkage

- less boiler management system, and multiclone.” The memorandum does not specifically discuss how costs were estimated for these technologies, but instead refers to the discussion in the memorandum prepared for t he Boiler MACT, “Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for the Major Source Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.”

We do not agree with the methodology used to de termine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers. The ERG MACT cost memorandum referenced by the GACT cost memorandum states that if baseline CO emissions were between 400 and 1000 ppm for boilers designed to burn liquid fuels, the cost of a low

- NOx burner was estimated to achieve the MACT floor emission limits. The CO limits for these boilers in the proposed rule are 1

- 2 ppm. Based onconversations with burner vendors, a low

- NOx burner is typically guaranteed to produce CO emissions of 50 to 100 ppm for liquid boilers. EPA’s assumption that burner retrofit can result in achieving the proposed 2 ppm CO limit for liquid boilers is simply unfounded, and they should provide justification for why they believe this is an appropriate approach o r reevaluate their assumption. If the CO limits are finalized at 2 ppm for liquid fuel boilers, we believe that a new burner will not be sufficient for all area source boilers to reach that limit. EPA should revise the CO limit for liquid boilers to more a ccurately reflect what boiler and burner manufacturers currently guarantee, as this would be a more appropriate approach for setting a GACT limit and would not require unproven and costly controls such as a CO catalyst.

Response: See the preamble for di scussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Robert L. Garfield Commenter Affiliation: Food Industry Environmental Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1835.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: As EPA recognizes, th e capital cost of emissions controls for the numerous existing
gas

- fired boilers would be extraordinarily high. Further, EPA correctly concluded that imposing emission limitations on gas

- fired boilers would create a disincentive for switching to gas from

o il, coal or biomass as a control technique.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input; in the final rule gas

- fired boilers are not an applicable subcategory.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The typical cordwood boiler installed for district heating in a rual village has a capital cost of approximately $25,000 including shipping to the community.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: William C. Scott Commenter Affiliation: Collum's Lumber Products, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 079 0

- 1796.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: The cost of controls is millions of dollars per boiler at a typical wood products facility, and a facility making such an investment may still not be able to achieve the required results.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Commen t: For older boilers, which are nearing but not at the end of their useful life, it may not be cost effective to install a new burner or oxidation catalyst. If the boiler is retired only a few years after the control device is installed, then the upgrades will not have been utilized for their entire useful lives. Since control devices such as burners and oxidation catalysts must be designed and sized to match the boilers on which they are installed, one cannot automatically assume that a burner or catalyst system designed for one boiler can be used on another. Alternatively, a need to retain a burner or catalyst system for use on a replacement boiler may limit the source’s option for replacement boilers (i.e., the source would need to purchase a boiler
compa tible with the existing control devices). Consequently, although the useful life of the control device is considered in cost effectiveness calculations, if the control device will not be used for its predicted useful life, then the calculations will undere stimate the cost effectiveness of the device.

Response: The EPA does not predict the age of boilers to determine their useful life left nor how a boiler operator will implement their control devices. The costs are estimates and do not capture
every scen ario available but are based on reasonable assumptions for the whole market. Please note that CO limits for biomass and liquid boilers are not included in the final rule and thus the burden for their associated control devices is not applicable. See the pr eamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Our preliminary analysis indicates that an oxidization catalyst would be required to meet the 2 ppmvd CO MACT limit for the KIUC Port Allen boiler. The cost of an oxidation catalyst for this boiler is many times higher than the oxidation catalyst costs de emed “not prohibitive” for the RICE NESHAP, for both installation and operation. Based on capital andoperating costs received from Sud

- Chemie and KIUC’s CEMS contractor, the costs to KIUC of complying with the NESHAP as proposed would be as shown below:

* Capital cost for oxidation catalyst: $90,00019 plus tax and installation; * * Capital cost for CO/O2 CEMS: $188,000 20 ; * * Total capital investment: approximately $485,000; and * * Annual operating cost: approximately $95,000/year21.

Details o f these calculations are attached. (See submittal for data table.) Contributing to the installation costs are the physical configuration and operational characteristics of the KIUC Port Allen boiler. The temperature downstream of the air preheater, which i s most accessible location for installation of an oxidation catalyst, ranges from 443 to 479?F. However, according to information from the catalyst manufacturer BASF, oxidation catalyst temperatures of 500o F are needed to oxidize CO and 700o F or more is needed to oxidize VOCs (see submittal for figure). The boiler outlet temperature at KIUC Port Allen is well below these levels; as a result, an oxidizing catalyst is not a feasible control technology unless the catalyst is installed at a location inside th e boiler where the exhaust temperature is higher, or unless the flue gas is reheated prior to entering the oxidation catalyst. The need to install the oxidation catalyst upstream of the air preheater significantly increases the retrofit cost. In addition, KIUC burns small amounts of specification used oil in the boiler as a way of eliminating waste oil that would otherwise have to be disposed of in landfills. Although this used oil is burned only in small quantities, it contains impurities that will acceler ate plugging of the catalyst surface, requiring more frequent catalyst washing than would otherwise be required for a catalyst used with virgin fuel oil only. More frequent catalyst washing translates into more frequent boiler outages.

Response: See res ponse to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO control technology.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 079 0

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment: We note that we believe the proposed standards are not achievable. Therefore they are not achievable at any cost for the reasons noted. Nonetheless, we feel compelled to comment on EPA’s cost assessment perform ed for this rule. We do also make the point that EPA should be using all the available regulatory considerations that are afforded to GACT rules in §112(c) (5) and one of those considerations, unlike MACT, can be cost. It is therefore important for costs t o be properly evaluated. We believe EPA’s cost analysis suffers from several methodology errors.First, we note the errors noted for biomass boilers. The methodology for estimating the area source control cost document states in section 3.0: "The controls analyzed for the impacts analysis include the fabric filter, low NOx burner, linkage

- less boiler management system, and multi

- clone." Further, in a second document concerning cost methodology for both rules, states on page 4 of the CO section "The baseline emissions for area source boilers in all fuel categories are less than 400 ppm, and so it is ass umed that combustion controls, either a basic tune

- up or a more advanced burner replacement or installation of a linkage

- less boiler management system, can achieve the proposed MACT floor emission limits. No oxidation catalysts are estimated to be required to meet the MACT floor emission limits.”[See submittal for references].

Even with the limited area source dataset used to prepare this proposal, there are units outside the 400 PPM range and we have identified others elsewhere in these comments. It is c lear from the quotes above that no regenerative catalytic oxidizers (RCO) were considered in the cost methodology for area source biomass boilers even though they would clearly be needed to if limits were raised to a level achievable through employing that technology. There is further no consideration for the use a particulate control device on area source biomass boilers because there is no PM limit.

Consequently, for biomass boilers the control costs are dramatically underestimated by not including cost estimates the either the particulate control necessary to protect the RCO or the RCO itself. These control technologies could easily cost one million dollars or more per boiler. It is impossible to estimate how many of the noted 10,958 biomass boilers wou ld need this equipment since EPA provides almost no information about the vast majority of units in this source category. However, it is certain that very few, if any have RCO. Clearly this is a huge methodology error that could lead to billions of dollars of control equipment costs if such costs were to be correctly calculated. These costs, however uncertain, can be avoided altogether since EPA clearly has the authority to proceed with a work practice standard as we state elsewhere.

Response: For biomas s and oil

- fired boilers, CO limits are not included in the final rule easing the burden. See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57

Comment: Regarding oil fired boilers, we are very concerned that the proposed requirements are overly burdensome and will require substantial financial expenditures at levels higher than those estimated by EPA. Per the memorandum noted above, EPA has followed the costing assumptions and techniques in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 452/B

- 02

- 001). Again, the memo states that the only control technologies evaluated were “fab ric filter, low NOx burner, linkage

- less boiler management system, and multiclone.” The memorandum does not specifically discuss how costs were estimated for these technologies, but instead refers to the discussion in the memorandum prepared for the Boiler MACT,“Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for the Major Source Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” EPA

- HQOAR

- 2002

- 0058

- 0803.

We also do not agree with the methodology used to determine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers. The ERG MACT cost memorandum Id referenced by the GACT cost memorandum states that if baseline CO emissions were between 400 and 1000 ppm for boilers designed to bu rn liquid fuels, the cost of a lowNOx burner was estimated to achieve the MACT floor emission limits. The CO limits for these boilers in the proposed rule are 1

- 2 ppm. Based on conversations with burner vendors, a low

- NOx burner is typically guaranteed to produce CO emissions of 50 to 100 ppm for liquid boilers. EPA’s assumption that burner retrofit can result in achieving the proposed 2 ppm CO limit for liquid boilers is simply unfounded, and it is recommended the Agency provide justification for its appro ach or re

- evaluate their assumptions.

If the CO limits are finalized at 2 ppm for liquid fuel boilers, we believe unreasonable cost burdens will result since boiler and burner manufacturers cannot guarantee emission level compliance. In this case, EPA sh ould reevaluate all data available for area sources area and reconsider area source CO standards that would not require unproven and costly controls.

In our comments on the major source rules, we prepared an extensive cost analysis for the cost of the ma jor and area source rules that is also relevant here (See Section II and Appendix C, EPA

HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058; we incorporate those comments by reference)

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, excerpt 4 for methodology used to deter mine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 61

Comment: EPA significantly understates the cost of this proposal for many reasons. A fundamental problem is the false assumption that most existing liquid

- fired boilers can meet the proposed C O limits at all times without add

- on controls. This is incorrect. To meet the proposed CO emission limit at all times and also meet the applicable NOx limit, without sacrificing combustion efficiency, most liquid

- fired boilers will require the installation of oxidation catalyst systems. Rather than just a small percentage of boilers requiring this control, essentially all will have to install this system in order to meet the proposed CO limits during startups, turndown and operations other than at performan ce test conditions. Additionally, the proposed CO limits are not achievable for many existing boilers, because the oxidation catalyst may be ineffective or may not fit in available space or because it is cheaper to replace the boiler. Thus, the cost basis for this proposal should assume a significant percentage of existing boilers will have to bereplaced with gas fired boilers. As mentioned previously, there is also an energy penalty for adding oxidation catalyst to a boiler that needs to be reflected in t he EPA analysis. In order for the catalyst to operate properly, stack temperatures will have to be raised several hundred degrees. This lost heat integration will have to be replaced with additional firing.

The economic analysis should also reflect the f act, that a portion of the sources facing the need to replace their boilers will shutdown instead, resulting in economic loss for the economy and loss of jobs. The impacts of liquid

- fired boilers being unable to meet the CO limits was not considered in the preamble discussions or in the background documents in the docket, thereby negating those analyses.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The RIA makes erroneous assumptions about the control strategy for area source boilers that are subject to MACT for POM. Specifically, the RIA assumes that liquid

- fueled boilers with baseline CO emissions of up to 400 ppmvd @ 3% O2 will be able to achieve the MACT standard of 2.0 ppmvd @ 3% O2, solely through boiler tuning. This would represent an unrealistic 99.5% reduction. This assumption is stated below.

Organic HAP and carbon monoxide can be controlled by either improving the combustion efficiency o f the unit, or installing an oxidation catalyst on the exhaust of a combustion unit. The control strategy necessary to meet the MACT floor emission

limit will vary depending on the magnitude between the baseline emissions and the CO MACT floor. A step fu nction was used to delineate what type of control strategy should be analyzed in the cost impacts analysis:

o Most boilers (other than Dutch ovens and PC

- coal boilers discussed below) are designed to operate with CO emissions at or near 400 parts per mil lion (ppm). A boiler tune

- up, was estimated in the cost impacts analysis if the unit’s baseline emissions exceeded the floor for carbon monoxide (CO), but were less than or equal to 400 ppm @ 3% O2.

o If the baseline CO emissions were between 400 and 100 0 ppm @ 3% O2 for boilers and process heaters designed to burn liquid and gaseous fuels, the cost of a replacement low

- NOx burner was estimated to achieve the MACT floor emission limits.15

The two bullet points represent the first two “steps” in the cont rol technology step

- function. Only at the second step, where baseline CO emissions are between 400 and 1,000 ppm, does the analysis assume that a new burner would be required. With this assumption, only 3 of the 125existing oil

- fired area source boilers e valuated in the MACT Floor Analysis would require either a burner retrofit and/or an oxidation catalyst.16 Such an assumption is not supported by real

world data and is very likely incorrect for older, oil

- fired burners. Additionally, an inverse relationsh ip between NOx and CO emissions is frequently encountered with extreme boiler tunings. That is, in tuning a boiler to achieve the lowest possible CO emissions, NOx emissions may increase substantially due to higher flame temperatures. Many boilers are alre ady subject to NOx concentration or mass emission limits that would prevent extreme tuning for CO. These boilers must be tuned to balance CO and NOx emissions to meet emission limits for both pollutants. Due to the potential for boiler tuning to affect NOx emissions, the RIA must account for the impact of existing NOx rules, regulations, and permit limits in determining the feasibility of meeting MACT solely through tuning. The omission of these considerations greatly underestimates the number of boilers th at will require burner replacements, oxidization catalysts, or both.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Likewise, the rule’s costs are greatly underestimated for the liquid fuel subcategory. We strongly believe that the RIA’s assumption that up to 99.5% CO control is pos sible via boiler tuning, with no other NOx or adverse operational effects, is incorrect. This assumption should be further investigated, revised, and substantiated, and the RIA costs should be adjusted accordingly.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1, excerpt 7 for CO control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Gas fired boilers that burn oil during periods of curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or for periodic testing are not considered oil fueled boilers under the proposal.5 EPA defines curtailment as “a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affec ted facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.”6 This proposal fails to take into account the curre nt demand on natural gas.EPA’s recently promulgated rules to regulate Greenhouse Gases will likely increase the demand on natural gas supply. Should the price of natural gas increase, due to a decrease in available supply, RMA members would like to prese rve the option to burn oil fuel during short

- term spikes in the price of natural gas due to availability. In order to preserve the need to burn oil fuels, RMA members will need to install costly add

- on controls to preserve the option to burn oil fuels. For example, oil fuel boilers greater than 10 MMBtu/hr will be required to install CO controls (either projects to improve combustion or fuel feed or installation of a CO catalyst). We estimate that the installation of CO controls on area source boilers class ified as oil fueled boilers will cost RMA members a total of approximately $62 million dollars (assuming a fixed capital cost of $2.0 million dollars per boiler to install CO controls).

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1, exce rpt 7 for CO control technology costs. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, excerpt 4 for methodology used to determine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers.

Commenter Name: Heather M. Bartlett Commenter Affiliati on: SLR International Corp, Columbia Forest Products Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1963.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Essentially, all existing wood

- fired boilers in Area Sources will be required to install an oxidation catalyst in order to meet the proposed limit. So few wood

- fired boilers have oxidation catalysts that this technology can be considered as not “commercia lly” viable or demonstrated. In many instances, flue gas temperature conditions will not be optimal to achieve significant CO destruction performance. Also, the particulate grain loadings in these boilers in the temperature ranges required by these catalys ts will rapidly deteriorate the catalytic surfaces. Analyses indicate that the costs to install and maintain oxidation catalyst equipment in all instances will be prohibitively high and greatly exceed the cost

- effectiveness criteria established by EPA.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO control technology.

Commenter Name: Matthew Markee Commenter Affiliation: IN Group Companies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1 965.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: In addition to this lack of data resulting in a CO limit 2.5 to 4 times lower than the limit for Major Sources, attempting to comply with the limit will force small units to add very expensive CO controls, operate the units in such a manner that NOx emissions will be substantially increased, energy efficiencies will decrease and thus fuel consumption will increasesignificantly without incremental productivity gains, or discontinue operations altogether. Considering that many of these units are associated with small businesses, this is an altogether unfair and unreasonable burden.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1, excerpt 7 for CO control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: The proposed limits of 160 PPM CO for existing biomass sources and 100 PPM CO for new biomass sources are not achievable for most forest

- based wood biomass power plants unless a catalytic oxidizer is added. Even with a catalyst, some biomass facilities will not be able to meet the proposed CO standards. For new sources, EPA should consult with boiler manufacturers to assess wha t levels of emissions are being guaranteed as a general criterion for proposed MACT standards. Likewise, air pollution control vendors should be used as a resource for existing sources. A new project or air pollution control upgrades to a facility cannot b e financed if there is no guarantee that the technology will permit the facility to meet applicable environmental standards. Table 3 of the preamble (75 FR at 31914) estimates the cost of the proposed standard at less than $4400 per existing biomass unit and $65,000 per new biomass unit. These costs are significantly understated and indicate EPA expects that the proposed limits for biomass boilers are achievable through good combustion practices, which is not true.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO control technology.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: The cost of compliance for each bagasse

- fired boiler operating at a Louisiana sugar mill is expected be considerably higher than the per source average estimated by EPA. A reasonable estimate of the cost to Louisiana mills is between $192

- $282.5 million , as explained below. The mills do not operate with a profit margin capable of supporting such an enormous capital investment. Ultimately, Louisiana and the nation will pay a hefty price for the Proposed Rule.As explained above, Louisiana’s biomass

- fire d boilers will be expected to meet considerably more stringent CO emission limits than boilers located at major sources. Existing sources will have to undergo extensive modifications in an attempt to meet the unjustifiable low emission limit of 160 ppm CO limit at 7% oxygen.

Achieving compliance with such low emission rates for CO will require the installation of refractory walls and additional boiler controls at a cost of about $1,000,000 for each of the 71 operating boilers. Because these modifications will result in decreased steam production, each of the eleven mills will need to install an additional 200,000

- 300,000 pound

- per

- hour boiler, ranging between $10,000,000 and $13,000,000 per unit. These estimates do not include the cost of installing a C O CEM unit on each boiler stack as required by the Proposed Rule. Further, it may be necessary to install additional NOx controls to offset the expected increase in NOx emissions as a result of operating boilers to meet the CO standards ($750,000 per boile r) and/or install and operate electrostatic precipitators for additional PM control ($1,200,000 per boiler).

Using the most conservative estimates and assuming the elimination of all POM (as 7

- HAP) emissions, the $192 million price tag would result in t he reduction of only 42 pounds per year of POM (as 7

- PAH), or $4.6 million per pound. At $282.5 million, the cost of removing 42 pounds per year of POM (as 7

- PAH) would amount to $6.7 million per pound.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1, excerpt 7 for CO control technology costs. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: Gary Melow Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Biomass Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1917.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: Retrofitting a CO catalyst on our existing sources would be extremely expensive. In addition to the high cost of the catalyst itself, the equipment must be placed downstream of the particulate control system. We have sources where the stack is attached to our particulate control device, so a new free standing stack would be required. Optimal CO catalyst reaction occurs at temperatures well above the exhaust stack gas temperatu res at our facilities which run about 350 degrees Fahrenheit. The reheating of exhaust gas is very expensive and very energy inefficient. Most likely natural gas would be used to reheat the boiler exhaust. Retrofit costs would also include a larger induced draft fan system to overcome additional pressure drop (further reducing energy efficiency). Based on experience estimating other types of add

- on equipment to our existing facilities, we estimate that the cost of adding a CO catalyst to our facilities woul d easily run over $1 million and add significant operating costs.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO control technology.Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: The Cost of Compliance With GACT is Prohibitively High.

The proposed GACT emission limit cannot be achieved from baggase

- fired boilers u sing the best technology (cyclonic ash arrestors followed by venturi

- type hydroscrubbers) now in use at Louisiana sugar mills. Much more expensive PM control systems would be required to meet the proposed emissions limit in order to control minimal urban H AP emissions.

The only way that the proposed GACT PM limit can be achieved would be via dry scrubbing using a bag filtration system or an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) unit. The higher flue gas temperatures encountered with dry scrubbing would cause a n increase in high boiling point POM emissions since POM would not tend to deposit on the hot ash particles removed, and the gaseous POM would be emitted from the stack; whereas POM, especially 7

- PAH, is greatly reduced or eliminated in flue gas scrubbed o f PM at temperatures below the boiling point of water, as is done at existing Louisiana sugar mills.

To comply, a dual system would have to be used. The cost of installing both an adequate dry scrubber and wet scrubber would be prohibitive. If the propos ed MACT rule stands, and the price of domestic raw sugar does not increase and remain very high, it is unlikely that any new bagasse boilers could be built, and unlikely that any old bagasse boilers could be upgraded to “new source” standards after the eff ective date of any such rule

– all at no measurable benefit but very high costs and likely increase in 7

- PAH and other POM emissions.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1300.1 for PM control technology costs. See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1, excerpt 12 for control technology costs within the biomass industry.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: ACC members use many boilers of various types, sizes, and fuel configurations to meet the heat and steam demands needed to energize the business of chemistry. ACC member companies are very concerned that the proposed requirements are overly bur densome and will require substantial financial expenditures at levels higher than those estimated by EPA. Per the memorandum “Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boilers for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

– AreaSource, EPA has followed the costing assumptions and techniques in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 452/B

- 02

- 001). The memo states that the only control technologies evaluated were “fabric filter, low NOx burner, linkagel ess boiler management system, and multiclone.” The memorandum does not specifically discuss how costs were estimated for these technologies, but instead refers to the discussion in the memorandum prepared for the Boiler major source rule, “Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for the Major Source Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. As stated in our comments on the proposed Boiler major source rule (also referred to as the “Boiler MACT”) cost analysis, we do not agree with the methodology used to determine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers. The ERG MACT cost memorandum referenced by the GACT cost memorandum states that if baseline CO emis sions were between 400 and 1000 ppm for boilers designed to burn liquid fuels, the cost of a low

- NOx burner was estimated to achieve the MACT floor emission limits. Based on conversations with burner vendors, a low

- NOx burner is typically guaranteed to pro duce CO emissions of 50 to 100 ppm for liquid boilers. However, the CO limits for these boilers in the proposed rule are 1

- 2 ppm. ACC member experience with Low NOx Burners firing fuel oil is that members will be unable to routinely meet the proposed CO li mit. EPA’s assumption that burner retrofit can result in achieving the proposed 2 ppm CO limit for liquid boilers is simply unfounded, and it should provide justification for why it believes this is an appropriate approach or re

- evaluate its assumption and revise the MACT floor accordingly.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1, excerpt 4 for methodology used to determine the cost of CO emissions reductions for liquid fired boilers.

Commenter Name: W. Randall Rawson Commenter Affiliation: American Boiler Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1897.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: In establishing achievable MACT emission standards for area sources, EPA should consider the multiple rules and emission standards that affect the full range of boilers and combustion equipment. As EPA is aware, many existing and new boilers are subject to multiple federal and state rules and emissions standards which may be inconsistent and/or conflicting. The tech nical implications to piece

- meal rulemaking, such as a failure to consider the operational impacts of multiple emission standards, may adversely affect overall boiler performance as well as the goals of the Clean Air Act, and may needlessly drive up the co st of compliance. As an example, the stringent emission limits for carbon monoxide (“CO”) set forth in the Proposed Area Source Rule will affect sources’ ability to meet low nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) emissions because minimizing CO in the combustion system i s a goal that is opposed to minimizing NOx in most boiler burners. Because boiler NOx emissions are generally regulated pursuant to control or emission standards implemented by state agencies, EPA may not have fully considered the impacts of such varying N Ox control requirements on CO performance. Conversely, in some applications, such as in combustion turbine / heat recovery steam generation systems, CO controlmay adversely affect selective catalytic reduction for NOx control and particulate emissions due to the oxidation of NO to NO2 and SO2 to SO3 and/or SO4. Inconsistencies in requirements for NOx and CO may needlessly cause boiler owners and operators to incur control costs that outweigh the relative environmental benefits, and may affect boiler perfor mance.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1, excerpt 7 for CO control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Bass Commenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2250 Comment Excer pt Number: 2

Comment: Requiring PM controls for new boilers with a heat input rating greater than 10 MMBtu/hr (defined as "large boilers") and using PM as a surrogate for non

- mercury metallic HAPs is supported. However, there are concerns about the costs associated with requiring post combustion controls for new biomass boilers with a heat input rating of less than 10 MMBtu/hr (defined as "small boilers"). The proposed rule states that it is cost effective to apply control equipment such as fabric filters and ESPs to large boilers. We question whether fabric filters and ESPs are cost effective for large boilers rated just above the large boiler threshold (10

- 20 MMBtu/hr). We also question whether applying these same types of control equipment to small boi lers is cost effective. It does not appear that the proposed rule specifically addresses whether applying the above mentioned controls to small boilers is cost effective. This is a critical point since the costs for sophisticated controls can effectively p reclude the use of small biomass boilers being used.

Response: See repsonse to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1300.1, excerpt 2 for PM control technology costs. See repsonse to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1, excerpt 5 for small boiler control techno logy costs.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Implementation of the Area Source Rule will have substantial negative economic impacts on small boilers. EPA specifically states that “we propose to regulate biomass

- fired... boilers under GACT” due to concerns surrounding the costs of control technologies to small entities. However, in order to meet the proposed PM emissions limits, new biomass boilers are required to install either electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters. The cost of these technologies per unit of boiler output is greater for smaller boilers. Therefore, there are basic economicreasons why smaller biomass boilers cannot employ the same control technologies as larger boilers.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits.

Commenter Name: Tim W. Sonnichsen Commenter Affiliation: Sonnichsen Engineering, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2139.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The economic burden on industrial plants will be staggering

The rules attempt to quantify the economic impacts of imposing MACT on Area and Major HAP Sources. Cost estimates are presented on an annualized basis that, in effect, includes a factor of approximately 10% of the initial total capital costs. For example, installing a piece of equipment with the a ssociated engineering and administrative services valued at $500,000 would generate an annualized cost of approximately $50,000.

In my opinion, these estimates for existing Area Source boilers are misleading and grossly understated. Table 3 of the Area S ource Rule indicates that the 11,000 affected existing biomass units will have a total annualized cost of $48 million annually, or approximately $5000 per unit. Based on the above, each unit would have a budget for all equipment and services of approximate ly $50,000 to comply with the CO emission standard. In my opinion, this will be wholly inadequate based on the likely need to install advanced overfire air systems and/or oxidation catalysts to meet the 160 ppm standard . The total capital costs for these installations will range from several thousand dollars to up to a million dollars per unit. In effect, the MACT cost values underestimate the costs of CO control by a factor of at least 10 and perhaps over 20. The total annualized costs for existing units would be 5 to 10 billion dollars annually rather than the $436 million giv en in the rule. The annualized cost to each unit to control CO (with little or no effect on organic HAP’s) would be $50,00 0 to $100,000 assuming that suitable CO control technology can be applied at all.

The economic impact on new biomass units would be greater due to the need to install oxidation catalysts to meet the 100 ppm CO limit. The rule estimates that the annualized cost will be $65,000 per unit. Installing a $1 million d ollar catalyst will result in an annualized cost twice that figure due to the need to periodically clean or replace the catalyst materials.

I understand that several representatives of the wood

- products industry, other owners and operators of biomass boi lers, and several other industrial trade groups will provide comments on the MACT rules. Some will include the cost impacts to their facilities. Kindly consider their projections of the costs for achieving these MACT standards as real. (I helped prepare so me of these estimates and can assure the EPA that they are, if anything, conservatively low for the retrofit of control technologies.)Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO contr ol technology.

Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: US EPA’s estimate of costs underestimates the costs of controls by underestimating the cost of electricity to run those controls. Electricity costs are an annual cost of control and are a major component of the annualized cost of controls estimated. US EP A uses data from the US DOE Energy Information Agency to assess the annual cost of electricity associated with the cost of control. However, the US EPA erred by using data on national average reported revenue from industrial customers per net megawatt gene rated. The US EPA mistakenly associates utility revenue with industrial cost data which is inappropriate. The utility revenue data utilized does not include other costs borne by customers including taxes, distribution charges and environmental or other sur charges. In addition, similar higher revenue data per megawatt generated was also available for commercial accounts, however, this data was ignored despite the fact that the Boiler MACT affects commercial and institutional boilers.

Response: See respons e to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1, excerpt 2 for control technology costs.

See preamble for response to unique comment: underestimate cost of controls due to cost of electricity

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Therm al Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The economic and cost modeling for EPA’s boiler regulation are narrowly defined and do not reflect the reality and diversity in the biomass bo iler marketplace. Proposed compliance measures entail installing an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) or a baghouse for boilers <5 MMBtu, which could equal or exceed the cost of the boiler itself, while for larger systems (<30 MMBtu), these control technolo gies could cost $150,000

- $250,000. These proposed add

- ons will make most biomass boiler projects uneconomical and discourage investment.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts.Commenter Name: Christy Sammon Commenter Affiliati on: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1954.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: The financial impact analysis for the area source rule fails to consider all of the costs.

The financial analysis apparently does not include costs for the catalytic oxidizers that would be required to meet the proposed CO limits for area source biomass boilers. The high moisture content of the biomass fuels requires special firebox designs and combustion air systems, and these systems inherently result in higher levels of CO in the combustion process. Boiler tuning will not meet the proposed CO limits. A catalytic oxidizer would be required, and since particulate matter would damage the catalyti c media, a particulate control device such as an ESP would be required ahead of the oxidizer.

The cost to install a particulate control device and a catalytic oxidizer on a boiler could easily be one million dollars and could be significantly more for la rger boilers. It is uncertain how many of the 10,958 biomass boilers that EPA believes are located at area sources are larger than the 10 MMBtu/hr exemption level, and will, therefore, require these controls, but if only 25% require these controls the tota l cost would be 2.7 billion dollars or more. EPA has failed to consider these costs in the economic impact analysis for biomass boilers in the area source rule. In developing GACT standards, EPA is allowed to consider costs and this is clearly a case where that consideration should lead to the selection of work practices rather than numerical limits requiring the installation of controls.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 61 for cost of oxidation catalyst as a CO cont rol technology.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: Financial Impacts on New Projects To demonstrate the impac t of the proposed regulations to project viability, fuel cost savings and project value are presented for a current USFS technical assistance project at a rural high school. Table 3 [SEE PDF FOR TABLE] presents the financial analysis for the installation o f a 3.5 mmBtu/hr central biomass boiler at the school. Project financial analyses are run with and without impacts from the proposed rule. The addition of an electrostatic precipitator and implementation of the required testing regime reduces the lifetime project value of the investment by more than 40%. While this is an example of the impact to a system less than 10 mmBtu/hr, larger systems will face similar, although less drastic financial impacts.Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 079 0

- 1962.1, excerpt 5 for small boiler control technology costs.

Commenter Name: Jim Griffin Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1925.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In addition, EPA does not have enough data to support its assumption that fabric filters alone will be sufficient for area source coal

- fired boilers to meet the proposed mercury limit. Sources likely will be burning coal with sufficiently variable mercury content to make carbon injection necessary as a control measure. EPA only gathered mercury emissions data from 9 coal boilers out of the estimated 3,710 that will be regulated by this rule and the Agency has gathered no fuel variability data for these boi lers. Not accounting for actual or potential fuel mercury variability among the best performers is a gross omission that results in a standard that is not reflective of emission rates achieved in practice by best performers under worst case conditions that can be expected to occur, and this creates a standard that severely limits the achievability by other affected sources. This is contrary to CAA requirements. An analysis of EPA’s database for boilers at major sources shows that there are over 100 boilers in the coal subcategory with mercury emissions greater than the proposed area source limit of 3E

- 06 lb Hg/MMBtu, and over 40 of these units are equipped with fabric filters. As EPA has acknowledged that mercury is a fuel

- based HAP, it is reasonable to assu me that there are also coal

- fired boilers at area sources that will not meet the proposed mercury limits with a fabric filter alone. Therefore, if EPA intends to retain a numerical emission limit for mercury in this rule, the cost analysis for mercury cont rols must be re

- evaluated.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the cost impacts and revised limits. Please note that a fuel variability factor is now included in the MACT floor calculations.



### Costs: Testing and Monitoring

Commenter Name: George Whiting Commenter Affiliation: EcoHeat Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0832 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: My company has recently introduced a wood pellet fueled central heating boiler, the EcoBoiler. Getting to t his point has been a very expensive endeavor. The boiler has been safety tested and it burns much more cleanly than any wood boiler. We cannot afford to have testingregimens imposed on us, particularly ones such as proposed which does not conform to real

world experience.

Response: See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 1287, excerpt 3 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2006

- 0790

- 1990.1, excerpt 12 for affect of monitoring requirements and costs on biomass systems.

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliatio n: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: In addition to system improvements, annual emissions testing is conservatively estimated at $8,000

- $15,000 per boiler system. That added cost likely surpasses the biomass fuel bill for smaller systems and is a major budget consideration for larger systems. Annual testing is also infeasible given geographical considerations, particularly in rural areas. Currently, there are simply not enough com panies capable of conducting the annual testing. In Maine, there is not a single such company. Requiring annual testing will put a significant economic burden on schools, local governments, and small businesses.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1, excerpt 3 for annual emissions testing costs for rural areas.

Commenter Name: Nathan McClure Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Forestry Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1287 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The NREL studies also show that greenhouse gas warming potential is reduced by 94% over direct fired coal power plants when using dedicated biomass feedstock in an integrated gasification combined cycle system. Small diameter trees removed during thinning s and other operations on managed forests in the South are also “dedicated” to harvest for market products, including biomass. • Therefore, new rules that increase air emission monitoring requirements and costs to meet these requirements on biomass

- fired systems will discourage retention of renewable energy systems and be a roadblock for new investments in these type systems. This will likely further result in reversion to fossil fuel systems that could increase greenhouse gas, NOX, and SO x . • In addition , new rules that increase air emission monitoring requirements on biomass

- fired systems could also affect a transfer of wood product manufacturing to other countries. This would result in the loss of jobs and other negative impacts on the economies of rura l communities in the US, as well as a net increase in all pollutants from the manufacturingoperation, because of less regulation on air emissions in Asia and South America where the manufacturing will likely occur.

Response: See preamble for response.

Commenter Name: Steven D. Swanson Commenter Affiliation: Swanson Group, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The ongoing monitoring costs at each of our facilities and reduced production levels
at on e or more of our facilities (i.e. to meet the limits we will have to operate our boilers at less than full load) will make us less competitive. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that our products, while being consumed in the US, compete with forei gn imports. Our competitors in foreign countries will most certainly not be burdened by these extra costs which will put additional strain on our ability to compete.

Response: Please see preamble for changes to emission limits, as well as testing and mo nitoring
costs.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John Ussery Commenter Affiliation: Northern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The costs of monitoring alone could have severe negative effects on the economics of using sustainable green fuels grown in local forests.

Response: See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 1287, excerpt 3 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2006

- 0790

- 1990.1, excerpt 12 fo r affect of monitoring requirements and costs on biomass systems.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: EPA’s claims regarding economic limitations are similarly without merit. Although EPA is proposing MACT standards only for mercury and CO, EPA assumes

– without anyexplanation

– that sources would have to conduct annual stack tests for PM. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31906. Thus, EPA arbitrarily and irrationally inflates the cost of compliance with mercury and CO emission standards by adding to them the alleged costs of compliance with a PM standard that it does not even propose to promul gate. Without the cost of a PM stack test, the total cost to sales ratio would be lower than the three percent that EPA views as excessive.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and C O.

The stack test costs have been updated to include relevant testing costs.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 19 82.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Even if EPA’s discussion of cost concerns were not based on artificially inflated cost estimates, they would not be relevant to the statutory standard, that measurement methodology is not “practicable” due to econo mic limitations. EPA does not claim that compliance would be economically impracticable for boilers with heat input capacity less than 10MMBtu, only that compliance cost would exceed three percent of firm revenues for many boilers. That costs might exceed three percent of firm revenues does not make them impracticable, and EPA does not provide any reason to so believe. EPA does claim that compliance costs for schools and farms would be “prohibitive.” Even if that were true, it would not support the agency’s conclusion that enforcement of emission standards is impracticable for other boilers with a heat input capacity less than 10MMBtu. Moreover, EPA does not show that compliance costs would be impracticable for any units.

Response: Please see Preamble for discussion of the costs associated with the rule.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: EPA’s analysis of costs also assumes that the only way to measure emissions so that emissions standards could be enforced would be an annual stack test for mercury and PM and a CEM for CO. Leaving aside that EPA is not even proposing a MACT standard for PM, and assuming arguendo that the combined cost of an annual stack test of mercury and a CO CEM isimpracticable for some units, the agency provides no support for its claim that enforcement of mercury and CO standards could not be done through cheaper methods or could not be done for some subset of the boiler population. As noted above, the record plainly shows that the operators of smaller boilers can and do test their emissions and it is presumably done in a manner that is not impract icable. Yet the agency does not even attempt to evaluate cheaper compliance measures or identify any particular units or groups of units for which enforcement would truly be impracticable

– creating the strong impression that the is simply choosing methods that it regards as expensive so that it can then reject those methods as too expensive.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1, excerpt 10 for reducing impacts of monitoring.

See preamble for response.to unique comment: didn't evaluate cheaper compliance measures .

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The Alaska Wood Energy Development Group developed an estimate of the cost of annual stack testing for a rural Alaskan village. [See submittal for data table.] The following chart summarizes the quote received from Alaska Source Testing for the village of Stebbins, currently installing a biomass district heating system. Alaska Source Testing is one of Alaska’s two emissions testing companies. The estimated cost of annual stack testing in a rural Alaskan village is approximately $15,785.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1, exce rpt 3 for annual emissions testing costs for rural areas.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The significant monitoring and reporting burdens and investment costs that will accompany the proposed PM limits proposed for new biomass boilers will dissuade such an investment.

Response: See respsonse to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and CO.See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 1287, excerpt 3 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1, excerpt 12 for affect of monitoring requirements and costs on biomass systems.

Commenter Name: Andrea Grant Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1945.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The Preamble states that monitoring equipment for CO is readily available. While it may be possible to obtain such equipment, it is not currently used by the fuel oil industry. Thus, it would represent a substantial capital expense for either the owner/operator of the boiler or the fuel oil provider if that company were to conduct the required tests. Indeed, because of these high co sts, most fuel providers engaged to ensure that the boiler is compliant with EPA standards, would likely retain the services of an outside testing service. It is estimated that the cost of such services are prohibitive

— each test for PM and CO would cost approximately $10,000 per boiler.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and CO.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The proposed NESHAP rule for area sources requires management practices (a maintenance plan) for existing and new biomass boilers. Annual source testing is required for all boilers installed after June 4, 2010. As discussed above, annual source testing could increase the O&M costs for an installation by 15

- 30 times.

The costs to these small rural communities to source test these boilers will be immense. Installation of controls required to m eet the emission standards will incur increased capital and operating costs. Costs will be further exacerbated by the high costs to transport and house technicians to perform required maintenance. EPA argues 11! the RICE NESHAP proposed rule that source te sting is too expensive to be justified for smaller engines not subject to numerical emission standards. Since EPA acknowledges cost as a consideration, should EPA demonstrate by regulation that urban HAP standards do apply to rural areas, rural Alaska shou ld be subject to GACT, not MACT, and EPA should limit the area source requirements to maintenance and management practices for commercial, industrial, and institutional.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1, excerpt 3 for annual emissions testing costs for rural areas.Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 58

Comment: On page 31910 of the proposal preamble, it is stated that “The proposed requirements [for demonstrating compliance] ensure compliance with this proposed rule without proposing a significant additional burden for facilities that must implement them.” This is patently false. The compliance requirements for CO monitoring and stack testing for liquid

- fired boilers and the work practice, recordke eping and reporting requirements for all sources are clearly huge new burdens. All affected sources must file initial notices and keep records. All sources with an affected boiler with a design heat input capacity ?10 MMBTU/hr must undergo an energy asses sment. Boilers of <10 MMBTU/hr must do biennial tune

- ups. These are extensive requirements, whose costs and burdens are significantly underestimated in the rule analysis, as we have discussed in our comments on each of these areas.

Response: See repsons e to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and CO.

Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1918.1 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 3

Comment: Existing area source boilers greater than 100 MMBtu/hr are required to install continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). CEMS installation on RMA member boilers over 100 MMBtu/hr will cost the industry an additional $700,000 dollars . Requiring natural gas fired boilers that are designed to burn oil fuels as a back

- up during periods of curtailment, gas supply emergencies, or during short

- term spikes in natural gas prices due to limited availability, to install costly add

- on controls t hat may infrequently be used seems counter productive.

Because this cost estimate does not include costs of work practice, notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the total cost for add on controls plus monitoring and maintenance costs wi ll be significantly greater.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and CO.See preamble for response to unique comment: cost of CEMS, cost estimate does not include work practice, recordkeeping/reporting, the total cost for controls plus monitoring will be greater.

Commenter Name: Alice Edwards Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1 Comment Excer pt Number: 3

Comment: The required annual performance tests for new boiler will be particularly onerous for Alaskan sources. ADEC believes that the proposed rule will place an extraordinary burden on rural communities and others with small boilers who wou ld need to perform annual performance tests under the proposal. The majority of Alaskan communities have fewer than 500 residents and are located in remote areas of the state without road access. These communities have limited economic and technical resour ces. Each community typically has a school, post office, health clinic, small airport, and one or two other community buildings. Most communities have no hotel, rental housing units, or restaurants. The main source of travel from Anchorage to rural commun ities is by commercial airline to a main hub. From the hub, travel to smaller communities is by small seven to twelve passenger planes. The logistics of transporting performance test equipment with an estimated weight of 1,800 pounds to rural communities i s riddled with difficulties. From Anchorage to one of the hubs, equipment has to be shipped on pallets. Upon reaching the destination hub the equipment is taken off the pallets and then transported by small plane. Depending on the weight limit of the small plane, this can take more than one and possibly up to three trips. The approximate cost for shipping the performance test equipment to a central hub such as Bethel is $1,500. The transportation from the hub to the rural community may be two and half times this cost. These costs do not include the return transportation costs for shipping the performance test equipment back to Anchorage. Additionally, extreme arctic summer and winter conditions frequently prevent or delay travel. Delays in travel would resul t in communities having to pay additional standby fees above the performance test cost. Estimated performance test costs can rapidly exceed $13,000 annually. Such costs would be prohibitive for rural communities and would strain their already tight budgets

.

Response: See preamble for response.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Bass Commenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2250 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Initial source testing to determine compliance with applicable emissions limits is supported. However, due to the costs associated with performing these tests, subsequent annualsource testing is not warranted, particularly if the initial source test indicates emissions well below threshold levels.

Resp onse: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1, excerpt 10 for reducing impacts of monitoring.

Please see the preamble for current testing requirements.

Commenter Name: Jim Pettiford Commenter Affiliation: Fulton Thermal Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2192.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Uncertainty over the accuracy of reasonably priced flue gas emission analyzers is a concern. Where 3ppm represents a ‘fail’ and 2ppm a ‘pass’ a high degree of accuracy and
cert ainty is required. Typical, currently available, flue gas analyzers in the price range of a few thousand dollars do not have this kind of reliable resolution. The cost burden of purchasing such analyzers and arranging for their safe transportation to site to ensure proper operation is in our opinion overly burdensome.

Response: Please see the preamble for current emission limits and testing requirements.

Commenter Name: Robert G. Hedden Commenter Affiliation: Oilheat Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2249 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: According to NYSERDA’s experience performing similar tests to the ones proposed by this rulemaking, the cost is approximately $10,000 per boiler. The retail cost for a less than 3 MMBtu/h boiler is less than $3,000. The required test is over three times the cost of the boiler. Our new boilers are dramatically more efficient than many of the boilers operating in the field, but the unintended consequence of this rulemaking will be a very powerful disincentive for an oil heat user to replace their old inefficient boiler.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241, excerpt 4 for secondary impacts of testing and monitoring costs.

See preamble for response to unique comment: Cost of testing disincentive for an oil heat user to replace their old inefficient boiler.Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Hig h costs of testing and compliance measures for biomass boiler

Response: See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 1287, excerpt 3 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2006

- 0790

- 1990.1, excerpt 12 for affect of monitoring requirements and costs on biomass systems.

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2260.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: To reduce compliance costs, EPA should adopt more economical test methods, such as the use of handheld meters. EPA should also reduce the bookkeeping requirements, such as eliminating the requirement for daily fuel records to prove that solid fuels are not used. Facilities such as wastewater utilities often contract for fuel on a long

- term basis, making a daily fuel records unnecessary.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1, excerpt 10 for reducing impacts of monitoring.

Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: GTMA believes that EPA greatly underestimates the cost of annual stack testing. While several pollutants may be monitored for not much more than the cost of a single pollutant once set up, the majority of the cost of stack testing is mobilization and demobilization of the testing contractor. There are also the expenses of providing stack access and installing testing ports in stacks if not al ready present. It is unreasonable to require a source as small as 10 MMBtu/hr to test annually, if at all. EPA proposes annual performance (stack) tests to ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCDs are operating properly_ At the same time, EPA is requiri ng parametric monitoring of certain scrubber parameters on an on

- going basis to also demonstrate proper functionality of the control device.

For example, one of GTMA’s members has a TV permit with SM limits for HAP to avoid MACT, which requires the facil ity to conduct a stack test initially to determine the properoperating levels for the parameters to be monitored in order to achieve adequate control of HAP to stay below 10/25 tpy. In that case, ongoing parametric monitoring and subsequent reporting of

e xcursions from established proper operating ranges in TV semi

- annual and annual compliance certification reports is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with SM HAP limits.

Requiring stack testing be repeated annually in addition to ongoing parametric mo nitoring is unreasonable and unnecessary.

Response: Please see the preamble for changes to testing and monitoring requirements.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: There has to be some recognition that small rural commercial, industrial and farm users do not have the resources to fund stack testing on a yearly basis, let alone buy ever more expensive equipment. The largest GARN system con sumes a total of about $39,000 of locally harvested cordwood per year in their 4 GARN units. Stack testing might cost $5,000 per unit for a total of $20,000 per year...significantly increasing their cash flow requirements. Simply unrealistic; thus would pr obably force the school to use imported oil as their heat source.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1, excerpt 3 for annual emissions testing costs for rural areas.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The cost of regular stack testing as required by the proposed regulations has little off setting benefit and will reduce the economic viability of this renewable, low carbon fuel. On smaller systems, these annual tests can cost as much as the equipment saves over fossil fuel making a payback from the investment in wood energy impossible. On larger systems the cost will raise the bar for payback when a lower cost annual tune up will ensure that the boiler is operating at peak efficiency. Tune ups will insure the best performance out of an existing American investment while annual testing and punishing those who can not meet new, tougher

s tandards, will simply drag down the already down forest products industry.

Response: See preamble for response.Commenter Name: Steven A. Brink Commenter Affiliation: California Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2026. 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Under EPA’s new annual emissions testing requirement, testing expenses would add an estimated $8,000

- $15,000 per boiler system. That added cost likely surpasses the biomass fuel bill for smaller systems and is a major budget consideration for larger biom ass boiler systems. Also, proposed compliance technology requirements could cost more than the biomass systems themselves.

Response: See response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 1287, excerpt 3 and EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2006

- 0790

- 1990.1, excerpt 12 for affect of monit oring requirements and costs on biomass systems.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: In addition to system im provements, annual emissions testing is conservatively estimated at $8,000

- $15,000 per boiler system. That added cost likely surpasses the biomass fuel bill for smaller systems and is a major budget consideration for larger systems. Annual testing is also infeasible given geographical considerations, particularly in rural areas. Currently, there are simply not enough companies capable of conducting the annual testing. In Maine, there is not a single such company. Requiring annual testing will put a signifi cant economic burden on schools, local governments, and small businesses.

Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1, excerpt 3 for annual emissions testing costs for rural areas.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: NIST certified C0 test equipment basic cost ranges from $16,000 to $25,000 plus ancillary equipment and ongoing supplies; not an insignificant investment for a small manufacturer.Response: See response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002, excerpt 2 for monitoring costs estimates of PM and CO.

Commenter Name: Wayne York Commenter Affiliation: Hancock Lumber Company, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA seems to have significantly under

- estimated the compliance costs for regulated facilities. We have obtained preliminary estimates of the cost of testing from local testing companies, and h ave found that Method 10 CO testing, with only abbreviated alternatives to Methods 1

- 4, could range from $3,500 to about $7,000 per facility, not including any required work to prepare the facility to test, such as installing stack sampling ports and platf orms. In addition, these costs do not yet include estimates for administration and record

- keeping, or conducting tune

- ups or other facility upgrades which could be needed in order to meet the rule. Therefore, it is clear that the complete costs of meeting the proposed rule will be significantly higher than the estimates for “total compliance costs” included in EPA’s proposed rule (which we calculate to range from $2,595.19 to $4,380.36 per facility per year, based on Table 3 of the Preamble). Based on EPA’ s figures, there will be nearly 223,000 facilities that will be regulated. The wording in the Preamble is unclear what portion of these are greater or less than 10 MMBtu/hr. However, it would seem that a significant portion of these will be greater than 10 MMBtu/hr, and therefore will need to be tested within six months of the compliance deadline. With so many newly

- regulated sources needing to be tested, this will have a major impact of the capacity of the stack testing companies. It seems inconceivable th at the stack

- testing industry could accommodate this much additional testing in time to meet the deadlines. It is possible that the availability of testing firms will be a limiting factor regarding a facility’s ability to comply with this proposal. Also, i f testing becomes “supply

- limited,” testing costs could increase significantly above today’s prices. EPA conducted a "cost to sales" evaluation to compare the cost of compliance with the rule against the revenues of subject facilities. However, in their a ssumptions, EPA assumed that each facility would only have one boiler subject to the rule. In our estimation, most facilities in this area have multiple boilers and/or back

- up boilers. The reasons for this include matching boiler size to heating loads to m aximize energy efficiency, and the need for back up if the primary boiler goes off

- line. Such facilities would have to bear additional testing costs and other compliance costs which EPA apparently did not take into account. Another reason that EPA’s cost estimates may be too low could be due to regional variations in cost. For example, in a rural area with a low population density such as in the State of Maine, travel costs can add significantly to the overall testing costs, especially since Department of Transportation rules limit the length of the work day for stack testing companies travelling with a full reference

- method mobile laboratory. With any travel time greater than about 2 hours each way, the three one

- hour CO runs will not be able to be complet ed in a one

- day test effort, considering travel, set

- up, testing, take

- down, and return travel. This will add significantly to the costs of full Reference Method testing.Response: See preamble for response.



### Social Costs

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 43

Comment: Those who benefit either economically or through the use of a product should be the ones that pay for that product. I should not be asked to subsidize the production of products for energy with my life or my health. When hazardous air pollutants are created that combine disposal or elimination, costs should be bor ne by those that benefit from the products.

Response: EPA acknowledges this comment, but a general discussion of who pays for the environmental externalities that occur from the creation of products is outside the scope of this specific rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 65

Comment: The technology is available off the shelf for all of those size boilers; and yes, it will cost a little bit of money to do it, but it essentially is going to

- – hopefully, even in doing a cost

benefit analysis you look at our toxic rules and the CBAs actually show that there are tremendous values to h aving protective rules.

And so I think it’s really about creating a rule that’s genuinely protective and at the very least having an inventory of all the facilities across this country of what they’re burning, in what quantities they’re burning.

Res ponse: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulate matter and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects. Reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health benefits.

Commenter Name: Houston Public He aring Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985Comment Excerpt Number: 99

Comment: It has always been my experience that the EPA doesn’t take into account

-- when t he developing standards, they don’t take into account costs, that

-- the costs that have to be made. However, since it has been brought up consistently throughout the day, I would like to add to that discussion; birth defects, asthma, bronchitis, heart att acks, cancer, premature death. These are some of the outcomes of being exposed to the air toxins that have been previously discussed, and I would like to see how much that costs. There is a cost associated with that. Last week, I was asked to go visit a young mother on the east end who lives next to a source that has already been cited for releasing some of the toxins previously mentioned. Because I spoke Spanish, they asked me to go talk to her and try to explain to her why her child was born with half a brain and suffered for six months and died. I really didn’t have an answer for that. All I could do was share her

-- her concern. She was also

-- she was extremely upset, and I’d like to know how much that’s worth. It was very difficult speaking with h er, her trying to take care of her family, and still having two other children figuring out how

-- what she was going to do living next to

-- to the source, and if anybody was gonna do anything about it. I didn’t know what to tell her, but it did prompt m e to come and give a few comments today.

Response: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulates and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects and reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health be nefits.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)8 for the Proposed Rule does not include an emissions inventory of POM for the sources covered under the regulation. Such an inventory is essential in establishing the need for the Proposed Rule and justification that t he proposed level of control achieves human health benefits.

Response : A technical memo has been placed in the docket that describes all of the categories and pollutants , including POM, used to fulfill EPA obligation under section 112 ( c )( 6 )

.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA’s regulatory impact analysis presents monetized benefits and annualized social costs for the year 2013 alone. Annualized social costs are based on estimates of annualizedengineering

- based compliance costs. Benefit estimates are based on emissions reductions in 2013 alone. Capital costs appear to be annualized over the life of the relevant investment at a 7% interest rate (20 years for major equipment, 2 or 4 years for items like fabric filters). The energy assessment is annualized over 5 years (although no justification is given for this). Whi le this is an appropriate method for determining costs and benefits for 2013, it ignores several important longer

- term issues. For example, shutdown of existing units and increased numbers of new units are not accounted for. Shutdown of existing units due to the program would count as additional decreases in emissions and increased costs. Shutdown of units due to independent factors would not directly count as incremental decreases in emissions; however, this would result in spreading the compliance costs of these units over fewer years and fewer reduced emissions, and thus decrease the cost

- effectiveness of the program. By contrast, the number of new units over time would probably add net benefits to the rule. In addition to these sorts of effects, the sh ort time horizon for the regulatory impact analysis ignores future cost decreases due to both innovation and learning, effectively freezing the cost estimates at current technology costs. With technological innovation, economies of scale, and learning, com pliance costs may decrease with time. [Footnote: For example, fabric filters may cost $X right now, last two years, and generate $Y/year benefits. But as the regulation increases market share for the filters and incentivizes innovation, as the manufacturer s learn more cost

effective filter production techniques, and as the polluters learn more cost

- effective filter application techniques, in future years, maybe filters will only cost $1/2X and last for three years, but still generate $Y/year in benefits (or , possibly, $2Y, if the technology improves or if new applications have unexpected co

- benefits).] Both the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and the EPA’s own Economic Analysis Guidelines stress the need to account for technological innovation and learning effects. [Footnote: WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF MGMT. & BUDGET, CIRCULAR A

- 4 at 34 (2003); EPA, 240

- R

- 00

- 003, GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS at 5

- 7(2008 external review draft).] In particular, the OMB’s Circular A

- 4 advises agencies: “Th e time frame for your analysis should cover a period long enough to encompass all the important benefits and costs likely to result from the rule.” [Footnote: CIRCULAR A

- 4, supra note 50, at 15. ] Due to the short time horizon of its regulatory impact ana lysis, EPA may have underestimated the net benefits of various alternative policies.

Response: The timeframe for this analysis is consistent with other recent EPA analyses. For this rule, the net benefits outweigh the costs even with several unquantif ied benefit categories.



### Economic Impacts

Commenter Name: Gregg Tomberlin Commenter Affiliation: Novo Energy, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: The cost of compliance for existing biomass facilities will be in the billions causing many plants to close resulting in significant job losses in the midst of an historic recession.

Response: Based on the changes made to the proposal regarding bioma ss

- fired boilers, the estimated cost of compliance for existing biomass facilities has been reduced.

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 10

Comment: Many communities in rural regions rely upon or significantly benefit from the use of biomass boilers for consumption of biomass energy crops. By limiting the opportunity for biomass boilers, economic losses will be considerable, especially so in the wood products manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture sectors. Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the production and use of sustainable biomass. It is predicted that 342 private sector jobs are created during the production of 200,000 tons of biomass for heat [See submittal for Reference 4]. However, the proposed rule will certainly cause the opposite result and invalidate EPA’s original estimate of only 2,000 job losses. Biomass demand will dro p in response to onerous, expensive, and unrealistic regulations; some boiler operators will have to reduce emissions by a factor of five over their current State air quality permits or go out of business entirely. The proposed rule states that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleaner and avoid emissions testing. In many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do not exist and propane (the most expensive fuel type) is typically five to six times more expensive per Bt u than wood chip fuel.

Response: In the final rule, existing biomass

- fired area source boilers are subject to a management requirement of a tune

- up instead of the proposed emission limits which reduces the estimated cost of compliance for biomass faci lities.

Commenter Name: Sheldon Schultz Commenter Affiliation: Yanke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: The cost impact information in is way off the mark in my opinion. A job loss estimate of 1,000 jobs does not match my view at all. In the forest products industry there are many existing boilers that are area sources. Most of these boilers are in the stea ming capacity of 40,000 to 100,000 pounds per hour. None of the existing boilers I’m aware of now achieve the CO standard and most process steam boilers do not now have CEM’s for CO. None of the existing boilers I’m aware of can be altered to achieve the C O standard. Economic times havenot been favorable to the wood products industry so going into the new requirements the industry is not sitting on cash waiting to be spent. In the West there is a great deal of competition from Canada where in Alberta Provi nce the CO standard for wood fired boilers is about 800 ppm. When the Boise Cascade sawmill shut down in Council, Idaho there was a loss of ninety mill jobs, about one hundred woods jobs, a few restaurants, a few gas stations, the hospital closed, student population dropped in the public school and hence teachers have suffered two pay cuts and the schools have dropped a number of extra

- curricular programs. The value of property in Council fell according to the number of homes on the market due to lost jobs. In today’s lumber market there is no place to pass on the cost. In rural areas the 1,000’s of jobs that will be lost cannot be replaced by the creation of new energy auditor jobs. When the jobs go away the boiler becomes surplus equipment so it is not cle ar that the jobs created by the rule will have enough work to do

Response: In the final rule, the proposed CO emission limitation for biomass boilers has been replaced with a management practice requirement of a biennial tune

- up. There are no continu ous monitoring requirements for existing biomass boilers in the final rule. Thus, the economic impact on these biomass facilities has been significantly reduced.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcri pt for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: EPA needs to look realistically at the economic impacts of these proposals. And I just add that many of our facilities in the forest products industry are in rural areas where manufacturing family

- wage jobs are hard to find. And so we’re a major part of a vital and green economy in rural areas. We’ve been challenged by the recession, which has impacted our industry dramatically. We’ve l ost 350,000 jobs in the industry in total. Some will say we’re crying wolf on jobs. I think I can confidently say that these rules, as they’re proposed, you’re going to find more plant closures.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number : 16

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 42

Com ment: Overall, we believe Boiler MACT and the other boiler rules are too restrictive. It will place an enormous burden on manufacturers. It will impose unjustified limits that will impose alarge unnecessary economic burden on the country. And the EPA has an opportunity to modify these requirements while being faithful to the legal obligation.

Response: The EPA used a standard market analysis to analyze the proposed standards. The approach uses a single period multimarket partial equilibrium model to compare pre

- policy market baselines with expected post

- policy market outcomes. The analysis’ time horiz on is the intermediate run; some production factors are fixed and some are variable and is distinguished from the very short run where all factors are fixed and producers cannot adjust inputs or outputs. The intermediate time horizon allows us to capture i mportant transitory stakeholder outcomes. Key measures in this analysis include industry

- level changes in price levels, production and consumption, jobs, international trade, and social costs (changes in producer and consumer surplus). The analysis did not show large changes in production, prices, or imports.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 50

Comment: As proposed, the rules impose emission limits with no known means or assurance of achieving them. This will result in incredible uncertainty in the regulated community and a reluctance to invest in the United States.

Response: See respons e to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837 Comment Excerpt Number : 16

Commenter Name: Thomas McMillan Commenter Affiliation: Baldwin Pole and Piling Co., Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0608.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Co mment: We are joining with our wood preserving competitors and many other wood products facilities to comment on the proposed Boiler MACT Rules. Clearly, we are dismayed and discouraged over what the consequences would be to our small company business shou ld these new regulations become law.

If the projections are correct for what it will cost for us to comply (1

- 2 million dollars), with no guarantee that compliance is achievable, we are certain what our future business plan would be. We would simply conv ert our dry kilns from steam indirect fired back to a natural gas direct fired burner. The total cost to convert both kilns is estimated at approximately $400,000.00. The four employees currently working at the bark boiler would no longer be needed which w ould reduce our overall workforce by 10 percent and we would go to automatic controls requiring nomanpower to operate. Furthermore, the automatic controls would allow us to operate the kilns over the weekend when electricity rates are lower.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Charles Thomas III Commenter Affiliation: Shuqualak Lumber Co., Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: It has come to my attention that our company, Shuqualak Lumber Co., located in Shuqualak, MS is going to be required to install millions of dollars of equipment on our wood fired boilers due to proposed rules in the Boiler MACT. We have four wood fired boilers at our facility and if these rules are enforced, it will shut us down! We are located in one of the poorest counties in the United States. In fact, we are one of the few remaining industries in our county. These proposed rules will eliminate 105 direct jobs and approximately 800 indirect jobs.

Response: The EPA used a standard market analysis to analyze the proposed MACT standards. The approach uses a single period multimarket partial equilibrium model to compare pre

- policy mark et baselines with expected post

- policy market outcomes. The analysis’ time horizon is the intermediate run; some production factors are fixed and some are variable and is distinguished from the very short run where all factors are fixed and producers canno t adjust inputs or outputs. The intermediate time horizon allows us to capture important transitory stakeholder outcomes. Key measures in this analysis include industry

- level changes in price levels, production and consumption, jobs, international trade, a nd social costs (changes in producer and consumer surplus). This analysis was done on the national level for many reasons. Impacts on price level, international trade, national production, and jobs could not have been estimated if the analysis focused on regional or state levels. EPA also does not have the necessary data to estimate impacts on individual states. Even if EPA had the data a detailed estimate of individual state and industry responses would be beyond the scope of what could be accomplished f or this analysis.

Commenter Name: Carolina Dauzat Commenter Affiliation: Rex Lumber Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0610 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: I am writing this in response to the proposed rules for area source Boiler MACT. T he rules the EPA is proposing are not achievable. These rules in enacted will cause great hardship to our industry and most likely cause the closure of many sawmills. In Florida alone, the estimate for capital expenditures in the forest products industry i s over $170,000,000. We are located in rural small towns in the panhandle of Florida and soon rural Mississippi. The closure of ourplants will be devastating on each of these local economies, losing over 125 jobs per location, that is a total loss of 375 jobs. Small towns need these jobs. We are one of the few manufacturing industries that still successfully operate in the United States, is the point to get rid of us too?

Response: See response to Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609 Com ment Excerpt Number: 1

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: At the end of the day, we’ve heard a lot about jobs or costs to industry. Here in Houston, we understand that very well. We hear it every time a regulation is proposed, every time a standard is strengthened, we hear about jobs, but I think there’s also a very clear understanding amongst those that actually bear the burden of pollution in this region, that eventually those costs will get passed on to regular citizens. And the choice is not between having those costs or not having those costs; it’s how thos e costs will be borne, and I don’t think the EPA needs to have another hearing to ask citizens whether they would prefer to bear those costs in increased health expenditures or increase to consumer goods. I think the choice is clear, and I think the EPA i s of finally starting to get that, that we need to protect public held to the maximum, that we need to lead industry to innovate, to figure out ways to add control measures that reduce energy use, but also reduce air emissions. And at the end of the day, folks will pay those higher costs for their consumer goods, but they’ll be able to do so from a point of view where their

-- where their health has been protected, and I think everybody in this region would much prefer to spend a little more on their cons umer goods and spend a lot less on their

-- on their health expenditures.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: Small facilities such as sawmills, which are a big supplier of raw materials to paper mills, will also be severely and economically harmed by EPA’s boiler rules for so

- called area

sour ces even though their emissions are tiny and not harmful.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcri pt for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: Given the jobless nature of the economy recovery, the rulemaking will add excessive burdens to the expense of the manufacturing worke rs. The total capital costs just for the forest products industry alone are estimated at about $7 billion, and the costs for all manufacturing could be between $20 to $50 billion. A wide range of sectors and the jobs they sustain would be severely harmed.

Response: See response to Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 42

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 31

Comment: The cost of compliance with the proposed rule not only threatens the survival of Louisiana’s sugar industry, but does so with minimal to no measurable air quality improvements. Given th e nominal total HAP emissions from Louisiana’s sugar mills, EPA can meet its mandate under the Clean Air Act to protect public health and the environment without throwing such a devastating, perhaps fatal, blow to this industry.

Response: See respons e to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 098 5 Comment Excerpt Number: 58

Comment: Since the ‘70s, the government has taken a big step to increase air quality, in general, right? In every step that they’ve taken, the business community has come out and said that we’re gonna lose thousands of jobs, i t’s going to ruin our business, in all of its stuff like that, and really, it hasn’t

-- like there hasn’t been an economic downturn that you can really blame on environmental regulations. The economy is, though, a lot more flexible and able to accept envi ronmental regulations in general, and in businesses are a lot more flexible than they realize. I mean, I

-- it’s just tougher for them to make changes so when

-- when looking to make

-- tochange these rules, just keep that in mind when they come out he re and tell you it’s gonna ruin our business, we’re going to

-- thousands of people are going to be unemployed. If you look at the past, that really hasn’t happened on a consistent basis.

Response: The EPA analysis for this regulation indicates that production and employment changes are likely to be small. Many of the predictions of large employment changes and closures are based on a lack of market flexibility.

Commenter Name: Houston Public He aring Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 59

Comment: EPA’s proposed rules will create serious disincentives for the use of biomass and alternative fuels and thereby increased use of fossil fuels, which we believe is counterproductive and contrary to the country’s energy interests. The rule will have undeniable economic consequences. The forest products industry has projected new equipmen t required under the proposed rules will cost more than $6 billion over a three

- year compliance window plus billions more in subsequent years for operating maintenance expense. Those capital costs alone exceeds industry profit of recent years.

Respons e: See response to Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 67

Comment: The forest and paper products industry were green even before there was a label for being green. We have had green jobs for over a century, but only until recent years has there been a "buzzword" for be ing environmentally responsible. The forest products industry will always be the best environmental stewards of our forest and land. We are sustainable, renewable, and the greenest. We do not want our jobs, livelihood, and communities destroyed by your le gislated rules that bring about unintended consequences of jobs lost. Your unintended consequences of stringent rules will put more mills on our map out of business. There are American workers’ names that go with the numbers on our map [see Map provided as supplemental information to transcript]. The hourly workers are almost always the first to go. The PPRC urges you to "Seek a Balance" between the environment and industry.

Response: See response to Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 100

Comment: I’m a huge believer in

-- everyone needs a job. I do realize the economy, that everyone needs to make a living. I’m a big believer in the ingenuity of the American businessman. Usually, what made this country great, and I truly believe that if you set tha t bar however you set it, they’re going to meet it, and they’re going to make a profit. That is what makes America great. And

-- and I’m sure they’ll be able to do it, and

-- and do it well. And everywhere it’s been my experience, and research has shown, w here there is a good environment, there’s always a good economy. Bad environment, always

-- is

-- is bad

-- bad economics at the end of the day.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Comb ustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the production and use of sustainable biomass. The proposed rule states that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleaner and av oid emissions testing. In many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do not exist and propane (the most expensive fuel type) is typically five to six times more expensive per BTU than wood chip fuel.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven A. Brink Commenter Affiliation: California Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2026.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: In California’s biomass power generation industry, the powerplants all have existing power purchase agreements and would not be able to pass the cost of any retrofits or testing requirements on to utility rate payers. The California Energy Commission’s an alysis indicatesexisting biomass powerplants would not be able to absorb the additional costs called for by the proposed MACT Rule and would go out of business.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Exce rpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven W. Koehn Commenter Affiliation: National Association of State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2220.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Economic Impacts on Rural Communities

Many rural c ommunities rely upon or significantly benefit from the use of biomass boilers for energy at manufacturing facilities, schools and hospitals. The rule, as proposed, will directly impact both boiler owners and fuel suppliers in these communities. By limiting the opportunity for biomass boilers, economic losses will be considerable, especially so in the wood products manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture sectors.

Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the prod uction and use of sustainable biomass. It is predicted that 342 private sector jobs are created during the production of 200,000 tons of biomass for heat (Biomass Thermal Energy Council, et al, “Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass: A Vision for 20 25,” April 2010, pg. 37). However, the proposed rule will certainly cause the opposite result and invalidate EPA’s original estimate of only 2,000 job losses. Biomass demand will drop in response to onerous, expensive, and unrealistic regulations; some boi ler operators will have to reduce emissions by a factor of five over their current State air quality permits or go out of business entirely. The proposed rule states that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleane r and avoid emissions testing. In many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do not exist and propane (the most expensive fuel type) is typically five to six times more expensive per Btu than wood chip fuel.

Response: See response to Document Control Numb er : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Many communities in rural regions rely upon or significantly benefit from the use of biomass boilers for consumption of biomass energy crops. By limiting the opportunity forbiomass boilers, economic losses will be considerable, especially so in the wood products manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture sectors.

Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the production and use of sustainable biomass. It is predicted that 342 private sector jobs are created during the production of 200,000 tons of biomass for heat. [Footnote: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, et al, “Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass: A Vision for 2025,” April 2010, pg. 37.] However, the proposed rule will certainly cause the opposite resu lt and invalidate EPA’s original estimate of only 2,000 job losses. Biomass demand will drop in response to onerous, expensive, and unrealistic regulations; some boiler operators will have to reduce emissions by a factor of five over their current State ai r quality permits or go out of business entirely. The proposed rule states that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleaner and avoid emissions testing. In many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do not exist and propane (the most expensive fuel type) is typically five to six times more expensive per Btu than wood chip fuel.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42 and Document Control Number : EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Estimates of employment impact derived from Morgenstern et al.: The Regulatory Impact Analysis uses two techniques to estimate the changes in employment due to the proposed rules. The first is a longstanding method used by EPA in many previous analyses. This technique looks at the output decrease in the relevant sectors and uses an estimate for jobs per unit of output to calculate a projected decrease in employment. This “demand effect” technique for projecting changes in employment is described in the Economic Analysis Resource Document issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in April 1999. [Footnote: OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS, EPA, OAQPS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESOURCE DOCUMENT at 5

- 42 to 5

- 43 (1999).] It contains an implicit assumption that the result of environmental regulations will be price increases and that these price increases will result in lower sales for regulated entities.

However, this type of employment projection is incomplete. The agenc y correctly identifies that there are at least two types of employment effects from environmental regulations which are not included in the “demand effect” calculation: the “cost effect” and the “factor shift effect.” [Footnote: RIA at 4

- 6 to 4

- 7.] The “co st effect” recognizes that, for a given level of output, expenditures on reducing pollution often require additional employees. The “factor shift effect” recognizes that production can be more or less labor intensive after compliance with an environmental regulation.The size of each of these effects and the direction of the “factor shift effect” are all empirical matters and will likely vary from industry to industry and from regulation to regulation. In order to estimate these effects, EPA uses economet ric estimates from a 2002 paper by Morgenstern et al. [Footnote: RIA at 4

- 7.] This paper estimated the employment effects of spending on environmental policies across a number of industries. [Footnote: Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer & Jhih

- Shyang Shih, Jobs Versus the Environment: An Industry Level Perspective, 43 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT 412, 412 (2002).] As the RIA recognizes, the point estimates do not perfectly correspond to the analysis that EPA is doing. The range of industries analyzed is not the same and the paper uses older data.

Nevertheless, this technique at least recognizes and has the possibility of capturing effects that the traditional techniques of estimating employment effects cannot. This makes the esti mates derived from the Morgenstern paper at least as valuable as the traditional techniques of estimating employment effects. The adoption of this technique by EPA could attract additional interest in this area and encourage economists to publish new studi es on the topic with newer data.

Response: EPA acknowledges the comments. The costs of the rule have been decreased through changes made to requirements for biomass

- fired and oil

- fired boilers.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: C ouncil of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: EPA recognized this economic impact in the preamble to the proposed rule. On pages 55

- 56 of the preamble EPA states that “...Based on this analysis, pursuant to CAA section 112(h), EPA is proposing that it is not feasible to enforce emission standards for a rea source boilers having a heat input capacity of less than 10 mmBtu/hr because of the technological and economic limitations described above. Thus, a work practice, as discussed below, is being proposed to limit the emissions of mercury and CO (as a surr ogate for POM) for existing area source boilers having a heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBTU/h. We are specifically requesting comment on whether a threshold higher than 10 mmBtu/hr meets the technical and economic limitations as specified in section 112(h). The limits imposed for PM do not reflect GACT for units under10 mmBtu/hr and potentially for units up to 30 mmBtu/hr. By EPA’s own admission on Pages 55

- 56, the testing and monitoring costs alone are not implementable for existing boilers under 1 0 mmBtu/hr. The costs for new boilers would be little different than those for existing boilers, and thus the same conclusion should be drawn. EPA does not cite significant test data that are applicable to area source units and specifically states that no data from units under 10 mmBtu/hr were available with regard to PM emissions. On page 72, EPA refers to the NSPS CFR 60 subparts Db and Dc. They state it covers to all unitsover 10mmbtu/hr input. However, the only discussion in this reference refers to u nits over 8.7 megawatts or 30mmBTU/hr. Also, the reference it indicates that the 0.03 lb/mmBtu of PM is for coal and oil, or a combination of these fuels and wood. A wood fired unit burning over 30% wood has a limit described is 0.1 lb/mmbtu for PMmmBtu.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: The particulate emission standard suggested in the MACT standard is equally as destructive to the wood energy market. In my home State of Massachusetts the market has clearly spoken on the cost effectiveness of ESPs and baghouses. There has not been a wood fired boiler put into the State of Massachusetts in the last 15 years without considerable public support because a baghouse or ESP is required to meet the State’s particulate emission standard of .1 pounds per million BTU. The particulate emission standard in current MACT standard will unquestionably put wood fired boilers in this Country on permanent public sector life support. I know the public sector currently subsidies every other form of energy but wood energy up to now has found opportunities to pay for itself. This rule will kill that economic viability.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affili ation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the production and use of sustainable biomass. It is predicted that 342 private sector jobs are created during the production of 200,000 tons of biomass for heat (Biomass Thermal Energy Council, et al, “Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass: A Vision for 2025,” April 2010, pg. 37). However, the proposed rule will certainly cause the opposite result and invalidate EPA’s original estimate of only 2,000 job losses. Bio mass demand will drop in response to onerous, expensive, and unrealistic regulations; some boiler operators will have to reduce emissions by a factor of five over their current State air quality permits or go out of business entirely. The proposed rule sta tes that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleaner and avoid emissions testing. In many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do notexist and propane (the most expensive fuel type) is typically five to six times m ore expensive per Btu than wood chip fuel.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42 and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name : Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: Meeting the particulate emission standard would require the addition of an ESP or baghouse to every biomass boiler system. This will cause the price of each system to increase significantly, starting at upwards of $60,000 equipment cost for a smaller boil er and increasing to hundreds of thousands of dollars as the boiler size approaches 10 MMBtu/h. The annual testing requirement would require strict operating conditions and technical oversight that will be cost prohibitive in addition to the cost of the te sting. While we realize that EPA is not concerned with the cost, it would mean that fewer public schools and industries would install wood burning systems. Our public schools are in financial trouble. Our Biomass Boiler Systems have been saving schools man y dollars every year, frequently a teacher’s entire salary and more.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Ener gy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: A large portion of the end users that will be affected by these proposed rules will be hospitals, schools and small industries looking for a way out of high priced fossil fuels. Most of these potential projects would be in economically challenged rural areas were there is a significant downturn in the forest industry. With these new proposed rules most of these potential projects would no longer be fea sible and the ones that are currently in operation would have to be shut down or retrofitted at significant cost to the end user. We think that the EPA should moderate their position on this issue to take into account the social

- economic factors at hand, e specially with the smaller scaled and sometimes financially burdened projects that are affected by the area source rules and regulations.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836,Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven D. Swanson Commenter Affiliation: Swanson Group, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The costs of the new equipment, controls and lost production required by this rule will be in curred during a shaky recovery and could realistically retard or kill that recovery. If the recovery is slower than we expect the additional costs could cause the complete closure of several of our facilities.

Response: See responses to Document Contro l Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1 and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: R. Wade Mosby Commenter Affiliation: The Collins Companies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1461.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The effect of these four proposed rules is that they threaten the viability of these three facilities that include 3 sawmills, a biomass power plant and a hardwood dimension plant. Currently no bo iler manufacturer is willing to certify that their wood fired boilers will meet the proposed standard. Our facilities burn forest derived biomass, which is classified a "traditional fuel" instead of solid waste.

The Chester, CA plant consists of a sawmil l and biomass co

- generation power plant that produces 12 MW of electricity. The steam also fires the lumber dry kilns and provides plant heating. This plant provides 108 union (Carpenters & Jointers) family wage jobs and is the largest employer in this sma ll rural Sierra Nevada community. Replacement cost of a boiler with no guarantee of meeting the proposed standards would be approximately $20 million. This facility in 2009 had a payroll of $5.9 million, with $1.8 million in employee related taxes and $606 thousand in local property taxes.

In Lakeview, OR we operate a sawmill with a wood fired boiler that produces steam for the dry kilns and plant heating. This facility employs 76 people with family wage jobs and is the largest private employer in this sm all rural Eastern Oregon town located 95 miles from the nearest regional shopping and medical facilities. A replacement boiler with no guarantee of meeting the proposed standards would be approximately $10 million. The Lakeview facility in 2009 had a
payro ll of $3 million, with $900 thousand in employee related taxes and paid $110 thousand in local property taxes.Our Kane, PA facility is a hardwood sawmill and dimension plant that utilizes a wood fired boiler for dry kilns and plant heating. We employ 99 people with family wage jobs and this is the largest private employer in this small rural Northern Appalachian town. A replacement boiler with no guarantee of meeting the proposed standards would run approximately $10 million. The Kane facility had a 2009 payroll of $3.7 million, with $1.1 million of employee related taxes and paid $593 thousand in local property taxes.

Keep in mind that due to the current recession and housing crisis, these plants ran at a one shift reduced basis. In normal times we’d o perate at a higher production level with the attendant increase in employment and payroll.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Joe O'Rourke Commenter Affiliation: F.H. Stoltze Land and Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1467.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed MACT standards for Major Source boilers as well as Area Source boilers would be highly detrimental to our business t oo. The cost to comply with these new, stringent standards would jeopardize our ability to continue in business. That in turn would negatively affect our employees, our contractors, our suppliers, and the local and regional community. AF&PA has estimated t hat these new rules would cost the wood products industry $6 to $7 billion dollars over the next four years. In our own State of Montana, they estimate that there are seven Forest Products in operation, and that it would cost $60,000,000 in capital costs
t o bring those boilers into compliance with the new MACT standards. That works out to an incredible $8,500,000 per boiler. Don Wolf, of Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co. of St. Louis confirms this when he says “...the average capital cost of retrofitting biom ass

- fired boilers will be nearly $5 million”. Furthermore, he estimates that “...air

- pollution

- control retrofit projects/fuel

- switching projects can take 18 months to three years from the start of compliance planning through engineering and construction to s tartup.” Our company has struggled mightily over the last several years to survive the severe economic downturn. Our business simply could not bear an added expense of that magnitude.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven D. Swanson Commenter Affiliation: Swanson Group, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Comment: At least one of our boilers will very likely, even with all of the latest control technologies, be unable to meet the CO limit, resulting in its cessation of operation. If we are unable to operate that boiler, the capital costs of a replacement boiler will very likely be cost prohibitive meaning the entir e facility could be in jeopardy. The resultant loss in jobs (i.e. 75

- 150 positions) would be a heavy hit to already battered rural Oregon, where unemployment levels are near or: exceed 20%.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0837, Comment Excerpt Number : 16.

Commenter Name: David Dungate and Scott Nichols Commenter Affiliation: ACT Bioenergy and Tarm USA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1472.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Without changes to the Draft Area Source Boiler Rule so that the emission limits and compliance testing costs are reasonable, the commercial biomass boiler industry will be rendered uneconomical and the jobs in this industry sector and the environmental b enefit of replacing fossil fuel with renewable biomass fuel will be lost. We urge you to revise the Rule so that the limits are comparable with European standards.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The EPA cites estimated compliance costs at more than $10 billion initially and $4 billion annually for both rules. However, the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) estimates that the initial capital costs for the forest products industry alone may reach $7 billion. The proposed control technology sta ndards are far more stringent than those in the vacated rule, and will present many new challenges for affected facilities.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Joe FierstCommenter Affiliation: Wausau Paper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1488.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As the Mill Manager for the Wausau Paper Mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin I am very concerned that the proposed EPA Boiler MACT rule, if enacted, will substantially increase operating costs for our mill and could put mill jobs, and the communities that rely on these jobs, at risk. The proposed rule goes far beyond any previous regulation and any statute needed to protect the health of our communities. It seems highly likely that it may not be possible for many boiler operators to achieve the impractical stan dards necessary to comply with the rule’s requirements; no matter what kind of pollution controls are installed. I have seen many paper mills close in the last few years because of rising operating costs and the tragic U.S. economy, including several Waus au Paper facilities. Over the last few years Wausau Paper has had no choice but to close six facilities located in Appleton and Columbus, Wisconsin, Jay, Maine, Jackson, Mississippi, Groveton, New Hampshire, and Middletown, Ohio. Wausau Paper now employs r oughly 1300 fewer employees than they did 10 years ago. The paper industry has experienced some very tough years. The impact of this over

compensating regulation, if unmodified, will drive further decline, and perhaps the demise of significant employers. Other good paying jobs are hard to find in these rural areas, so the harmful impact would last a long time, if not forever. Our town specifically, will suffer if support from the mill ends, not just from lost tax revenue, but also from the significant invo lvement the mill and its employees have in all aspects of the community. In the last ten years, paper industry employment in Wisconsin has dropped from 52,000 to 32,000. That’s over $1 billion in annual wages lost. The communities associated with these mil ls have suffered greatly, as a consequence.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Ashley B. Peterson Commenter Affiliation: American Meat Institute Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1486.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: In terms of the economic burden, the capital cost expenditures that would be necessary to comply with the Rules are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars at thousands of facilities across the country. A wide range of sectors and the jobs they sustain would be severely affected

– universities, small municipalities, food product processors, furniture makers, federal facilities, and a wide range of manufacturers and other bus inesses that operate gas, liquid, or solid

- fueled fired boilers. Imposing such an economic burden on industry is substantial and would threaten the viability of some companies, particularly in these economically challenging times. .

Response: See respo nse to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397,Comment Excerpt Number : 42.

Commenter Name: William H. Verner Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1797.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We are specifically concerned about the proposed boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rule and its potential negative impact on jobs, our ability to recover from the current recession, and our ability to move to the use of renewable fuels.

As the unemployment rate in Georgia hovers around 10 percent, and state and municipal finances are in dire straits, manufacturing jobs are being lost every day. While we support efforts to address serious health threats from air emissions, we also believe that regulations can be crafted in a balanced way that sustains both the environment and jobs.

The proposed boiler MACT rule could impose millions of dollars in capital costs at approximately 5,000 existing facilities across the state of Georgia.

Resp onse: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42.

Commenter Name: George N. Clark Commenter Affiliation: Manufacture Alabama Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1634.1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 1

Comment: If implemented, the proposed Boiler MACT rules will directly impact the operation of manufacturers, municipalities, universities, utilities and other commercial entities across Alabama and would strike a severe blow to Alabama’s economy. Acc ording to Alabama’s Governor, the impact of the proposed Boiler MACT rule on Alabama entities is estimated at $710 million. As Alabama strives to recover from the current recession, such costs could make or break the viability of continued operations.

Fo r example, the Alabama wood products industry alone generates $12.4 billion in revenue and employs over 43,000 individuals. As proposed, the Boiler MACT rules are estimated to cost the Alabama wood products industry over $620 million. As our state’s unempl oyment rate hovers around 11 percent, enacting stringent Boiler MACT rules would jeopardize the good paying jobs across the wood products industry and the entire manufacturing sector. Although Alabama manufacturers are fighting hard to thrive in this globa l economy, the flow of capital for new investment and hiring is still seriously restricted.Manufacture Alabama believes that the proposed Boiler MACT rules will hurt both large and small manufacturers and prevent expansion and growth in many urban, subu rban, and rural counties, hindering their ability to create jobs. The cost to individual mills to comply with the proposed rules could be tens of millions of dollars at a time of fierce international competition and a weak economy. The combined estimated c osts to the chemical, pulp and paper and utility industries is $11.5 billion dollars. Our nation is suffering through the most severe recession since the 1930s. Manufacturers have lost more than 2.1 million high

- wage jobs across the nation. Economic recove ry has not been swift and individual States are not recovering from the economic downturn at the same pace.

We understand that the Boiler MACT rule alone could impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of facilities across the coun try. Manufacture Alabama fears that manufacturers may be forced to relocate overseas to countries with less strict environmental regulations simply because they cannot afford to operate under extreme financial conditions in the United States. Widespread le akage would competitively disadvantage Alabama and our nation and significantly impede economic recovery.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 06

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58.

Commenter Name: James Happli, Jr Commenter Affiliation: United Steel, Paper, Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (Wausau Paper) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1489.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Many mills rely on coal

- fired b oilers for low

- cost energy. Being a low

- cost producer is how many paper mills continue to survive against foreign competition. Yet the proposed rule could result in the shut

- down of many coal

- fired boilers, which would lower the competitiveness of these mi lls, and cause more job losses.

I have seen many paper mills close in the last few years because of rising operating costs and the tragic U.S. economy, including several Wausau Paper facilities. Over the last few years, Wausau Paper has had no choice but to close six facilities located in Appleton and Columbus, Wisconsin, Jay, Maine, Jacksonville, Mississippi, Groveton, New Hampshire and Middletown, Ohio. Wausau Paper now employs roughly 1300 fewer employees than they did 10 years ago.

The paper industr y has experienced some very tough years and the last thing it needs is some over zealous regulation to instigate further decline. I do not want my mill to be one of the next mills to close. Other good paying jobs are hard to find in our rural area so the h armful impact would last a long time, if not forever. Our town will suffer as well if the support from the mill ends, not just the taxes, but all of the involvement in the community. In the last ten years, paperindustry employment in Wisconsin has dropped from 52,000 to 32,000. That’s over $1 billion in annual wages lost.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10 and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Numb er : 58..

Commenter Name: Susan Parker Bodine Commenter Affiliation: Used Oil Management Association, UOMA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1972.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It is clear from the docket that EPA has not considered th e impacts of this proposed rule on manufacturers and users of these very small units. The docket does not include any emissions or economic data relating to small used

- oil fired boilers. For example, EPA has not considered the effect of a tune

- up requireme nt on owners of existing used oil

- fired boilers. In the docket for the CISWI rule, EPA provided information that the initial cost of a boiler tune

- up is $3,000 to $7,000 per boiler, and subsequent annual tuning costs are approximately $1,000 per boiler. (E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119

- 0041). In the Supporting Statement for the information collection provisions of the proposed Area Source Boiler rule, EPA asserts that boiler tune

- ups cost $2,228. (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0031). Similarly, EPA has not considered the effec t of the cost of emissions controls on owners of new used oil

- fired boilers. In the docket for the CISWI rule, EPA provides information that the cost of installing a fabric filter ranges from approximately $722,000 to $31.3 million, and annual costs range from approximately $139,000/yr to $9.6 million/yr. (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119

- 0054). In the same document, EPA assumed that the capital cost of adding a fabric filter to a used oil heater would be $715,188 and the annual costs would be $150,051. Id. Given these costs, EPA’s statement in the preamble to the Area Source Boiler rule that fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators "are generally available and cost effective for new area source boilers" clearly does not apply to the small boilers that UOMA member s manufacture. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31909. In fact, in the context of the CISWI rule, EPA assumes that these costs impose such a significant burden that units would shut down. (EPAHQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0119

- 0054).

Before finalizing this regulation, EPA should conduct a cost

- to

- sales analysis of the economic impact of its proposed regulations on the small boilers that meet the limitations set forth in 40 C.F.R. 279.23. Just as EPA determined that testing and monitoring costs would be unaffordable for area source boilers (75 Fed. Reg. at 31906), UOMA believes that compliance costs would form a large percentage of the revenues of many UOMA customers, and in some cases may even exceed those revenues, demonstrating that EPA’s proposal would impose a significant adverse

econom ic impact on these small businesses.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

.

Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The controls, if available, will pose a great financial challenge for small businesses

— most of which do not generate a profit. Requiring financially challenged firms to spend scarce resources on these controls in this economy will force small businesses to cut back hours, eliminate jobs, or worse, close their doors for good.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Nu mber : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products As sociation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: If these rules are finalized as proposed, forest products companies will see reduced markets for wood residues, higher costs for marketing wood residues, hig her costs for disposing of wood residues, and higher costs for using wood residues for on

- site energy production. Forest products companies rely on their ability to sell or utilize wood residues to maintain the profitability of their operations. Reducing o r eliminating this value stream, which may provide up to 15% of a sawmill’s income, will have serious consequences for an industry hard hit by the recession, resulting in another wave of mill closures.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Converse to the selected CO units, the units used to establish the PM standard are all large units, all above 10mmBtuJhr, and half above the 250 mmBtu/hr level. There is NO overlap with the CO unit list, not a coincidence. All are equipped with ESP’s.

T he data assembled by EPA, indicates that none of the existing small boilers and only 29% of the larger boilers are equipped with an ESP or equivalent device (baghouse). Thus, the vast majority of existing units will be forced to install an ESP or baghouse to continue in operation under the rule.

Response: See response to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John Ussery Commenter Affiliation: Northern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: By eliminating the option for the use of locally generated biomass as the primary fuel for the NNMC El Rito campus, several jobs that would otherwise be created will b e lost. These go beyond the jobs of the boiler stokers, to include those local workers who would gather, prepare and transport the wood from the forest to the campus.

Using local wood as the primary fuel for the campus would have cut the cost of heating the campus in half given the present cost of propane. These savings would increase as the cost of propane rises in the future. Last year the College spent over $160,000 on propane to heat the El Rito campus that serves less than 200 students. Reducing ener gy costs is a critical factor for the economic viability of the campus.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Numb er : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Joe Fierst Commenter Affiliation: Wausau PaperDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1488.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Not only is the approach that EPA used to develop emission limits badly flawed, the proposed Boiler MACT rule will impose a huge cost burden on our Wausau Paper

- Rhinelander Mill facil ity that is Simply untenable, Based on best available estimates, we expect that Boiler MACT compliance will cost tens

- of

- millions and annual expenditure in operation and maintenance costs will rise several million, It is critical that EPA revise this rule in a common sense way, Addressing the risk to our jobs and our way of life must be part of any change, We need clean air, but we also need good paying jobs, Bring some balance to this rule, I respectively request that EPA review and implement the

recommen dations proposed by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the National Council of Air & Stream Improvement (NCASI) in their comments regarding this rule,

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comme nt Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt N umber : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Rural economies, which have suffered tremendously during the recession, benefit from the production and use of sustainable biomass. It is estimated that 342 private sector jobs are created during the production of 200,000 tons of woody biomass for heat. [ Footnote 5: Heating the Northeast with Renewable Biomass: A Vision for 2025, Biomass Thermal Energy Council, April 2010.] However, the proposed rule will certainly cause the opposite result and invalidate EPA’s original estimate of only 2,000 job losses. B iomass demand will drop in response to these proposed regulations; so strict that some biomass boiler operators will have to reduce emissions by a factor of five over their current state air quality permits employing expensive control technologies, or go o ut of business. MFPA asserts that the economic data used by the EPA is seriously flawed when it comes to job loss estimates. Most woody biomass boilers are located in economically depressed rural areas that depend on the forest products industry for emplo yment. If these mills close due to the high costs of compliance, many more than 2,000 jobs will be lost in Missouri’s forest products industry alone.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Comm enter Name: Robert H. Colby and G. Vinson Hellwig Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2022.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: The proposed rules will create additional resource burdens on state and local permitting agencies that will have to issue several thousand Title V permit revisions, draft emission control regulations and submit them to EPA for review and approval under se ction 111 of the CAA specifically set out its expectations of state and local permitting authorities and incorporate reasonable timelines in its implementation schedule.

Response: In the final rule, and as was in the proposed rule, most area source bo ilers are exempted from title V permitting.

Commenter Name: Joe Muehlbach Commenter Affiliation: Quad/Graphics Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1961.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed Boiler MACT rule will pose economic hard ships to Wisconsin’s core manufacturing industries, especially forest products. The Wisconsin Paper Council has estimated that the total costs for Wisconsin manufacturing could top $680 million with the forest products industry bearing $470 million of that total. That hits a company such as Quad/Graphics twice as we will bear the costs of compliance at our facilities as well as those of one of our major suppliers

— the paper mills.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Daniels W. Duplantis Commenter Affiliation: Raceland Raw Sugar, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1858.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: As at all Louisiana sugar mills, RACELAND RAW SUGAR, L.L.C. operates multiple bagasse

- fired boilers which fall under the scope of the Proposed Rule as currently written. The Proposed Rule would have a devastating, perhaps fatal, impact on the Louisiana sugar industry in general, and specifically on the RACELAND FACTORY.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Numbe r : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Co mmenter Name: Hank Russell Commenter Affiliation: Cuolumne County Economic Development Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1658.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) in Tuolumne County is greatly concerned over EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT rule and the implications therein that would significantly burden, and have the potential to limit or shut down forest products industry boiler and cogeneration facilities. The continued effect t o provide steam or electricity to the industry via biomass only adds a cost burden and a dependence on fossil and foreign fuels

— both of which further limit the viability of the wood products industry.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Cindy Domenico Commenter Affiliation: Boulder County Commissioners Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1652.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Boulder County directly o wns and manages the health of 30,000 acres of forested open space land. These forested lands require tree thinning to mitigate forest fires, respond to pine beetle infestation and improve forest health. The tree thinning process produces a large amount of biomass which historically has been burned in open fires during the winter as permitted by the air quality regulators for the area. To reduce the air quality impact of forest management, Boulder County has funded various projects that better utilize the wo od and reduce air pollution. In 2005 Boulder County installed a 3MMBtu biomass boiler at our 90,547squarefoot Open Space and Transportation Complex in Longmont. In 2010 Boulder County received grant funding from the US Forest Service, The Department of En ergy and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs as well as Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds to install another 3.3MMBtu biomass boiler at the 150,296 square foot Boulder County Jail. The cost to add the equipment to meet the PM Standards on the boiler at the Boulder County Jail will be $110,000, which is more than a third of the cost for the biomass boiler by itself. This is a significant impact to the project cost and makes the small biomass boiler option financially challenging.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 5 8, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Ray Penick Commenter Affiliation: Barge Forest Products Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1778.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Commen t: In this treacherous business climate, with the unlikely prospect for much improvement in our industry until 2013, another huge cost burden such as the investment to comply with the proposed boiler emission requirements would cause irreparable harm to ou r company. If these proposals become law, we believe they will be directly responsible for the loss of many good jobs, not only in this area of Mississippi, but across the country.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Roger Roth, Al Ott, Dean Kaufert, Karl Van Roy Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Legislature Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1938.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The draft rule before the EP A would significantly impact Wisconsin manufacturers, particularly in the forest products industry, by requiring costly improvements to reduce the amount of pollutants released by boilers.

An earlier version of this rule allowed for Health

- Based Complian ce Alternatives, which were vital to allow many manufactures to comply with the rule. The latest version of the IndustrialBoiler MACT lacks a similar provision. The revised rule also requires even more stringent emissions standards on coal

- and biomass

- fi red boilers than were previously allowed. This rule will be detrimental to maintaining jobs in Wisconsin’s paper industry. In the past decade, there has already been a 40% reduction in the size of the workforce in this industry. Enacting this rule without changes will only further hurt our state’s manufacturing base. We ask that the Industrial Boiler MACT be revised to work with manufacturers in lowering emissions at a more affordable cost.

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee Commenter Aff iliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1873.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc. Is a Georgia Company engaged in the design and construction of Industrial, Commercial, and Ins titutional Boilers, Area Sources, Process Heaters and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators. We have approximately 300 employees. Our business will be directly and deleteriously affected by the proposed action. This is certain.

Hurst Boiler and Welding Co builds all types of boilers but the bulk of our work is targeted toward the solid fuel market. This includes coal and biomass units. We believe this will be the end for coal fired equipment altogether. Already difficult, companies will soon find it impossi ble to decide to improve their competitiveness by investing in a fuel

- saving biomass boiler, as the increased capital expenditure will essentially kill many of the projects we have proposed. We are not sure but we could certainly predict that our workforce would be “down

- sized”. Without the ability to incorporate this cost

- saving fuel alternative, many of these companies will be hastened toward their demise in the hostile business environment we see today. It will be difficult to assess the number of busin esses that will not be started, the number that will cease to exist and the number that will move off

- shore as a result of this stifling action. At the very time when our country needs all of the breaks it can get to increase employment this action will ca use many jobs to just never materialize, others to be lost and speed the day when China’s economy overtakes our own. This is certain.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Co ntrol Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Clar k Diehl Commenter Affiliation: Chips, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1635 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: I am a co

- owner of two lumber mills in Virginia. Chips, Inc. employs 70 people and ArborTech Forest Products employs 80. Chips is a synthethic minor source and ArborTech is Title 5. Both mills are located in rural settings. Compliance for the new proposed Boiler MACT rules (if that is even possible) would require capital outlays of over $600,000 at Chips and over $1,500,000 at Arb orTech. The lumber industry is in the third year of a severe downturn that has wiped out approximately 50% of 2006 production along with the related jobs. Both our companies have operated in the red for three years and it is unlikely we could raise the cap ital to comply with these proposed rules. This puts 150 direct jobs and over 400 indirect jobs (loggers, truckers, etc.) at risk.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Bill Perdue Commenter Affiliation: American Home Furnishings Alliance, AHFA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1970.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The wood furniture manufacturing industry is especially vulnerable to the shift of domesti c production to overseas sources. Wood furniture manufacturing has experienced a sustained downturn described by the U.S. Department of Commerce as a “perfect storm” of negative factors related to the housing market, foreign dumping, and a host of new stan dards (flammability, formaldehyde, finishing material composition, and now the proposed new Boiler MACT rule). Domestic employment in our industry has contracted from 620,000 jobs in 1990 to an estimated 360,000 jobs today, while there has been a 519% incr ease in wood casegoods furniture imports between 1998 and 2007. Between 2000 and 2008, 270 domestic furniture manufacturing operations have closed, including 112 plants in North Carolina, 31 plants in Virginia, and 30 plants in Mississippi. Although U.S. m anufacturers in the past maintained near 100% production in the United States, most major manufacturers have now relocated major portions of their manufacturing operations to overseas locations such as China and Viet Nam. The overseas infrastructure is in place to easily incorporate additional wood furniture manufacturing, and economic pressures continue to favor a shift from domestic to overseas employment.

Fortunately there is light at the end of the tunnel for those manufacturers who have maintained do mestic production, or who have at the very least mothballed rather than disassembled theirdomestic facilities. The Center for Industrial Studies projects moderate growth of the U.S. furniture industry in 2010, and Industry analyst Jerry Epperson of Mann, Armistead & Epperson has forecasted that U.S. consumer spending on furniture and bedding will rise 3.7% in 2010 and another 7.1% in 2011. Some domestic manufacturers have reported plans to expand domestic production for the first time in several years, how ever they are waiting to see the outcome of influencing activities such as the proposed boiler rule before committing to the investment in domestic production. The AHFA has significant concerns with this proposal because it would impose stringent numeric e missions limitations that would be impossible for our membership to meet without imposing new costs that would halt future domestics expansion plans and force additional facilities to close. In today’s economic climate, NO furniture manufacturer will elect to invest significant capital and commit to increased operating expenses to install a control device of the type that would be required under the rule as written. We encourage the EPA to use the complete set of tools available under §112 to provide flexib ility to vulnerable domestic manufacturers.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Numb er : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: It was not Congress’s intent for EPA to set emission limits under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) without regard to feasibility or the impact on the sources being regulated or the economy in general. This is particularly true for area sources as demonstrated by Congress specifically providing for the use of Generally Available Control Technology (GACT) rather than Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) for such sources. The proposed emission limits for liquid

- fired boilers in this proposal do not reflect GACT and will be unachievable in many cases. Where they are achievable, the cost to meet them will ove rwhelm the economics for many operations and cause them to shutdown, or in the case of offices, hospitals, universities, etc. cause large price increases that will further stifle the already weak US economy. For our area source operations with liquid

- fired boilers, the increased costs will lead to shutdown of marginal facilities and consolidation, with a loss of jobs. At the area sources with liquid

- fired boilers that remain in operation, the increased cost will ultimately be passed on to the public.

Res ponse: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: W. James Wagoner Commenter Affiliation: Butte County Air Quality Management District Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1993.1 Com ment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The biomass boilers at POPI are older and retrofits to comply the regulation are not proven nor practical. If the proposed standard is implemented, the plant will likely be shuttered.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Num ber : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Regarding c ost impacts for biomass fired Boilers, AF&PA prepared an extensive analysis that is filed with our comments on the major source rule (See Section II comments on cost and in the Appendix C attachments to those comments in EPAHQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058; we incorporate those comments by reference). But to provide only one example, the costs facing a composite panel member company operating a wood residue boiler of a modest size, less than 100 MMBtu/hr, would be very high if the rules would not allow the use of current w ood

- fired boilers (EPA’s database has identified several composite panel plants as impacted by the rule). For these facilities, startling cost increases can be shown, should plants be forced to switch from wood residuals to natural gas because they cannot meet the proposed CO limit. Estimates for the cost of a plant to switch boiler fuel from a trim/sander dust mix to natural gas ranged from $1 million to $3.5 million per year depending on boiler size and the price of gas (high 2002, low 2006).

However, t here are facilities in our industry where natural gas is not available. Such facilities would either be forced to depend on propane or electric heat if they could not meet the proposed biomass CO limit. Not only would industrial competitiveness be impacted , but also other commercial businesses and institutional organizations using wood fuels would suffer. Prices to consumers and tuitions for academic institutions would rise.These consequences are completely unnecessary and EPA has the tools, within the l egal framework of the Clean Air Act to fix them. Within these comments, AF&PA make several concrete suggestions to changes in EPA’s approach to Area Source CO limitations that would reduce HAP from wood fired area sources boilers and dramatically reduce th e rule’s impact on businesses and institutions that depend on wood and other biomass fuels.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Other fuel options, such as propane, are available in parts of New York State outside of New York Ci ty. The ability to serve new propane demand will depend in large part on level of increased demand, location of new demand, and local supply conditions.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 27 projects in New York State were awarded approxim ately $6 million to carry out energy efficiency improvements which included replacement of boiler systems. The proposed ASBR will detrimentally affect these projects as the associated costs and difficulties associated with the stack testing requirements we re not accounted for.

Response: Thank you for your comments.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment : The Maine DEP also respectfully requests that EPA provide additional Section 105 funding to states for implementation of the Area and Major Source Boiler MACTs. These rules will affect an enormous population of boilers nationwide, will result in the need for thousands of permit amendments, and will put a tremendous strain on already stretched state resources.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rule.Commenter Name: Randy Thurman and Brent Stevenson Commenter Affiliation: Arkansas Environmental Federation and Arkansas Forest & Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1921.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We are writing to express the concerns of the members of the AEF and the AFPC about the proposed Boiler Area MACT rule

- the Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers

- that was published June 4, 2010. As Arkansas strives to recover from the current recession, we are deeply concerned that the potent ial impact of pending Clean Air Act regulations could be unsustainable for Arkansas manufacturing).Both small and large businesses are vulnerable to the extremely costly regulatory burdens under the Boiler Area MACT, as are municipalities, universities, go vernment facilities, and commercial entities. The combined cost to these entities in Arkansas is $490 million.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Many communities in rural Alaska depend on diesel fuel for electricity. Communities on Prince of Wales Island ar e no exception. The island has three communities that rely on community diesel fired electrical generation. Six other POW Island communities are tied together on an electrical grid that provides hydroelectric power as the primary electric source; however t hese communities are also seasonally dependent upon diesel

- generated production of electricity to supplement the primary hydroelectric generation. All but one of these nine communities have populations of less than 1,000 residents. Similarly, heat for comm unity buildings is commonly provided by diesel

- fired boilers. However, over the past five years the number of buildings heated with woody biomass has significantly increased. The City of Craig here on POW Island, for example, just completed its second year of heating three municipal buildings using chips from a local sawmill to fire a wood boiler. The wood boiler displaced the use of thousands of gallons of diesel and propane. Other POW communities may choose to install similar systems to better control hea ting costs.

Utilizing biomass for heating needs in rural Alaska provides far more than just heat to a community. With fuel oil heating, funds leave the community to purchase the fuel and pay forthe transportation and storage. With biomass, dollars stay within community because fuel is purchased locally. In addition, jobs are created through the harvest and processing of the wood. Many rural Alaskan villages have a history of a subsistence culture. Biomass is a major step for communities to regain some of their independence and subsistence lifestyle.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control N umber : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Bill Thomas Commenter Affiliation: Shuqualak Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1948.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As an industry, forest products manufacturers are experiencing a severe economic downturn and fierce competition from overseas producers, an environment that we do not think will change anyti me soon. We at Shuqualak Lumber have studied the proposed Boiler MACT and listened to our industry leaders, and we are quite concerned about the impact of this rule on our already

- diminished operations.

If this rule is finalized in its current form, we b elieve operations like ours may simply disappear. None of us can afford to invest millions of dollars in 3 or 4 new types of control equipment, nor do we have the confidence that existing control technologies are capable of achieving the applicable MACT li mits even if we did make the prescribed investments.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Con trol Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Randy Thurman and Brent Stevenson Commenter Affiliation: Arkansas Environmental Feder ation and Arkansas Forest & Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1830.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We are deeply concerned that the potential impact of pending Clean Air Act regulations could be unsustainable for Arkansas manufacturing:Both small and large businessesare vulnerable to the extremely costly regulatory burdens under the Boilei

- Area MACT, as are municipalities, universities, government facilities, and commercial entities.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Commen t Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael T. Palko Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Compliance costs are estimated at more than $10 billion initially and $4 billion annually for both rules. The proposed control technology standards are more stringent than those in the vacated rule, and will present many new challenges for affected facili ties.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Malcolm Milne Commenter Affiliation: Durgin and Crowell Lumber Co. Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1987.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Durgin & Crowell has manufactured Eastern White Pine lumber at its sawmill since 1976, and being able to produce affordable and efficient heat for its dry kilns is critical to the company’s viability. Durgin & Crowell would be s ubject to the proposed rule due to the operation of its existing biomass boiler. Any replacement or upgrade of the existing unit would be subject to the proposed limits, as well. This letter is meant to voice my concerns about the potential costs as a res ult of the new proposed standards, as well as the fear that the proposed emissions limits may be unrealistic. I hope that the EPA will give sufficient attention to the potential harm that the proposed rule could do to rural small businesses like ours, and the detrimental effects that could be felt in the local community, as seemingly constantly rising costs make it more difficult to remain a viable business. Whatever new standards are enacted, they should be based on available technology, and should take in to account an accurate cost of compliance and the potential effects on subject entities and their employees.As proposed, the new area source boiler rules will likely force Durgin & Crowell to make significant expenditures toward upgrades to its existing wood boiler (>10mmBtu/hr), in order to come into compliance with the proposed limits for CO: 160 ppm @ 7% 02. Also, the new proposed rule will require our company to purchase expensive continuous emissions monitoring equipment, as well as increase the annu al amount the company spends on monitoring.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- H Q

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As an employee whose job depends up the economically viable Louisiana sugar cane industry, I am concerned that the Proposed Rule will have an unreasonably negative impact on the Louisiana sugar industry without resulting in any appreciable reduction in ha zardous air emissions. The economic burdens inherent in the Proposed Rule threaten to devastate Louisiana’s sugar industry and, therefore, also threaten the economic livelihood of industry workers, suppliers, and service providers. The negligible benefit t o be gained from the Proposed Rule, as applied to the Louisiana sugar industry, does not justify the economic costs and resultant threat to the industry.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Num ber : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Robert E. McKenna Commenter Affiliation: Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1920.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As context for these comments, it is important to consider that manufacturers are attempting to fully recover from the steepest economic downturn since the 1930s and bring back the 2.2 million high

- wage jobs lost during recent years. MEMA strongly urges federal policy makers to create conditions that will lead to econo mic expansion and not stifle the industrial and manufacturing vitality necessary to createjobs and technologies that will continue to improve the nation’s air quality. Imposing unduly strict mandates on the manufacturing sector will not accomplish any of these objectives. New and overly stringent standards for industrial boilers will have an immediate impact on our members’ bottom line without demonstrated environmental benefits. Compliance costs associated with these harsh and inflexible proposed rules will cost U.S. manufacturing jobs and hurt global competitiveness, just as the economic recovery attempts to gain more traction. Further, as described below, the severity of the proposed standards may lead to the perverse effect of deterring projects that otherwise would realize environmental improvements.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Brian Breaux Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1966.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The agricultural processors impacted by the proposed EPA emission rule provide the only market for farmers to sell their commodities. Therefore, if additions and renovations necessary for an agricultural processing facility to comply with this EPA propose d rule prove too costly and force its closure, it in turn eliminates the only market for our farmer’s crops.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affilia tion: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Power and heating systems in rural Alaska are often operated as non

- profits by city governments or regional cooperative s. Operations are tightly controlled for costs. There is little revenue margin to shield customers from increased operating costs, including rising wholesale fuel prices and regulatory compliance.Compliance with the boiler emissions rule presents a fina ncial and logistical challenge to rural suppliers and has the potential to seriously increase the cost of heat and power or stop the development of biomass systems completely. Cost increases will occur through potential increases in the capital cost of the boiler systems for the installation of emission control devices and increases operational and maintenance costs.

The Alaska Wood Energy Development Group recently developed an estimate of the cost of annual stack testing for a rural Alaskan village. The following chart summarizes the quote received from Alaska Source Testing for the village of Stebbins, currently installing a biomass district heating system. Alaska Source Testing is one of Alaska’s two emissions testing companies. [See submittal for char t with costs.]

Please note that the estimate includes a condition that states that onsite delays caused by the client will be billed at the rates listed above. Extended on

- site delays caused by facility operations, weather or other circumstances outside the bidder’s control will be billed at $1000/day for Project Manager and $600/day for Technician, plus expenses.

The daily wellbeing of rural Alaska residents and communities depends on the ability to economically generate heat. The uncertainty in fuels costs and ever increasing regulatory compliance costs makes it difficult for individuals, local and regional organizations to plan budgets for fuel, heat, and power costs.

Keeping cost impacts of federal regulations for boiler emissions to a minimum is i mportant for air quality. An increase in cost of the installation and operation of heating systems means people will continue to rely on the import of Jet A for heating fuel and the export of local dollars. Unemployment will continue to be significant as b iomass harvest jobs fail to materialize.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Bill Thomas Commenter Affiliation: Shuqualak Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1948.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: One alternative to huge investments in control equipment is to deliberately reduce our allowable production capacity to a level that would make our mill a non

- major HAP source, however, this option of reducing production makes our mill non

- competitive. We would then be subject only to the area source rules which may also prove to be very expensive for our company. Other alternatives are not any more palatable, but would include major changes i n theprocesses for the sake of eliminating boilers at our site altogether. Again, we are talking about extremely expensive propositions in a down economy.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt N umber : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Mike Comb Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Sugarcane Cooperative Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2135 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The arbitrary and unreasonable grouping of bagasse with other combustion sources
t hat contribute significantly higher emissions of hazardous air pollutants would place an enormous economic burden on Louisiana sugar mills, while achieving negligible reductions in the emission of such pollutants. The Proposed Rule would have a devastating , perhaps fatal, impact on the Louisiana sugar industry in general, and specifically on Louisiana Sugarcane Cooperative Inc.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Num ber : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael T. Palko Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Forest products industries will see reduced markets for wood residues, higher costs for marketing wood residues, higher costs for disposing of wood residues, and higher costs for using production residues for on

- site energy production. Forest industries r ely on their ability to sell or fully utilize wood residues to maintain the profitability of their operations. Reducing or eliminating this value stream, which may provide up to 15% of a sawmill’s income, will have serious business consequences.

Respons e: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 3

Comment: The majority of boilers purchased for use in rural Alaska are Garn cordwood boilers and Messersmith and Chipteck chip boilers. The typical Garn boilers cost approximately $25,000 and the typical chip boilers are estimated at $250,000. Con versations with these manufacturers have apparently raised concerns about the ability to meet the .03 LB/MMBTU particulate limit and the 100 ppmv/daily average CO limit. If the current boilers are unable to meet the new standards, costly emissions control equipment will significantly increase the initial costs of the coilers and further increase the operational/maintenance costs. In all likelihood, these significant costs will halt the development of biomass projects in rural Alaska.

Response: See respon ses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Malcolm Milne Commenter Affiliation: Durgin and Crowell Lumber Co. Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1987.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: While we understand that the overall goal of the EPA’s proposed limit is to improve air quality, it is unclear to us what the exact financial impact would be to our company, or whether we would be able to meet the new standards, even with upgrades to our existing boiler system. The concern is, particularly amidst a historically depressed lumber market, that the proposed standards will adversely affect our cost of doing business, which will in turn harm the marketability of our products.

Response : See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: David P. Tenny Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1884.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because its sets emissions limitations for biomass boilers that are so low they would require adoption of expensive, novel control technology at very little benefit to human health or the environme nt.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Brian Breaux Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1966.1 Commen t Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Just as important, the impact of this proposed rule stretches far beyond agriculture and has a direct affect on the economy of our entire State. For example, forestry is the largest agricultural commodity in Louisiana and one of our largest industries in our State with an estimated total value of over $4.2 billion. Sugarcane is the Louisiana’s largest agronomic commodity with an estimated value of $670 million to our State. Processing facilities in sugar and timber support an e ntire production infrastructure that provides jobs for thousands and thousands of Louisiana residents and in many cases in the primary source for employment in a region.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Exce rpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: John Huber Commenter Affiliation: National Oilheat Research Alliance Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1831.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: Facilities affected could include very small apartment houses, small retail buildings, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, large multistory apartment buildings and universities with central steam plants. EPA acknowledged this in the rulemaking, but failed to fully assess the economic impact or feasibility of applying the standards of this rule to these sources. Small Apartment Houses

– In many cities in the northeast, there are houses that have been converted into apartments. In some cases these may have been three story homes that have been cut into flats, or small h ouses that have been cut into different and much smaller apartments. Often they were not designed to have separate heating and domestic water for each apartment, but rather the residents control their heating by adjusting the radiators. Typically, the boil ers operating these facilities will be on the large side of the residential market, and may approach 200,000

- 300,000 BTUH. Churches

– Many churches in the region use heating oil for heating and hot water production. As with apartment buildings, these chu rches will be varied in size ranging from small congregations of 50

- 100 people, to much larger churches of several hundred congregants. Typically, churches do not maintain temperature during the week, but instead try to raise the temperature on the day of worship. Again, the boilers operating in these facilities will typically be on the large side of the residential. Small Retail Buildings

– Throughout the colder climes, many retail buildings will be heated and supplied domestic water with boilers. These building may include small convenience stores, Laundromats, bookstores, or small strip malls. These facilities will generally have a small heat load and limited water load, and thus will often be using residential boilers of 100,000

- 200,000 BTUH. Nursing Homes

– Nursing homes need both consistent heat and significant domestic water. As a result, many of these facilities may be using commercial burners. A typical commercial burner may be able to generate 5 million BTUH, and be able to heat a fairly large bu ilding. As the facility grows, the industry will generally tie multiple boilers together to provide the appropriate heating. It should be noted, that these facilities are considered critical care, and may have 18

- 20 MMBTU of total capacity, however it is o ften the result of two boilers of equal capacity, with the second boiler designed to be backup. Hospitals

– Hospitals may also vary substantially from small rural hospitals with a minimal heating load to very large hospital centers in urban centers. The s maller hospitals may be using commercial burners, while the larger hospital centers may be using a central steam plant. Similar to nursing homes, they will have a second boiler for emergency backup. Apartment Buildings/Multi

- Family Housing

– Many multi

- st ory apartment buildings use oil for their generation of heating and hot water. These facilities may use multiple boilers of <10 million BTU each. Universities, Campus Type Facilities

– These large facilities often have a central boiler system, and often u se a central steam distribution system. It is conceivable that these are major sources. Some of these facilities may burn coal or have emissions associated with agriculture or other industrial activities. However, it is also conceivable that these faciliti es will have a small outbuilding which may have a residential boiler installed. NORA believes that it is appropriate to exempt these facilities as area sources rather than major sources.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 200 6

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: David P. Tenny Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1884.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: As reported by an AF&PA analysis, the forest products industry estimates the cost of compliance with the emissions limitations for biomass boilers would be $3.3 billion in that sector alone. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA recognizes that econom ic burden may justify an alternative compliance method. Because the costs to industry to achieve the proposed rule’s very low emissions limitations would be incredibly high and could not be consistently achieved in practice, EPA should revise its approach for biomass boilers to ensure that these boilers are not penalized because they start with a cleaner fuel.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 20 06

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael T. Palko Commenter Affi liation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The rule’s high compliance costs will discourage renewable biomass use and disproportionately da mage rural economies.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 07 90

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12Comment: Estimates of employment impact derived from Morgenstern et al.: The Regulatory Impact Analysis uses two techniques to estimate the changes in employment due to the proposed rules. The first is a longstanding method used by EPA in many previous analyses. T his technique looks at the output decrease in the relevant sectors and uses an estimate for jobs per unit of output to calculate a projected decrease in employment. This “demand effect” technique for projecting changes in employment is described in the Eco nomic Analysis Resource Document issued by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in April 1999. [Footnote: OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS, EPA, OAQPS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RESOURCE DOCUMENT at 5

- 42 to 5

- 43 (1999).] It contains an impli cit assumption that the result of environmental regulations will be price increases and that these price increases will result in lower sales for regulated entities.

However, this type of employment projection is incomplete. The agency correctly identifi es that there are at least two types of employment effects from environmental regulations which are not included in the “demand effect” calculation: the “cost effect” and the “factor shift effect.” [Footnote: RIA at 4

- 6 to 4

- 7.] The “cost effect” recognize s that, for a given level of output, expenditures on reducing pollution often require additional employees. The “factor shift effect” recognizes that production can be more or less labor intensive after compliance with an environmental regulation.

The si ze of each of these effects and the direction of the “factor shift effect” are all empirical matters and will likely vary from industry to industry and from regulation to regulation. In order to estimate these effects, EPA uses econometric estimates from a 2002 paper by Morgenstern et al. [Footnote: RIA at 4

- 7.] This paper estimated the employment effects of spending on environmental policies across a number of industries. [Footnote: Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer & Jhih

- Shyang Shih, Jobs Versus t he Environment: An Industry Level Perspective, 43 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT 412, 412 (2002).] As the RIA recognizes, the point estimates do not perfectly correspond to the analysis that EPA is doing. The range of industries analyzed is not the same and the paper uses older data.

Nevertheless, this technique at least recognizes and has the possibility of capturing effects that the traditional techniques of estimating employment effects cannot. This makes the estimates derived from t he Morgenstern paper at least as valuable as the traditional techniques of estimating employment effects. The adoption of this technique by EPA could attract additional interest in this area and encourage economists to publish new studies on the topic with newer data.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 13

Comment: The rationale that supports the proposed approach for the Gas 1 subcategory applies equally well to biomass boilers and, therefore, provides ample support for adopting work practices instead of numeric emissions limitation for bi omass boilers. For example, in the forest products industry alone, the estimated cost of complying with the proposed HAP emissions limitations for biomass boilers is $3.3 billion. This is an extraordinary cost that, in the context of the forest products in dustry, equals or exceeds the magnitude of the economic burden that EPA predicts for the Gas 1 subcategory. Similarly severe economic impacts are expected in other industry sectors where biomass boilers are widely use, such as the furniture, sugar, and
agr icultural products industries. Thus, there is strong economic justification for prescribing work practice standards for biomass boilers in lieu of numeric emissions limitations.

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Prov ided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: the proposed standards are far more stringent than needed to assure protection of health and the environment from industrial boiler HAP emissions. Wisconsin’s pulp and paper industry faces a challenging global economic slump and fierce competition from ov erseas manufacturers. This situation has existed for the past ten years. Mills in Port Edwards, Niagara, Neenah, Menasha, and Kimberly have closed during that time. In the last ten years paper industry employment in Wisconsin has dropped from 52,000 to 32, 000. That’s over $1 billion in annual wages lost. We are concerned that compliance with EPA’s proposed boiler MACT standards will be extremely expensive, if compliance can be achieved at all. EPA’s estimated capital costs of $9.5 billion, a staggering est imate in its own right, appears to be low. Industry capital cost estimates for the forest products sector alone are estimated to be $6.8 billion. The estimated costs for Wisconsin are $680 million, with $470 million born by the forest products industry.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609,Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Commen t: The solid fuel fired units will require a capital investment of $5.1 billion out of the total $8.0 projected capital cost. While not discussed in detail in these comments, Duke Energy believes that EPA has significantly underestimated the capital cost o f compliance with these rules. What is equally puzzling is that EPA projects in Table 11 that the rules will apply to only 46 new units. Duke Energy believes that this number is grossly understated since many solid fuel fired units may be forced by economi cs to shutdown and repower with new boilers fired by natural gas or other fuels. More egregiously, many of these sources will alternatively decide to shut down permanently.

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Brian Breaux Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1966.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Our comments are submitted because we are very concerned that the proposed EPA rule on the emission standards for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers will negatively impact proc essors of agricultural commodities in our State such as sugar mills and timber processing facilities.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Wayne J. Galler C ommenter Affiliation: Georgia Industry Environmental Coalition, IncDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1997.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: GIEC believes the proposed Area Source Boiler Standard is far more stringent than needed to assure protection of health and the environment due to HAP emissions from the affected boilers. GIEC members face a global economic depression and strong competition from overseas manufacturers. Therefore, it is imperative for environmental requirements such as t hese standards to be crafted such that public health and the environment are protected without requiring unnecessary expenditures of time and resources.

EPA has the legal discretion and technical justification to create standards that minimize the burden to industry while still providing ample protection to human health and the environment.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Jay C. Moon Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2000 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: New and overly stringent standards for industrial boilers will have an immediate impact on our members’ bottom line without demonstrated envir onmental benefits. Compliance costs associated with these harsh and inflexible proposed rules will cost U.S. manufacturing jobs and hurt global competitiveness, just as the economic recovery attempts to gain more traction. Further, as described below, the severity of the proposed standards may lead to the perverse effect of disincentivizing projects that otherwise would realize environmental improvements.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: John Ledger Commenter Affiliation: Associated Oregon Industries Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2024.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: New and overly stringent standards for industrial boilers will have an immediate imp act on Oregon’s economy without demonstrated environmental benefits.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Paul Lyskava Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Forest Products Asso ciation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2223.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We believe the proposed Area Source Boiler Standard is far more stringent than needed to assure protection of public health and the environment due to affected boilers. The result of the current proposal will be to impose significant and often unnecessary costs on our industry at a time when forest product companies are struggling to survive the domestic and global economic recession, tight credit markets and in creased competition from overseas manufacturers. Therefore, it is imperative for mandatory environmental controls such as these standards to be tailored as closely as possible to ensure that health and the environment are protected without requiring unnece ssary expenditures of time and resources.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: David M. Kiser Commenter Affiliation: International Paper Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1924.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The Boiler GACT rule as currently proposed will potentially impact 57 boilers at 45 International Paper facilities. When considered with the 3 other boiler

- related rules proposed at the same time [Footnote: The Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials or NHSM rule, the Commercial and Industrial Incinerator or CISWI rule and the Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT rule] (which IP has made separate comment), the exceedingly high potent ial cost of these rules necessitates that EPA use their full range of discretionary authority to make pragmatic decisions that minimize cost while meeting statutory requirements and ensuring with an appropriate margin of safety for the protection of the pu blic and theenvironment. The comments of the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), which IP participated in developing and incorporates herein by reference, demonstrates clearly and specifically that EPA has this discretion and indeed may be lega lly compelled to change their approach to ensure more pragmatic and legally defensible decisions.

International Paper requests EPA consider these comments and alter the proposed rule in order to minimize its burden while being appropriately protective of the environment.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: A. Steven Young Commenter Affiliation: Association of Independent Corrugated Converters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1994.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: It is important to consider that manufacturers are attempting to fully recover from the steepest economic downturn since the 1930s and bring back the 2.2 million high

- wage jobs lost during recent years. AICC strongly urges federal policy makers to create conditions that will lead to economic expansion and not stifle the industrial and manufacturing vitality necessary to create jobs and technologies that will continue to improve the nation’s air quality. Imposing unduly strict mandates on the manufacturing sector will not accomplish any of these objectives.

New and overly stringent standards for industrial boilers will have an immediate impact on the independent corrugated conve rter’s bottom line without demonstrated environmental benefits. Compliance costs associated with these harsh and inflexible proposed rules will cost U.S. manufacturing jobs and hurt global competitiveness, just as the economic recovery attempts to gain mor e traction. Further, as described below, the severity of the proposed standards are disincentives to projects that otherwise would realize environmental improvements.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Commen t Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Dan H. Williams Commenter Affiliation: Sealed Air Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2228.1Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As an advocate of environmental stewardship, Sealed Air Corporation has made exha ustive efforts to minimize our impact to the environment through raw material replacement/reformulation efforts; a chemical approval or oversight program; conversion to electric boilers in some locations; use of only electrically heated extrusion systems; and primarily operating any boilers using clean burning fuels. In doing so, Sealed Air Corporation has been able to manage all our production operations as minor sources of hazardous air pollutants. Rather than waiting for applicable MACT standards to beco me applicable or be developed, Sealed Air voluntarily opted to eliminate the use of these materials. With the development of this area source MACT, Sealed Air is unduly pulled into federal permitting and standards that will in no way achieve a substantial reduction in hazardous air pollutants.

Despite all these management efforts, Sealed Air believes that the standards as proposed will have a detrimental and likely significant effect on its operations in the U.S. without providing any substantive environm ental benefits. At this point we see no option for compliance with the regulations at some of our facilities other than to cease operations.

We ask that EPA consider the comments provided below and make the requested modifications to the proposed regulat ions.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Keith A. Craig Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Hardwoods Development Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2017. 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We write to express our grave concerns about the proposed Boiler Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (Boiler MACT) rule published by the EPA on June 4, 2010. We believe the proposed rule could severely hurt the wood products manufacturing industry in Pennsylvania, already staggered by the on

- going national recession. The wood products industry in this Commonwealth has lost over 20,000 jobs in the past two years, nearly a quarter of a robust employment level. Productio n has been cut in half. The proposed rule would potentially add tens of millions of dollars in capital and compliance costs to our companies, clearly unsustainable and at the worst possible time.Response: This comment pertains to the major source boile r rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Mike Beebe Commenter Affiliation: Governor, State of Arkansas Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2001 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As our state’s unemployment rate has risen, I fear that enacting stringent federal Boiler MACT rules could jeopardize more good

- paying jobs across the manufacturing sector. The A rkansas forest products industry alone generates $7.7 billion in revenue and employs more than 29,000 individuals, but the industry works continually to thrive in this economy. The flow of capital for new investment and hiring is still seriously restricted , and the estimated costs of the proposed rule to the Arkansas forest products industry (which they feel is significantly underestimated and could be over $390 million) could make or break the viability of continued operations.

Response: This comment pe rtains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Scott Manley Commenter Affiliation: Wiscon sin Manufacturers and Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2258.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As context for these comments, it is important to consider that manufacturers are attempting to fully recover from the steepest economic downturn since the 1930s, and bring back the 2.2 million high

- wage jobs lost during recent years. WMC strongly urges federal policy makers to create conditions that will lead to economic expansion and not stifle the industrial and manufacturing vitality n ecessary to create jobs and technologies that will continue to improve the nation’s air quality. Imposing unduly strict mandates on the manufacturing sector will not accomplish any of these objectives.

New and overly stringent standards for industrial bo ilers will have an immediate and adverse impact on the ability of Wisconsin manufacturers to compete in an international marketplace, and will do so without demonstrated environmental benefits. Compliance costs associated with these harsh and inflexible p roposed rules will be considerable. For example, the compliance cost in Wisconsin is expected to be $680 million, including a $470 million direct hit to Wisconsin’s pulp and paper industry alone. We are very concerned that these costs will result in manufa cturing job loss at a time when Wisconsin is struggling to regain its economic footing.Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comm ent Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Patrick J. Medvecz Commenter Affiliation: Wausau Paper Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2283 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As the Corporate Vice President of Manufacturing & Technology for Wausau Paper Corp., headquartered in Mosinee, WI, I am very concerned that the propo sed EPA Boiler MACT rule, if enacted, will substantially increase operating costs for our mills and could put mill jobs, and the communities that rely on these jobs, at risk. The proposed rule goes far beyond any previous regulation and any statute needed to protect the health of our communities. It seems highly likely that it may not be possible for many boiler operators to achieve the impractical standards necessary to comply with the rule’s requirements; no matter what kind of pollution controls are inst alled. I have seen many paper mills close in the last few years because of rising operating costs and the tragic U.S. economy, including several Wausau Paper facilities. Over the last few years Wausau Paper has had no choice but to close six facilities lo cated in Appleton and Columbus, Wisconsin, Jay, Maine, Jackson, Mississippi, Groveton, New Hampshire, and Middletown, Ohio. Wausau Paper now employs roughly 1300 fewer employees than they did 10 years ago. The paper industry has experienced some very toug h years. The impact of this over

compensating regulation, if unmodified, will drive further decline, and perhaps the demise of significant employers. Other good paying jobs are hard to find in these rural areas, so the harmful impact would last a long time , if not forever. The communities surrounding our mills will suffer if support from our mills end; not just from lost tax revenue, but also from the significant involvement the mill and its employees have in all aspects of the community. In the last ten y ears, paper industry employment in Wisconsin has dropped from 52,000 to 32,000. That’s over $1 billion in annual wages lost. The communities associated with these mills have suffered greatly, as a consequence.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Al Hankins, Jr.Commenter Affiliation: Hankins Lumber Company, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1841.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We are a lumber manufacturin g company that supplies quality dimensional lumber to customers throughout the world. We began operations in the 1950s, and currently employ about 100 people. Our company is the lifeblood of our rural town of Elliot Mississippi. As an industry, forest pro ducts manufacturers are experiencing a severe economic downturn and fierce competition from overseas that we do not think will end anytime soon. We at Hankins Lumber have studied the proposed Boiler MACT and listened to our industry leaders and we are quit e concerned about the impact of this rule on our already

- diminished operations.

If this rule is finalized in its current form, we believe operations like ours may simply disappear. None of us can afford to invest millions of dollars in 3 or 4 new types o f control equipment. That is not to mention that we are not confident that we would be capable of meeting all the applicable MACT limits even if we did make the prescribed investments.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Raymond J. Nutting Commenter Affiliation: County of El Dorado Air Quality Management District Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2225.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The AQMD Board is very concerned with the potential consequences of the proposed regulations and does not support the new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for industrial boilers for major sources and area sources. The proposed boiler MACT standards have not been properly determined and if implemented will result in multiple adverse outcomes. Compliance with this regulation will require existing facilities to install expensive and mostly untested "end of pipe" control technologies, whi ch are not proven necessary to protect human health or environment.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Dennis Vroman Commenter Affiliation: United Steel Workers Document Con trol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2209 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As a representative of the United Steel Workers Local 11

- 0022 at the Wausau Paper Mill in Brainerd, Minnesota. I am very concerned that the proposed EPA Boiler MACT rule, if enacted , will substantially increase operating costs for our mill and could put our jobs, and the communities that rely on these jobs, at risk. My understanding of the proposed rule is that it goes far beyond any previous regulation and any statute needed to prot ect the health of our communities. It seems highly likely that it may not be possible for many boiler operators to achieve the impractical standards necessary to comply with the rule’s requirements; no matter what kind of pollution controls are installed. That makes no sense.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 079 0

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Keith M. Krom Commenter Affiliation: AT&T, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2243 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: AT&T is concerned that EPA has insufficient data to support its proposal. Indeed, EPA indicates that it has no emission data for polycyclic organic matter ("POM" and limited emission data for mercury and carbon monoxide (CO) from area s ource boilers. In addition, there is limited information available to EPA through state permitting actions regarding such boilers. From AT&T’s review of the MACT floor analysis contained in the proposed rule, it appears that in formulating its regulatory s tandards, EPA has relied on mercury emission data for only 2 coal

fired boilers and CO emission data for only 5 such boilers; for biomass

- fired boilers, EPA indicated no state data was available and that the only emission data available to EPA was from a
p rogram to promote the burning of woody biomass in schools; and for oil

- fired area source boilers, EPA indicated that CO emission data was available for 68 boilers as part of the Boiler MACT Information Collection Request. [Footnote: It also appears that EP A may have primarily or solely relied on data from boilers in excess of 10 MMBtu/hr heat input in establishing standards for boilers of all sizes EPA’s MACT floor analysis for this proposed rule notes that, "The emissions database contains PM test data for 75 area source boilers obtained from the ICR survey conducted for major sources. All of the boilers were greater than 10 million Btu per hour in size." Memorandum on MACT Floor Analysis for the Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boilers National Emissi on Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

— Area Source, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS/SPPD, April 2010 at 13.]Based on such a limited data set, EPA is nonetheless proceeding to propose regulatory standards affecting an estimated 183,000 e xisting units [Footnote: EPA’s MACT floor analysis indicates that, "Using the average nation

- wide projections from the 13

- state boiler inspector inventory, there are 182,671 boilers at area sources of HAP. Of these, 10,958 boilers are designed to fire biom ass, 3,710 boilers are designed to fire coal, 168,003 boilers are designed to fire liquids. Id. at 3.] at 91,300 area source facilities. In addition to proposing daily and monthly emission limits applicable to larger area sources, EPA is also making severa l determinations with regard to what controls are appropriate and available for all new coal, biomass and oil

- fired units (regardless of size), what limits should apply to sources during periods of start

- up, shutdown and malfunction, what monitoring requir ements are applicable and how compliance must be demonstrated. Given the full range of regulatory determinations that EPA is making within the Area Source Boiler Rule, we believe that a more prudent course would be for the Agency to take sufficient time to gather relevant data. EPA must have sufficient data to underpin its final rulemaking; without such, Agency decisions on final requirements may be arbitrary and capricious.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Exce rpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Christopher S. Bond Commenter Affiliation: Missouri, United States Senate Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2200.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Families and communities across Missouri depend upon the f orest products industry for their livelihood. These are good people who work hard for modest wages across the 14 million forested acres in Missouri. Seventy

- four percent of the energy needs of their employing sawmills come from their wood by

- products. Woo dy biomass is not only an affordable fuel, it is also a renewable fuel that is lower in greenhouse gas emissions than alternative energy sources like coal

- fired electricity or propane fired boilers. Those operations that do not use their own woody byproduc ts sell them to others, providing up to 15% of a sawmill’s income. This value as a fuel or income source is often the difference between profitability and layoffs or closure.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397

, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment E xcerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The Federal Government has put together a case for recommending a five to one reduction in CO emissions and an eight to one reduction in particulate emissions over what most States previously required based on extrapolated, limited, data.

Unquestionably , such a dramatic regulatory change would have a devastating impact on this moderate scale wood energy market. What I find particularly disturbing about these proposed regulations is methodology used to develop the emission standards and resulting economic impact analysis are so incredibly limited in scope and flawed.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, D ocument Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Ben Brandes Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1980.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA’s regulatory agenda for the power sector will almost certainly significantly reduce the use of coal for electric generation. While EPA so far has not done any study of the

cu mulative impact of these regulations on coal use (or otherwise), the contractor EPA uses to model impacts of individual regulations recently produced its own analysis showing that just the EGU MACT standards alone will force major retirements of coal

- fuele d power plants. Forced retirements will have substantial negative economic impacts nationally, but will also have severe impacts locally, as exemplified by the Arizona Hopi and the Navajo Generation Station: ‘scott Canty, the Hopi Nation’s general counsel , explained to a panel of lawmakers on Nov. 2 that closure of the Navajo Generating Station would cripple the tribal government. The Hopi Nation relies heavily on coal revenues to fund its government, Canty said. About 88 percent of the tribal government‘s budget comes from revenue generated by coal

- fired energy production at the Navajo Generating Station, Canty said. . . . The EPA has proposed rules that would require the power plant to install expensive emissions equipment to address visibility impairment issues at the Grand Canyon. But the plant‘s owners and the tribes argue that the retrofit is too costly.7 Moreover, news accounts recently reported that EPA is well aware that its regulatory efforts in the power sector will increase the costs to coal

- fue led EGUs and make them less competitive with renewable resources. In an article entitled ?Administration Eyes EPA Rules To Spur Shift From Coal To Renewables, it was reported that:Rob Brenner of EPA’s Office of Air & Radiation told a July 28 meeting of t he agency’s environmental justice advisers that pending rules to control emissions, waste and water discharges from utilities will not only protect public health but add costs to the industry that might make renewable energy a more viable alternative. ?We need to set health

- based standards for power plants, and once we do that then they can compete with some of these renewable sources, Brenner said at the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC) meeting in Washington, DC. He added later, ? It’s not really a fair competition because [coal

- fueled power plants] are cheaper than they should be because they’re not controlling their pollutants to their full extent because EPA is yet to issue key rules for the sector, including a mercury air rule a nd a plan to regulate coal combustion residue. The same article reported that the White House also understands that transforming the power sector will inevitably result in reduced use of coal and increased use of renewables. Referring to remarks of Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the article reported that: Sutley responded that she doubts the existence of so

- called clean coal. ?Other people have labeled it ?clean coal,‘ she said. ?I don’t know if I would necessaril y concede that that is real. . . . I think in the long run, not just for the [United States] but for the world, that developing and making sure that there is access to these inherently cleaner sources of energy is important. . . . . We need to use energy m ore efficiently and more cleanly. [Footnotes 6: Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, 75 Fed. Reg. 45,210, 45,227/3 (August 2, 2010), quoting the EPA Administrator‘s January 12, 2010 outline of t he Agency‘s seven priorities.] [Footnote 7:Luige del Puerto, Hopi Nation in Arizona appeals for help as coal plant face disclosure, ARIZ. CAP. TIMES, Nov. 3, 2009, available at http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government

- bodies

officesregional/13389633

- 1.html.] [Footnote 8: Administration Eyes EPA Rules to Spur Shift from Coal to Renewables, InsideEPA.com (July 29, 2010), at http://insideep a.com/201007291915893/EPA

- Daily

News/Daily

- News/administration

- eyesepa

- rules

- to

- spur

- shift

- from

- coal

- to

- renewables/menu

- id

95.html.] [Footnote 9: Administration Eyes EPA Rules to Spur Shift from Coal to Renewables, InsideEPA.com (July 29, 2010), at http:/ /insideepa.com/201007291915893/EPA

- Daily

News/Daily

- News/administration

- eyesepa

- rules

- to

- spur

- shift

- from

- coal

- to

- renewables/menu

- id

95.html.]

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Doc ument Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Na me: Alice Edwards Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1926.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The economic impact of the rule will be significant to Alaskan sources. ADEC believes that the economic impact analysis (EIA) conducted by EPA which underlies the rule does not adequately take into consideration the costs and conditions found in Alaska an d faced by Alaskan sources

— particularly small and rural sources. The EIA is based on generalized national costs to commercial enterprises (Morgenstern et al) and do not reflect the significantly higher true costs found in Alaska, particularly in rural and native communities. Alaskan communities face much higher costs for fuel, transportation, and labor than the rest of the United States; are located at great distance from trained testing professionals; and have limited local economic resources. It appears u nlikely that the EIA conducted by EPA took the myriad Alaska specific factors into account in determining that all new and existing boiler sources should be subject to the requirements under the proposed rule.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EP A

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Cleaves Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Powe Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1992.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: As proposed, these rules are unachievable and could cause the closure of existing biomass energy plants and certainly frustrate the growth of this industry. If that were to happen, virtually every major renewable energy policy at the federal and state lev el would come to an abrupt halt. The Administration’s support of biomass has been unwavering and involves almost every member of the Cabinet

-
The White House. In a series of seven Executive Orders, involving Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, the fed eral government is mandated to “lead by example” and purchase 50% renewable power, including biomass. (13101 of September 14, 1998; 13123 of June 3, 1999, 13134 of August 12, 1999, 13148 of April 21, 2000, 13149 of April 21, 2000, 13514 of October 5, 2009)

. A Presidential Directive, signed by the President on May 5, 2010, directed the acceleration of investment in, and production of, various biofuels including biomass.

USDA. The Agency launched an unprecedented effort through the Biomass Crop Assistance P rogram, to accelerate the industry and, according to Secretary Vilsack, “stimulate biomass production...that will benefit producers and provide materials necessary to generate clean energy and reduce carbon pollution.” To date, BCAP is responsible for over $200 million in support forbioenergy. Other USDA programs include the Biorefinery Assistance Program (Section 9003 of the Farm Bill), the Rural Energy for America Program, and grants under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to enhance woody bioma ss utilization, totaling nearly $55 million in 14
states.

DOE. Secretary Chu has supported grants for wood

- to

- energy and forest utilization projects designed to “create jobs, promote our energy independence, and cut our carbon emissions by unlocking the enormous potential for renewable energy in the Western United States.”

Interior. Secretary Salazar has created a federal task force to boost investment in biomass.

Council on Environmental Quality. The Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Nancy Sutley has declared that biomass is among “the issues we are also focused on at the White House under the leadership of President Obama.” Indeed, CEQ recently proposed to exclude biofuel and biomass combustion from the federal government’s g reenhouse gas accounting and reporting guidance because they are biogenic emissions in contrast to carbon from fossil fuels that “represents a net increase in atmospheric carbon...”)See 75 Fed Reg.49913 (August 16, 2010)

EPA. EPA has encouraged the use o f biomass at coal plants fined for violating federal emission standards. A recently announced settlement with Ohio Edison involved the requirement that the utility increase biomass combustion to decrease its carbon emissions. EPA declared that “Today’s set tlement improves air quality for the local community and reduces greenhouse emissions by requiring the use of a renewable, carbon

- neutral fuel to generate electricity.” Joint EPA/DOJ Press Release dated August 12, 2009.

DOJ. The Department of Justice has extolled the use of biomass to improve air quality at coal plants, commenting on the same settlement that “We are pleased that Ohio Edison has chosen to significantly reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants ...and hope that [it] will become the stand ard

- bearer for other companies considering conversion to renewable biomass fuels ...”

Treasury. The Department of Treasury has awarded millions in so

- called 1603 Grants to support new biomass to electricity facilities.

Commerce. Finally, the Department of Commerce, through its International Trade Administration, has encouraged and supported US companies in the export of technology relating to biomass.

In Congress, biomass has been included in every single piece of renewable energy legislation beginnin g with the Public Utility Policy Act of 1978. Support for biomass is universal, bi

partisan, and spans the scope of virtually every major energy policy enacted by the Congress.

Support for biomass receiving tax incentives like other renewables began in 1 992 with passage of the National Energy Policy Act and has been continuous and unwavering.Biomass utilization has been supported through Congressional farm policy, most recently in Title IX of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.

Most import antly, biomass is a cornerstone of Waxman Markey (HR 2454) and Bingaman (S.1462), and is included in every major proposed effort by Congress to adopt a federal renewable energy standard a goal that President Obama has voiced long

- standing support for.

Finally, biomass plays a critically important role in the efforts by states to achieve renewable goals. Forty six states and US territories have some form of a renewable portfolio standard; virtually all of these states include biomass, which is considered critical in meeting state goals. For example, in Massachusetts, it is estimated that in 2008, biomass provided nearly 40% of the Commonwealth’s supply. See MA RPS Compliance Report for 2008 at page 10. In the Southeast, the potential for biomass is enormo us. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy to recently estimated that the resource in that region could provide up to 25% of its power needs by 2025.

Internationally, the support for biomass is widespread. The United Kingdom recently announced that it wo uld remove an obstacle to financing biomass power plants by supporting the industry through obligations on utilities to use biomass power for the next 20 years. Bloomberg, July 27, 2010. And recently, the European Commission declared that biomass has a “la rge potential as a source of renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions. In fact, the EU predicts that biomass could reduce carbon dioxide 55 to 98 percent but only with a “concerted effort by companies and public institutions to remove a number of sig nificant growth barriers.” “Biomass for Heat and Power,” European Climate Foundation.

The proposed rules are uneconomic, unachievable and will frustrate the nation’s renewable energy goals at a time of grave economic conditions.

In light of the overwhe lming support for biomass from every corner of government, it is imperative that EPA adopt a rule that is protective of the public health and the environment while also allowing this critically important energy source to be fully utilized. We are concerned that the proposed rules will impose tens of billions of dollars in capital costs at thousands of facilities across the country. Thus, we ask EPA to consider flexible approaches that appropriately address the diversity of boilers, operations, sectors, and fuels that could prevent severe job losses and billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory costs. In this regard, we ask you to consider three particular issues.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment E xcerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Numbe r : 10.

Commenter Name: Paolo MaffeiCommenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2276 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Now the proposal is to apply equal emission standards to small and large furnaces. If this forces many to shut down, it puts additional strain on the grid, creates power loss as local generation is replaced by more distant power sources and raises the question of what happens to the feedstock no longer used. Why impose additional and

unreason able requirements, especially in today’s economy?

Response: This comment pertains to the major source boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed rule will shut those businesses whose employees manufacture, distribute, sale and service the small commercial wood units. In my part icular case it would directly affect approximately 46 people, indirectly many more.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Zapkin Commenter Affiliation: Eastman Kodak Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2170.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Cost and job implications of the Boiler MACT are not justified by the HAP emission reductions realized.

Kodak’s Eastman Gelatine facility operates three boi lers with dual fuel capability that are covered by the Area Source Boiler MACT. These boilers can be fired exclusively with either #6 oil or natural gas. The boilers currently operate under a Title V permit with a CO limit of 200 ppmv. The excessively stri ngent proposed limit of 2 ppmv will force the facility to undertakesignificant boiler modifications or to operate the boilers with natural gas as the only fuel. The dual fuel capability gives the facility a strong negotiating position when dealing with na tural gas providers and transporters. Taking that away could seriously inhibit our ability to get the best prices possible, with potentially catastrophic consequences impacting the long term viability of Eastman Gelatine.

Specifically, the cost of natura l gas will most likely increase. At Eastman Gelatine, the loss of our dual fuel negotiating position would jeopardize the current, favorable transport fee for natural gas ($450K per year versus an increase of up to $1.65 million dollars per year).

Finall y, increased costs due to modifications for reduced CO emissions ($100K or more), stack tests ($35K

- $40K per year), fuel tests ($1500 per year), and other activities $5K

- $8K for mandated energy audit) would increase the financial burden to EG.

Respon se: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Joseph M. Cloutier Commenter Affiliation: RE

- Gen, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2284.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: RE

- Gen is concerned that the EPA’s proposed rules will result in the closure of existing plants and possibly stop the growth of the biomass industry.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Com menter Name: Bruce Lisle Commenter Affiliation: Biofuel Boiler Technologies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1981.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: As a start up entity, we have created “green jobs”, without government support, and
we expe ct to create more, except this proposed rule, if implemented in its current form, will probably dictate that we significantly scale down or close down. Demand for biomass boilers,especially in the sizes below 10MBTU/hr, will evaporate. Because of the retr oactive potential of this proposed rule, customers are waiting to see the outcome of this proposed rule before making a biomass boiler buying decision. The President has stated he would like to create 2,000,000 “green jobs”, this proposed rule is contrary to that initiative.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Kevin Van De Wege Commenter Affiliation: Washington House of Representatives Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2164.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In addition to financial investments, the state has pursued policy opportunities to promote long term stability and investment in the biomass industry. The state passed a law in 2010 allowing for long term contracts for biomass purchase from state timber lands. In addition to providing stability to the industry, our state DNR anticipates additional revenues from forest residuals to be a benefit to the common school trust fund. In recent years the state has provided tax incentives for hog fuel and biomass energy, authorized county governments to acquire biomass generation facilities, and ensured that our greenhouse gas policies reflect our priorities in this area.

We have heard credible concer ns from the affected industries in our state that the current rules promote unattainable standards that will seriously endanger the viability of these businesses and all the progress we have made to date. We respectfully request that you revisit the MACT

s tandards as they relate to biomass boilers and incinerators, in particular by ensuring that any performance standards are achievable by real

- world boilers, taking into account variability in boiler design and fuel supply, and ensuring that these new regula tions do not cause inadvertent environmental and economic harm by closing down opportunities for generation of renewable power through biomass.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, D ocument Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State ForestersDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA should avoid promulgating rules that result in negative economic impacts to rural com munities, rural manufacturers, landowners and the entire biomass chain. Many rural communities rely upon or significantly benefit from the use of biomass boilers for energy at manufacturing facilities, schools and hospitals. The rule, as proposed, will dir ectly impact both boiler owners and fuel suppliers in these communities. By limiting the opportunity for biomass boilers, economic losses will be considerable, especially so in the wood products manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture sectors.

Response : See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Fuel switching is not possible in many areas due to the lack of low

- cost alternative fuels. The emission limits and testing procedures proposed for new biomass boilers under 10 mmBtu/hr impose onerous capital and annual costs on potential proj ect owners. These owners are typically schools, small businesses, hospitals, and other institutions in rural areas without access to natural gas as a fuel. Thus, this proposed rule will disproportionately impact the ability of entities in rural and potenti ally economically depressed areas to move from fuel oil or propane to a renewable and lower cost fuel.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0 790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Arie Verloop Commenter Affiliation: Jansen Combustion and Boiler Technologies, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1856.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Comment: The rules as they stand could cost the pulp and paper industry an estimated $4

- 5 billion and could cost the entire U.S. manufacturing industry an estimated $21 billion, and will likely result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs due to the very high cost to the industry. It does not make good sense to burden an already fragile economy with regulatory rulings that d o not commensurately protect the environment and the health of the populace.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Christopher S. Bond Commenter Affiliation: Missouri, United S tates Senate Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2200.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA’s proposed rules also threaten the ability of struggling families and communities to protect and create jobs. Many parts of rural Missouri, ideal places for the growth and use of biomass, are struggling mightily in the current hard economic times. Rur al workers just cannot handle more bureaucratic and expensive regulations from Washington that kill jobs instead of create them. Experts estimate EPA’s proposed regulations will cost the forest products industry $7 billion. Killing just one job unnecessari ly is not only unfair to struggling workers, it is unconscionable. The administration can hardly claim it cares about job creation if it finalizes regulations as proposed by EPA in this case.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Dennis Vroman Commenter Affiliation: United Steel Workers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2209 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Many mills rely on coal

- fired boilers for low

- c ost energy. Being a low

- cost producer is how many paper mills continue to survive against foreign competition. Yet the proposed rule could result in the shut

- down of many coal

- fired boilers, which would lower the competitiveness of these mills, and cause m ore job losses.I have seen many paper mills close in the last few years because of rising operating costs and the tragic U.S. economy, including several Wausau Paper facilities. Over the last few years, Wausau Paper has had no choice but to close six fac ilities located in Appleton and Columbus, Wisconsin, Jay, Maine, Jacksonville, Mississippi, Groveton, New Hampshire and Middletown, Ohio. Wausau Paper now employs roughly 1300 fewer employees than they did 10 years ago. The paper industry has experienced some very tough years and the last thing it needs is some over zealous regulation to instigate further decline. I do not want my mill to be one of the next mills to close. Other good paying jobs are hard to find in our rural area so the harmful impact woul d last a long time, if not forever. Our town will suffer as well if the support from the mill ends, not just the taxes, but all of the involvement in the community.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Num ber : 10.

Commenter Name: Dennis Vroman Commenter Affiliation: United Steel Workers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2209 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: I do support clean air and water but the proposed Boiler MACT rule is not reasonable. My family lives near the mill and I want them safe. Over the years, I have seen the mill get better environmentally. The equipment and practices we have are helping make us a greener facility in our community. Also, I am proud to work at a mill that produces a green product that is made from renewable local forests. You go into stores these days and it is hard to find things made in America anymore. We need more American products supporting good manufacturing jobs!! It is critical that EPA revise this rule in a common sense way. Addressing the risk to our jobs and our way of life must be part of any change. We need clean air, but we also need good paying manufacturing job s. Bring some balance to this rule. I respectively request that EPA review and implement the recommendations proposed by American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and National Council of Air & Stream Improvement (NCASI) in their comments regarding this

r ule.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Craig S. Smith Commenter Affiliation: Biewer Wisconsin Sawmill Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2232 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 6

Comment: In consideration of the financial burden placed on small to medium sized companies and municipalities to achieve unrealistic and unachievable results, coupled with discouraging the use of locally available biomass as a fuel resource, I ask that the U.S. EPA consider making changes to the proposed area source boiler rule. Modifications should reflect the limitations and requirements that are indicative of the burdens placed on the appropriate parties involved. Failure to do so will force man y small to medium size companies to go out of business and force municipalities and institutions to switch from economically available biomass to propane or natural gas boilers for financial reasons.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Troy Runge Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2245 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: One of the goals of the state of Wisconsin and the U.S. is to help build a local energy economy by using both woody and agricultural fuels (e.g. densified prairie grasses, corn stover, etc.). In order to jump

- start these businesses, the state of Wisconsin is sponsoring a new biomass boiler planned for the Charter Street Heating Plant. This boiler is just one of several projects planned for the state to generate heat and power from biomass. These projects are critical to the goal of achieving 25% of Wisconsin’s energy from renewable resources by the year 2025. However, the proposed MACT standards for new biomass boilers are extremely stringent and will severely limit

— if not eliminate

— the ability to burn many of the biomass fuels envisioned to be developed with these projects. To understand why th e Boiler MACT could create this unintended consequence a few examples of issues created are described. Example 1) Hydrochloric acid (HCI) emissions under the Boiler MACT would require emissions to be below 0.004 lbs/MMBtu. Whereas this is achievable for wood chips or wood pellets, agricultural fuels are expected to have issues as these materials have natura lly higher chlorine levels with levels that can be as high as 0.50 lbs/MMBtu for incoming material. To insure emissions are low enough for compliance the boiler will be required to remove 98.4% of the HCI produced which will be challenging without capital intensive scrubbing equipment. This will undoubtedly lead to the use of more woody fuels which have lower HCI or the replacement of biomass for fossil fuels. Woody resources are currently available in Wisconsin but purposelygrown bioenergy crops and agric ultural residues will be required to meet long term energy independence goals.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Don Kaiser Commenter Affiliation: Pellet Fuels Institu te Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2231 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: In Establishing the GACT Standard for PM from New Area Source Boilers with Design Capacity Less Than 10 mmBtu/hr, EPA May and Should Take into Account the Importance of Maintaining a Viable Market for New Pellet

- Fired Boilers Below That Level in Order to Promote the Continuing Expansion of the Pellet Fuel Market as a Valuable Source of Renewable Energy.

Pellet fuel is a renewable, clean

- burning and cost

- stable heatin g alternative currently used throughout North America. Pellet fuel is refined and densified biomass, enabling remarkable consistency and burn efficiency at a fraction of the particulate emissions of raw biomass. Pellet manufacturers take woody biomass by

- p roducts and refine them into pencil

- sized pellets that are uniform in size, shape, moisture, density and energy content.

Pellet fuel is an important source of energy from the standpoint of the Nation’s economy and its policies on energy, forest managemen t and the environment. First, the moisture content of pellets is substantially lower (4% to 8% compared to 20% to 60% for raw biomass). Less moisture means higher BTU value and easier handling, especially in freezing situations, than with green raw biomass materials. Second, the density of pellet fuel is substantially higher than raw biomass (40 lbs. per cubic foot verses 10

- 25 lbs. per cubic foot in raw material form). More fuel can be transported in a given truck space, and more energy can be stored at th e respective site. Finally, pellets are more easily and predictably handled. Their uniform shape and size allows for a smaller and simpler feed system that reduces costs as well.

In setting a GACT standard, EPA may take costs and other factors into accou nt. Here, a GACT standard of 0.03 lb/mmBtu for new area source biomass boilers below 10 mmBtu/hr would destroy much, if not all of the market for new pellet

- fired boilers, because of the high and generally prohibitive cost of ESP or FF control, especially for units below 3 mmBtu/hr. That impact would severely compromise the current market for pellet fuel and the potential for expanding the usage of pellet fuel. EPA should work to avoid that consequence. Pellet fuel is valuable from an economic standpoint, b ut it also furthers the policies of governments in the areas of energy, forest management and the environment.Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Patrick J. Medvecz Commente r Affiliation: Wausau Paper Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2283 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Not only is the approach that EPA used to develop emission limits badly flawed, the proposed Boiler MACT rule will impose a huge cost burden on our Rhinelander and Mosinee, WI; Brainerd, MN and Middletown, OH facilities that is simply untenable. Based on best available estimates, we expect that Boiler MACT compliance will cost tens

- of

- millions and annual expenditure in operation and maintenance costs will rise several million for each Wausau Paper facility.

Response: This comment pertains to the major s ource boiler rulemaking. Provided the commenter has submitted this comment to the major source boiler rulemaking docket, the response to this comment will be provided there.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Adm inistration Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1950.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: As discussed above, the Agency has failed to utilize the discretion under the Clean Air Act to minimize small business burdens while maintaining environmental protection. The current proposal, if implemented without change, is likely to have significant a dverse impacts on American jobs and the US economy. Given the importance of this rule to small businesses, we hope to collaborate closely with EPA in formulating the final regulation.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0 790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, C omment Excerpt Number : 10.Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: The economic impact analyses are seriously flawed. Th e proposed requirement of 160 PPM of CO for existing wood boilers over 10,000,000 BTU/hr will significantly reduce the number of wood fired boilers in this Country and put thousands of people out of work. These existing boilers were permitted under signifi cantly less stringent standards and simply will not be able to meet the new, lower standard. Based on my 25 years of experience, I believe that at least half of the existing boiler between10 and 30,000,000 BTU/hr. will not be able to meet this standard, an d will need to be shut down or significantly rebuilt. The forest products industry, where many of these boilers are located, has been hit hard by the recent economic turndown and many, many mills will simply not be able to afford to make the shift. In addi tion, these regulations will drive some plants to burn fossil fuel and others to lay off workers.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf C ommenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: It is the belief of many of our members that older boilers greater than 10MMBtu/Hr will require additional pollution controls

-- at great expense

-- to meet the CO emissions limit in this proposed rule. Similarly, the installation and long

- term maintenanc e of CEMS will be very costly, with questionable benefit under certain circumstances.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Commen t Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combusti on Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10Comment: In my sector of the wood energy market, the private sector has spoken on the cost effectiveness of baghouses and ESPs required to meet the proposed pa rticulate standard in my home state of Massachusetts. There has not been a wood fired boiler sited in the State without significant public sector subsidies since the State implemented particulate regulations requiring this expensive fuel gas filtration equ ipment. Until the cost of fossil fuel increases, the free market can not cost justify this equipment. So the result of these proposed MACT standards would be to take an industry which has developed independently of public sector support and put it on publi c sector life support for the foreseeable future. Is it good public policy to push an industry onto the public dole based on conclusion drawn from a limited and potentially flawed data set?

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven W. Koehn Commenter Affiliation: National Association of State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2220.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Financial Im pacts on New Projects

To demonstrate the impact of the proposed regulations to project viability, fuel cost savings and project value are presented for a current USFS technical assistance project at a rural high school. Table 3 presents the financial ana lysis for the installation of a 3.5 mmBtu/hr central biomass boiler at the school. [See submittal for Table 3.] Project financial analyses are run with and without impacts from the proposed rule.

The addition of an electrostatic precipitator and implemen tation of the required testing regime reduces the lifetime project value of the investment by more than 40%. While this is an example of the impact to a system less than 10 mmBtu/hr, larger systems will face similar, although less drastic financial impacts

.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Gailyn MessersmithCommenter Affiliation: Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1949.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Conduct much more rigorous studies to establish or verify the following:

* A true and accurate cost to utilize said technology including the impact on local economies.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The use of the Morgenstern et al. (2002) methodo logy and assumptions to estimate the effect of the proposed rule on employment is improper. The Morgenstern methodology is based on general data in four large industrial sectors during a 12 year period (1979 to 1991) which includes 1990 the date of the Cle an Air Act Amendments. Morgenstern’s methodology does not identify the direct effects of environmental regulation on employment, it measures the effect of reported environmental expenditures on employment at a time when environmental regulation was in it’s infancy. The period studied cannot be considered analogous to this proposed regulation for the following reasons: 1. During the early years of environmental regulation and the associated environmental expenditures studied, control costs were on the order of $500 per ton of pollutant abated. Today proposed rule has costs of $27,000 per ton of PM abated for existing biomass fuel fired sources, $40,000 per ton of PM for liquid fuel fired sources and $95,000 per ton of pm for coal units. 2. Environmental reg ulations in the early days and those costs were directly related to production processes and increases in costs affected all producers in an industry similarly. These proposed regulations affect utility (steam) costs and are not directly attributable to an y production process. Costs for compliance will vary greatly across individual industries with little chance for pollution abatement activities or byproduct developments to lessen the costs. 3. The proposed regulations will eliminate several currently uti lized byproduct reutilization programs such as coal fly ash reutilization in concrete because the activated carbon required to control Hg and/or dioxin/furans renders fly ash unsuitable for use in concrete mixes. 4. The costs for compliance will require m uch larger capital investments than the process specific regulations which were studied by Morgenstern et al. (2002). The capital investments required under this proposed rule will require financing which may not have been required for the much smaller cap ital investment required during the period studied by Morgenstern.5. Morgenstern studied general cost and employment data in four specific large industries affected by environmental regulation. This regulation affects both large and small industries as

w ell as commercial and institutional entities. These later two affected entities are not subject to the “demand effect” described by Morgenstern because they are not involved in production. Similarly, their operations cannot be subject to a “factor

- shift ef fect” because there are not involved in production and therefore, post regulation production technologies will not have the same impact on employment as in industry. Unlike a production facility complying with environmental regulation of production process es, commercial and institutional entities with boilers affected by the Boiler MACT will not be able to substitute labor for other production inputs as production choices become more flexible over time as US EPA (and Morgenstern) indicates results in positi ve job gains. These entities cannot substitute labor for other production inputs because the Boiler MACT affects utility costs and steam production not production costs. 6. In the years studied by Morgenstern, the United States was a leading industrial na tion and under little economic pressure to compete internationally for industrial jobs. However, the advances in the international shipping industry which occurred beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through the present have resulted in internation al competition for industrial jobs. The US must compete with lower labor costs, lower tax rates and lower environmental costs in other countries competing for industrial jobs. The proposed regulation on industrial, commercial and institutional boilers, put s additional cost pressures on US industries not incurred in other industrializing nations who are competing for the industrial jobs which are jeopardized by the proposed rule. 7. Morgenstern’s methodology assumed large plants bear most of the regulatory costs and this assumption may have been proper for large industries like the pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum and iron and steel industries studied by Morgenstern. This assumption is not transferrable to the Boiler MACT which requires compliance for all affected units and therefore affects large and small industries as well as large and small commercial and institutional entities. For the above reasons, the Morgenstern et al. analysis is not analogous to the Boiler MACT. All of the above indicates that the economic impact analysis and the regulatory impact analysis conducted for this proposed rule underestimates costs, overestimates benefits and underestimates job losses and as result should be revised with a more reasoned analysis.

Response: See resp onses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The cost of these regulations will have a disastrous effect on rural economies. Many communities in rural regions rely on, or significantly benefit from, the use of biomass boilers forconsumption of biomass energy crops. By limiting the opportunity for b iomass boilers, economic losses will be considerable, especially so in the wood products manufacturing, forestry, and agriculture sectors.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Docume nt Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Steven W. Koehn Commenter Affiliation: National Association of State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2220.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: The proposed rule will mean that many existing biomass boilers will have to be taken o ut of service in three years. Impacts on existing businesses, particularly in the wood products sector may be substantial given the current economic downturn impacts on this industry
sector.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Dan H. Williams Commenter Affiliation: Sealed Air Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2228.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Source testing efforts for establishment of the MACT floor were performed on sources operating at or near maximum firing rates. As boilers and combustion sources are operated closer to the design capacity, the efficiency of combustion is expected to be as high as possible. This causes the establishment of a MACT floor to represent the best pollutant concentrations from the most efficiently operating units. Boiler operations and efficiency are greatly impacted by steam or energy demands at the plant. If a f acility has any hopes of operating in compliance with the emission limitations, the facility would be required to either burn excessive fuel or waste heat when demands on the system are not maximized. Aside from the excess fuel usage, it directly causes an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, equipment wear, maintenance costs, and the untimely replacement or repair of equipment.Response: Thank you for your comment. See the final rule for how this comment was addressed.

Commenter Name: Wayne York C ommenter Affiliation: Hancock Lumber Company, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Hancock is deeply concerned about the potential financial impacts of this rule for our company, as well as the overall impacts to other companies and institutions, many of which have limited financial resources. According to EPA’s own estimates, this rule will apply to nearly a quarter of a million facilities Based on the Preamble to the Proposed NESHAP for Industrial, Com mercial, and Institutional Boilers Located at Area Sources, Federal Register Notice Dated 6/4/2010, Table 3 “Summary of Annual Costs for New and Existing Sources .”. The total costs to these facilities will be staggering. In addition, in these times of lim ited government budgets, this large number of subject facilities will likely overwhelm EPA and the States’ ability to effectively implement this proposed rule. In addition, we are also concerned about the effect of this rule on other entities. For example

, school districts throughout our state have been facing tremendous budget deficits, and have been laying

- off teachers and other staff. The costs of these rules will not be able to be absorbed and will result in additional cuts in education. Therefore, it is imperative that EPA develop a more cost

- effective approach for this source category.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Com ment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Wayne York Commenter Affiliation: Hancock Lumber Company, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2002 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: We question EPA’s assertion that the proposal would not have disproportionate budgetary impacts on any particular region, as listed in the Preamble Section VIII(D)(3). For example, in Maine we have far colder weather than in many regions, we are a rural s tate, we have limited availability of natural gas, we already have competitive disadvantages compared to nearby states, and in addition, due to our proximity to the Canadian border, manufacturing jobs are often outsourced to Canada, especially in the fores t products industry. For these reasons, we feel that the Northeast, and Maine in particular, will face disproportionate costs due to this rule.Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.



### Emission Impacts

Commenter Name: George Whiting Commenter Affiliation: EcoHeat Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0832 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Compare the positive impact of wood pellet central heating to the negative impact o f any solid waste incinerator. Your looking at burdening the good, whereas there’s much more that can be done with making the bad less bad. Think of what can be done to make incinerators less bad. Perhaps consumer education would be a better use of your re sources.
The main point I’d like to make is that wood pellet boilers such as the EcoBoiler are already much better for the environment than oil and propane boilers, and that if you create a disincentive for these boilers by increasing the costs for the c ompanies that make them, you are ironically making a negative impact on the environment rather than a positive one as one would expect the EPA to do.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.

Commenter Name: Raymo nd J. Nutting Commenter Affiliation: County of El Dorado Air Quality Management District Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2225.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The implementation of the proposed MACT will result in a shutdown of many existing biomass plants throughout California and prevent construction of new facilities. Such scenario will almost certainly cause significant increases in local and regional level s of particulate matter, toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases since unmanaged biomass wastes will be consumed by wildfires, through prescribed burning or be land filled. In addition, it will be necessary to burn more fossil fuel to accommodate for lost bi omass energy.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1950.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The very stringent new source boiler standards, in our view, are more likely to contribute to worse air pollution by deterring companies from purchasing and installing new energy efficient and less polluting boilers in the futur e.
EPA based emissions limits on a relatively small number of boilers in some subcategories, which in combination with significant non

- detect data drove the MACT floor to unreasonably low levels in some cases. EPA needs to refine the statistical approach that it takes to setting emissions limits by taking emissions variability into account for sources, such as boilers. Because of this approach, Advocacy has heard repeatedly that the carbon monoxide (CO) limit will be exceedingly costly for many units to m eet under any circumstances.

The stringent new source provision of the proposal likewise will , deter many sources from upgrading to new boilers because the new source performance standards are also based on the emissions of the synthetic source which wo uld be so impractical as to inhibit any potential gains from installing newer, more fuel

- efficient, lower emitting technology.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1, excerpt 12.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affili ation: National Association of Manufacturers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: The controls necessary to meet EPA’s stringent proposed emissions limitations for CO will result in increased energy usag e along with increased emissions of other pollutants.

EPA’s proposed CO emissions limit arbitrarily and capriciously fails to recognize the dependency between CO and other emissions, which makes this rule impossible to implement in either process heaters or boilers. Requiring such extraordinarily low CO levels will have an adverse impact on other emissions such as NOx, PM, greenhouse gases (GHG) and even HAPs. Reducing CO to extremely low levels will require increased excess air levels which reduce effici ency, increasing the amount of fuel that must be fired and therefore increasing the total mass of other pollutants (i.e. HAPs, GHGs, NOx, SO x , PM, etc.). For example, CO and NOx emissions are both dependent on the residence times and temperatures of the fl ue gas in the firebox, but in different ways. For most boilers and process heaters achieving low NOx emissions, there is insufficient time at temperature to oxidize CO to 1 ppm. As CO decreases,NOx increases and vice versa, so emissions control in any fir ed equipment is a trade

- off between the two.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 60.

Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: My contention in these remarks is that this action by EPA, with respect to biomass alone, will actually worsen air quality in America, the exact opposite of its intent. I do not contend that this was EPA’s intention in drafting these biomass rules, but that will be the practical result due to poor understanding of the units chosen to represent the industry, poor understanding of the dynamics of biomass combustion, and a complete lack of unders tanding of the makeup and economics of biomass combustion. This deterioration of air quality will come about as a result of a dismantling of existing biomass combustion in both the forest products and biomass power industries and the elimination of future biomass combustion units, all as a result of this rule and, to a lesser degree, to the inclusion of biomass in EPA’s Tailoring Rule.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.

Commenter Name: Russ Mull Commenter Af filiation: Shasta County Air Quality Management Distric Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1167 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: While the NESHAP supporting documents calculate the benefits of reduced PM2.5 emissions from the controlled facil ities, the analysis should include the increase in PM2.5 resulting from the complete shutdown of the biomass facilities in California, minus increase in PM2.5 from currently managed State and private lands that will be consumed in wildfires. Approximately 1,000,000 acres of unmanaged Federal land is consumed by wildfires in California each year. It can be assumed, that this acreage will increase by the proportion of Federal land to State and private land, as these wildfires will not be contained at the Fede ral land boundaries. Since State and private lands will lose the management option of utilizing biomass for energy and building material purposes, fuel buildup and wildfires will be inevitable. Most sawmills currently operating in California’s forests are co

- located with a biomass cogeneration facility. The requirements of this Rule will result not only in the shutdown of the area source industrial boilers used for cogeneration, but these power producing facilities are a major source of revenue for the adjo ining lumber mill and most wood products industry within the State will be eliminated. While this economic disaster is of no concern to Federal regulatory officials, since 45 percent of the land in California is owned by the Federal government, an approxim ate 100percent increase in PM2.5 emission from wildfires will be the ultimate result of this Rule. According to AP

- 42 factors, an additional 1,000,000 acres of wildfire will produce an additional 650,000 tons of PM2.5 annually in California. This addition al emission of PM2.5 should be added to the benefit calculation.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.

Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: So, what will be the environmental outcome of this scenario; precipitated solely by the EPA biomass boiler MACT regulations (with an assist from the Tailoring Rule). The net effect w ill be a worsening of air quality across the U.S., both for criteria pollutants, and for carbon, and yes, for HAP’s. In the interest of capturing a few pounds of mercury or dioxin, we will have increased emissions from open burning some 30 fold versus curr ent combustion. Much more wood waste will go to landfills where methane and CO will seep out despite efforts to extract it Forest managers will lose options for disposal of noncommercial materials leading to less forest management activity, more and larger fires and decreased forest health, all having dire air quality and carbon consequences. A program designed to improve air quality results in poorer air quality all due to a lack of understanding of the situation of the industry you were seeking to regulat e.

Response: All existing biomass boilers and new biomass boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr no longer have applicable emission limits, and for new biomass boilers only units greater than 10 mmBtu/hr have PM limits and these are base d on GACT and not MACT. With these changes to the final rule commenter concerns about biomass boilers shutting down and leading to increased emissions from wildfires, landfilling, or open burning should be alleviated.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Comment er Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: There are no known units, large or small, that can meet both limits (CO and particulates) at the same time.Much of the wood use d in biomass boilers is harvested for wildfire prevention, right

- of

- way clearing, and forest health. In communities without a biomass system, wood harvested in preventative measures is typically burned in open slash piles. The EPA Report: Development of Em issions Inventory Methods for Wildland Fire illustrates that the particulate emissions related to slash pile burning approximates 19 pounds per ton of wood,where an average biomass boiler (2002) produces approximatly 1.9 pounds per ton of wood. Fire mitig ation reduces the severity of wildfires that result in emissions of 30 pound per ton of wood burned. With Alaska averaging up to a million acres of wildfire annually, fire mitigation wood harvest is a large source of particulate emission, and it would be a dvantageous to dispose of this wood in a clean burning boiler that also displaces diesel heating fuel.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2137.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Many NESCAUM states have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, standards for ultra

- low sulfur heat ing oil; it is imperative that EPA’s proposed regulations do not impair state efforts to reduce sulfur emissions from these sources. NESCAUM recommends that EPA analyze the multi

- pollutant benefits gained by encouraging the use of 15 ppm ultra

- low sulfur h eating oil and incorporate these requirements, when appropriate, in the final rule.

Response: The EPA has determined it is not necessary to create a separate subcategory for ultra

low sulfur diesel. However, with the revised standards for existing and n ew boilers there should not be a disincentive to use ultra

- low sulfur diesel and the rule should not impact state efforts to reduce sulfur emissions.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Due to the high cost of heating fuel in rural Alaska, there is an economic incentive to replace older oil fired boilers with new, high efficiency units. The new boilers not only provide impr oved fuel economy, they also produce far less exhaust emissions compared to existing antiquated boilers. However, as written, all new boilers (oil fired, biomass, etc.) installed after June 4, 2010 in a commercial, industrial or institutional facility will be subject to annual source testing requirements. An unintended consequence of this proposed rule will be that old, antiquated heating equipment will remain in service

— resulting in poorer air quality and financial hardship to operators of regulated boile rs in rural Alaska.

Response: New boilers must still meet emission limits but they have changed from proposal. New large (>10 mmBtu/hr) coal boilers must meet MACT limits for CO and Hg while new large (>10 mmBtu/hr) coal, biomass, and liquid boilers mus t meet GACT limits for PM. All new smallboilers (<10 mmBtu/hr) do not have emission limits. With the revised limits the associated burden will be reduced making it more manageable for facilities to install new area source boilers.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Finally, the assessment of the impacts of the proposed rule should also take into account the possibility that the boiler would be replaced rather than retrofitted, and the potential increases in PM10/PM2.5 emissions that would result. The KIUC boiler emits about 1.74 lb/hr of PM2.5, based on AP

- 42 emission factors.23 A small oil

- fired gas turbine in the same size range (~10 MW) will have a manufacturer’s guaranteed PM2.5 emission rate of about 4 lb/hr24 , while a reciprocating compression

- ignition engine will have a PM2.5 emission rate of about 8.8 lb/hr.25 Therefore, replacing the existing boiler with either a gas turbine or a CI engine would increase fine particulate emissions by between 10 and 26 tons per year.

Response: Except for coal, existing boilers do not have applicable emission limits. Those commenters who were concerned about the cos t of complying with the rule and were considering installing a new boiler do not need to worry about this.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 60

Comment: The preamble presents an extensive discussion of the assumed benefits of this proposal. However, it fails to consider the dis

- benefits. A significant item is the increase in NOx emissions that will result from this proposal. Reducing CO to the levels prop osed for liquid

- fired boilers will significantly increase NOx emissions nationally. To avoid these increases, boilers which are subject to NOx limits will have to install low

- NOx burners, just to maintain the NOx levels they were meeting before this CO lim it is imposed. Many boilers will likely not be able to maintain their NOx levels even with burner changes and will have to be replaced or fitted with Selective Catalytic Reduction NOx controls. It is even unclear that any new liquid

- fired boiler can simult aneously meet both the CO limits proposed here and applicable NOx limits without add

- on NOx controls. Add

- on NOx controls for replacement and existing boilers will add massive costs and create NH3 and PM emissions.

In order to minimize CO, liquid

- fired b oilers will have to operate with significantly more excess air than is typical today. This causes the boiler to have to fire more fuel and increases CO 2 emissions, HAP emissions, VOC emissions, NOx emissions and, in some cases emissions ofsulfur species. Alternately, add

- on oxidation catalyst systems will be needed to control the CO, but these systems lead to increased PM2.5 emissions and have the potential to generate additional dioxin/furans. These impacts were not addressed in the EPA analysis, but are very significant.

Finally, EPA estimates 228 million kilowatt hours of additional energy use due to this proposal. This estimate is likely grossly understated since EPA assumed add

- on controls for only a small percentage of liquid

- fired boilers, rather t han for essentially all such boilers and because they did not account for the need to convert the boilers to balanced draft or to account for the inefficiencies of raising stack gas temperatures to reach oxidation catalyst operating temperatures. The addit ional emissions from electric generators resulting from this increase in demand and the additional energy use needed to offset raising stack temperatures do not appear to have been taken into account in EPA’s analysis.

Response: The CO limits for liquid boilers have been removed, so commenter concerns about potential emissions increases or impacts on meeting other pollutant limits (e.g. NOx limits) due to the proposed CO limits should be alleviated.

Commenter Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Commenter Affi liation: Governor of the State of California Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1777.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The power plants also have existing power purchase agreements and would not be able to pass the cost of the retrofit on to utility ratepayers. The Energy Commission’s analysis indicates that the existing biomass power plants would not be able to fund the retrofit needed to meet the MACT Rule and would discontinue operation.

The California Air Resources Board indicates that the proposed rule will not necessarily improve the air quality, and we agree that it will have unintended consequences. Specifically, the Bioenergy Interagency Working Group believes the proposed rule will have negative environmental impacts by increasing the amount of opening burning of agricultural and forest waste, there will be higher risks of wildfires, and more greenhouse gas from landfills.

Response: See the response to comment EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1, excerpt 10.

Commenter Name: Thompas P. Balf Commenter Affiliation: Campus Cortium for Environmental Excellence Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1657.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6Comment: As you reduce your emissions of CO, under certain circumstances NOx emissions will increase.

We suggest that the Agency further explore and discuss the relationships between CO and NOX and align its priorities so that the regulated community does not find itself in an untenable compliance challenge involving “technical dissonance.” This issue is more pressing given the fact that many states have non

- attainment zones for ozone NAAQS, and NOx is an ozone
precursor.

Response: See the response to EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1, excerpt 60.



### Secondary Impacts

Commenter Name: Andrew Plant Commenter Affiliation: University of Maine Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0869 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The rule changes put forth by the EPA are unfair in relative terms to biomass generated heat and electricity production. As is, the rules would make it near impossible for the combustion of biomass resources for utilization as heat, power, or a combination of the two (CHP) in commercial, industri al, or institutional settings using currently available technology. The financial burdens associated with the rule changes could possibly have the effect of biomass energy dependent industries shutting down altogether, and loss of an inexpensive fuel. In

s implest remediation of the new rules, independent MACT and GACT standards for boilers based upon fuel

- type are recommended. The rule changes based upon emissions and air quality signal a tremendous short

- coming or even failure in US Energy Policy. A polic y incorporating all aspects of energy usage needs to be set forth. It is the responsibility of EPA to assess Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change impacts in addition to Air Quality. Fuel use policy needs to incorporate the entire picture, and not a piecemeal picture in which individual policies regarding issues of air quality, greenhouse gases, or other regulatory parameters are promulgated separately. By then, as a result of the first issued policy change (Air Quality), the research and development of some re newable energy alternatives such as biomass may cease. This single ruling could decide the fate of several renewable fuels without the consideration of many other variables that need to be weighed. Life cycle analyses of fossil fuels and their renewable f uel replacements needs to done. Air quality is only one component of a fuel assessment matrix that should be used. Weighted rankings could be developed in which to assess different fuels in regards to air emissions, greenhouse gas potential, land

- use chang e impact, and economic impact; all of which should be done on a life cycle basis, and all of which need factor in the variability of end

- use systems (Electric standalone versus combined heat and power; Gasification vs Direct Combustion). Fuel policy should not be entirely determined by EPA, butin combination and interdepartmental cooperation between the EPA, Dept of Energy, and the USDA. Attached are academic manuscripts providing a resource for examples of Life Cycle Analyses and Policy tools.

[See: DC N:EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0790

- 0869.1, DCN:EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0790

- 0869.2,DCN:EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0790

- 0869.3, and DCN:EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0790

- 0869.4 for manuscripts.]

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers
must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Thomas Deerfield Commenter Affiliation: Dalson Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0831 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As the Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BETC) has so thoroughly and lucidly explained, the proposed rule for boilers would effectively shut down the existing biomass thermal industry. In additio n, the proposed rule would force America into continued reliance on

non

- renewable fossil fuels. I work on renewable energy projects in rural communities in Alaska, mostly Native villages. Most are remote, requiring enormous transportation costs for conven tional fuels. Many are surrounded by overgrown, wildfire

- prone forests. The proposed rules will make it more difficult to deploy small wood boilers for schools and clinics. Small wood boilers in rural communities create local jobs to harvest and process t he wood fuel. They provide an alternative to money going out of the community to buy imported fossil fuel. They greatly reduce the danger of oil spills in area rivers (the oil is shipped in on river barges), potentially devastating fish runs. They reduce w ildfire risk to community structures. They help make the communities more self

- reliant, and build a stronger local economy. One

- size

- fits

- all rules in this case means that rules that may be appropriate in New York or Denver are applied to rural Alaska, wh ich is an entirely different world. We propose a more balanced approach.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Gregg Tomberlin Commenter Affiliation: Novo Energy, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0834.1Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: There would be a reduct ion in the generation of renewable energy which would most likely be replaced with energy generated from the combustion of fossil fuels resulting in more pollutants and greenhouse gases discharged into the environment. The timing for this type of
program c ould not be any worse give the historic economic downturn in this country, the impetus for renewable energy development and the mandate for green house gas reduction. The Clean Air Act rightly directs that emissions requirements shall be less than “the av erage emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources”. While there is latitude to impose more stringent requirements than this norm, why would that latitude be exercised to limit or stop the development of a renewabl e fuel that could be an important player in the reduction of the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions? The use of clean fuels like biomass should be encouraged and assisted instead of penalized.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from bioma ss boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Carl Johnson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Pressure Treaters' Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0870.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: If a plant converted to natural gas boilers, the capital investment may not be carried by the market rendering the company non

- competitive against imports and alternative products.

If the rules are finalized as written, some utility pole treating plants and supporting operations could be forced into closure resulting in hundreds of unemployed workers and a shortage of utility poles for grid maintenance and new line construction. Restoration of electrical, telecommunication, internet and cable service aft er natural disasters (i.e. hurricanes, ice storms, etc.) would take longer due to fewer plants operating.

Response: With the revised MACT and GACT standards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators will use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number: 11Comment: Encouraging increased dependence on fossil fuels for ther mal needs impedes federal, state and local renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Forest products industries and other businesses alike rely on renewable, low cost wood residue for heating. Restricting biomass thermal applications through unr easonably expensive and compliance measures of questionable value will serve the counterproductive purpose of encouraging nonrenewable fossil fuels use and reduce local self

- reliance.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Biomass thermal energy today is a growing industry. Roughly one million American businesses, citizens, and institutions use biomass to meet their space heating, cooling, or process heat needs. NEWP supports the EPA in setting emission standards for biomass boilers that push the industry to produce clean?burning, high?efficiency appliances.

The biomass thermal industry has great potential to grow, innovate, and s upport local community energy independence and greenhouse gas reduction through the replacement of fossil fuel heating with high efficiency biomass boilers. As proposed, the only certainty is that the Area Source rule will devastate the biomass thermal ind ustry and small businesses, and local government and schools will be forced to look for non

- renewable fossil fuels for their heating needs. By revising the rule to reflect a common

- sense approach, EPA can still achieve major improvements to air quality and support the ancillary environmental, economic, and social benefits that biomass thermal supports.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: While EPA states that fuel switching is not part of their control strategy, the reality is that operators may find it cheaper to purchase a new gas

- fired boiler than to put controls on existing bio mass units. So much for transitioning to a sustainable energy economy.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the pr eamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Exc erpt Number: 33

Comment: All of our plants employ the best available technology as defined here in California. And our engineers to date have found no retrofits or mods that would meet the entire suite of regulations. I would point out that efforts to red uce carbon monoxide will, in our plants, invariably reduce

-- increase emissions of NOx, which is an undesirable reaction.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 52

Comment: Imposing severe and unattainable emission limitations on sources that use or may use locally available alternative fuels such as bio

- based fuels, landfill gas, and process off

- gases, will decrease the use of alternative fuels and put greater demand on con ventional fossil fuel use to the extent that continued operations are justified. These impacts are counter to the stated administration goals of improving national energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gases, increasing national security, and increasing e mployment.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Harry Dres ser, Jr. Commenter Affiliation: Maine Energy Systems Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1060.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: If one reviews the successes that have been achieved in reduction of megatons of oil equivalents in Western Europe , it becomes immediately clear that the biomass energy source is the shortest route to reduction in fossil fuel consumption and dependency. Of all oil energy replacement, nearly 60% of the offset enjoyed in Western Europe over the last decade is attributab le to fossil fuel replacement with biomass energy. Each of the other renewable energy sources individually represents less than 10% of the oil energy offsets. Eighty percent of the heating oil burned in the U.S. is burned in the largely rural northeastern U.S. Awareness of this substantial dependency and the associated environmental and Þnancial impacts has led private entities to spend several years preparing biomass heating opportunities for homes, businesses, and institutions. Some of the cleanest burni ng small scale cordwood and pellet burning appliances available in the world are being made available in the Northeast to help allay some of this fossil fuel dependency. Like all U.S. markets, this small boiler market has struggled to sustain itself in th e face of widespread recession. Despite the generally gloomy economic picture, late spring of 2010 showed promise of growing boiler replacement activity, mostly in the small commercial and institutional segments. The release in June of proposed EPA regula tions that would, if enacted, affect even very small boilers, deadened the market enthusiasm for boiler replacement. Potential end

- users worried about equipment being made obsolete by retro

- active rule changes and about costly add

- ons and annual tests or m andated, on

- going work practice standards. As European boiler manufacturers, distributors, and installing technicians consider the need to replace an enormous inventory of fossil fuel boilers of all sizes that will be made useless by depleted supply in a matter of several short decades, they worry about the reality of successful manufacture and replacement on such a short timeline. The U.S. unwittingly faces the same challenge. To compound that problem with the introduction of these proposed standards

— sta ndards that are not achieved frequently even among countries that have been more attentive to emissions than ours has

— and to mandate annual testing or work practice standards as further burden to the technical community would seem burdensome enough to make a large looming problem insurmountable.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. In addition, tune

- ups are required bienn ially instead of annually. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Duane C. Feagley Commen ter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Anthracite Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1052.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed Boiler MACT standards threaten to tighten current operating specs even further. The net effect will cause facilities using anthracite coal to convert to other sources of energy.Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT stand ards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Carolina Dauzat Commenter Affiliation: Rex Lumber Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0610 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Biomass has always been effectively used as an alternative energy source in our industry, these rules are not in sync with the President’s own push for greater use of alternative
energy sources.

Response: EPA is charged w ith regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the ben eficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Thomas McMillan Commenter Affiliation: Baldwin Pole and Piling Co., Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0608.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: At the current MMBTU price of natural gas we are certain our drying cost would be less with gas compared to the bark boiler drying cost after factoring in depreciatio n associated with the new regulations. This may not be the case if gas prices go back to high market levels of several years ago. This uncertainty coupled with the fact that we believe we are contributing in our own small way to alleviating our nations dep endence on fossil fuels by burning wood waste has kept us from considering a switch back to gas. Now, if these proposed Boiler MACT regulations become law, we will have no choice but to switch.

Thank you for allowing our company to comment. We believe we have a common goal with our government to achieve what is best for the country and that this issue should be able to be resolved without forcing us back to dependence on oil or gas. We are asking you to provide us with regulations that will continue to al low us to bum our own waste residues for boiler fuel.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for furthe r discussion.Commenter Name: Mike Hubbard Commenter Affiliation: National Council of Textile Organizations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1062 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Loss of more US jobs to foreign competitors with no effective emissions controls: We note that the US textile segment is a clean industry. US mills use about one?fourth of the coal used by a Chinese mill for a single pound of production. Further, the US m ills already produce far less emissions per pound of coal than our Chinese counterparts. We also note that the companies using boilers typically do so in support of other operations like dyeing and finishing, which require significant expense and effort to maintain air and water quality. US companies manage these operations, but many of our foreign competitors do not. If the goal of the US Government is to improve the environment, moving production from clean US companies to companies in China will have the opposite effect. The result will be greater mercury emissions in addition to other forms of air and water pollution due to poor controls in some of the largest textile and apparel producing countries.

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial , commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use coal as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. Considering the impact on emissions from other countries is outside the scope of this r ulemaking.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: The League also notes that the pro posed boiler rules for major and area sources are contrary to the efforts of the current administration with regards to "green" energy initiatives. The proposed rules provide for a distinctive

-- provides for dis

- -- provides for a disincentive for the use of renewable resources and the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels. All Louisiana sugar mills utilize bagasse

- fired boilers as the primary source of power for mill operations, with nearly 100 percent of the bagasse burned at any given mill being generated on

site. Although a couple of mills supplement the bagasse with clean wood products during initial
start

- up, none supplements with fuel oil or coal.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will

r educe the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: CitizenDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed requirements for tighter emission standards and annual testing are very expensive; and will essentially eliminate wood as a viable, cost effective fuel for the small rural commercial/industrial and farm user.

Response: All new and existing boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr do not have limits but must conduct tune

- ups, the revisions will reduce the burden for facilities to comply with the final rule.

Commenter Name: George M. Israel Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Cham ber of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1996.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: If enacted in its current form, this standard would have a detrimental impact on the development of electric energy from Georgia biomass.

The propose d standard contradicts the administration’s desire for increased use of renewable energy sources for power generation. The proposed emissions limitations for new boilers fueled by biomass would impose a suite of standards that, under the best circumstances , would substantially increase the cost of any new biomass

- fueled boiler.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth Keokosky Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2230 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: I also believe that biomass ha s the possibility of being a very important contributer to the decrease in global warming, renewable energy, energy independence and the rural economy. In your proposal describing the pollutants you state "We do not know the extent to which the adverse he alth effects described above occur in the populations surrounding these facilities." But we do know the effects of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and methane emissions on the world. And we do know the effects of resouce wars for oil in the mid

- east and oil pollution in the Gulf.Considering that there is no energy source at this time that does not have some down side, perhaps it is better to use a life cycle analysis rather than piecemeal demolition making it impossible for an infant industry to gain a foothold. Biomass has great potential for partial fossil fuel replacement. CO and PM pollution is not trivial but let us support research that allows us to find the time and technology to alleviate adverse effects rather than set unrealistic standards before we are capable of meeti ng them. Let us do everything we can to increase stove and boiler efficiency and make the rules which guide responsible use of biomass in a sustainable fashion.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Cleaves Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Powe Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1992.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA Needs to Appreciate Renewable Energy Policy Implications of these Rules We have a number of specific recommendations regarding these three inter

- related rulemakings, which appear below. Before addressing the rule, however, it is critically important for EPA to understand both the gravity of the problem created by what h as been proposed and the impact these rules will cause to a larger effort underway in this country to fight climate change, strengthen the health of our forests and agricultural lands, and grow the green jobs economy

- each a critically important policy in itiative in the Congress, at the White House, and for the 46 states and territories who have adopted renewable portfolio standards that include support for biomass. To place biomass energy in the context of the larger push for renewable energy, consider t he current and potential significance of biomass power. DOE estimates that biomass generates 45 billion kilowatt

- hours of electricity from biomass, or 1.2 percent of total electric energy sales. If

on

- site power is considered along with thermal, the actual contribution from biomass is four times that estimate. In any event, biomass provides over 50% of the Nation’s renewable energy supply, and DOE believes that potential biomass could supply as much as 14 percent of the Nation’s power needs by 2030. Without biomass, it is uniformly believed

— from members of Congress to members of the Cabinet

— that the Nation will be unable to meet increased renewable energy goals. Unlike wind or solar, biomass energy is baseload generation, available 24/7, and does not requir e expensive new transmission infrastructure. And unlike many other renewable sources, biomass is a “jobs creating machine” for rural America. A recent study authored by Navigant Consulting estimated that the build out of biomass in just five southeastern s tates could double the Nation’s biomass capacity and create 60,000 new jobs. Biomass is not just an untapped source of renewable energy; it’s also an enormous environmental challenge that poses significant ecological risks. Consider the recent call for he lpby the Western Governors Association for the federal government to adopt a “cohesive federal policy on the use of biomass for energy production” to combat pine bark beetle infestations that have decimated 21 million acres, creating ecological and safety risks to rural communities. As expressed by the WGA, “biomass utilization represents one of the most viable new means available to address this ecological crisis, while decreasing fossil fuel usage and stabilizing a depressed lumber and forest

- product mar ket.” See August 10, Press Release, “Increased Use of Biomass Energy, Improved Forest Health Requires Cohesive Federal Policy” (at www.wga.org)

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heater s and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass. Please note that greenhou se gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Fred Gordon Commenter Affiliation: Herman Miller, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2046.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The manufac ture of office furniture requires the use of wood and wood composite materials. The Company is a progressive steward in the use of renewable and sustainable natural resources. The use of engineered wood products have enhanced the performance and extended
t he effective service life of our products using various wood manufacturing techniques while at the same time reducing the environmental impact on wood resources and the environment.

Wood residuals and other cellulosic secondary materials that might otherwise be discarded and transported to a landfill for disposal are being manufactured into a stable board using resins and glues. The Company purchases such materials for beneficial reus e which become the backbone of any number of innovative and functional furniture products. In so doing, what otherwise would be a "waste" is converted into usable and often superior performing raw material products.

As part of its facility operations, th e Company utilizes wood

— fired combustion unit for energy recovery to generate steam for heating and cooling of the facility, as well as humidification of the buildings. The steam boiler is equipped with pollution control equipment to minimize emissions fro m the boiler. Routine operation of the boiler includes combustion of particleboard
cut

- offs and trimmings from the facility’s manufacturing operations, along with scrap wood and pallets and paper and cardboard from facility operations. Recent consumption o f particle board, wood and paper/cardboard has provided greater than 90% of the heat input to this boiler, providing, on average, over 7,000 MMBTUs per month from these cellulosic biomass fuels. If not for the ability to beneficially use these renewable bi omass fuel sources, the Company would need to consume substantial equivalent amounts of fossil fuels.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the bu rden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Douglas I. Greenhaus Commenter Affiliation: National Automobile Dealers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2047.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The compliant on

- site burning of used motor oils, in space heaters or otherwise, promotes an array of benefits including environmental (no off

- site mismanagement, no off

- site transport, etc), energy security, fuel cost r eduction, and the elimination of potential of off

- site liability risks.

The space heater regulation keys on three criteria:

1. Burning only the dealership’s used oil and that of DIYs. 2. Burning only in units of .5 million Btu’s/hour or less. 3. Vent ing of combustion gases to the atmosphere.

Response: Classification of used oil pertains to the Identification of Non

- Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste and it is out of scope for this boiler rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Vast areas of federal, state and private forests in the Western U.S. are identified for fuels reduction that reduces wildfire risk to communities and protects critical forest resources. Large landscapes are being impacted by bark beetle; removing the haza rd trees generates large volumes of wood materials that currently have few local options for value?added products. Options for local, small’scale energy uses such as heating school campuses, prisons, and greenhouse complexes are a cost effective way of uti lizing the forest and manufacturing residues, while contributing to community and state renewable energy goals. Larger bioenergy facilities also have a role in the western landscape in the form of combined heat and power, industrial boilers, and community energy systems, and are currently one of the major producers of renewable energy for the United States. The draft Area Source and Major Source Rules will directly impact the cost and viability of existing and new systems. Unfortunately, these rules potent ially have the unintended consequence of providing no options for using forest residues other than slash pile burning in the forest. This option alone cannot provide our nation with the resources needed to maintain healthy forests and help meet renewable e nergy standards. Although the rulemaking process such as theMACT standards are not required to look at these trade?offs and the alternative fates, the reality is that clean burning of forest biomass in modern high efficiency biomass boilers creates many b enefits for society beyond renewable energy because it reduces this alternative source of emissions while producing renewable energy.

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass.

Commenter Name: Joseph M. Cloutier Commenter Affiliation: RE

- Gen, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2284.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: RE

- Gen is concerned that the EPA’s proposed rules will: Diminish our country’s energy security; Affect our effor ts to meet our nation’s state Renewable Standard Portfolios; Reduce our ability to grow energy jobs through new companies like RE

- Gen, LLC and Renewable Energy Fuels, LLC; Stall or diminish the ability for RE

- Gen and/or its clients to develop biomass proje cts; Derail the effort to strengthen the health of our forests and agricultural lands; and Distract our fight to better climate change

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GAC T PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Nam e: Steven W. Koehn Commenter Affiliation: National Association of State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2220.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: NASF has an interest in promoting markets for forest products including forest derive d biomass. New markets for biomass have significant potential to improve the management of both private and public forest lands. We have concerns that the proposed Area Source rule will prevent new markets for forest biomass from developing. Unnecessarily stringent regulations in the proposed rule can be cost prohibitive and have the potential to prevent new investment in wood

- based bioenergy facilities. This will cause boilers to increase their use of fossil fuels which runs counter to the nation’s renewab le energy goals. Further, lack of markets for biomass will increase onsite open burning which can have negative public health impacts due to the release of methane and black carbon. We strongly encourage EPA to avoidfinalizing regulations that have uninte nded consequences that limits forest role in delaying the nation’s shift to clean, renewable energy.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the bur den to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Michael A. Zapkin Commenter Affiliation: Eastman Kodak Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2170.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed boiler MACT creates emissions standards for oil

- fired boilers that are unnecessarily stringent that will significantly increase the cost of power for Kodak. This increase in costs will make Kodak’s US manufacturing less competitive and potentially jeopardizing these US manufacturing operations. Kodak proposes that EPA develop more reasonable standards that are achievable i n practice, consistent with Clean Air Act requirements. Detailed comments follow below.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valu able environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: John Karakash Commenter Affiliation: Resource Professionals Group, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2194 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: RPG is a consulting firm serving governmental agenc ies, utility companies and businesses working to lower demand on foreign oil, mitigate climate change and increase local employment in green collar jobs. A 14 person tour of renewable energy and forest management work in Austria initiated by RPG’s managing consultant led to publication by Science of the Policy Forum article “Wood Energy in America” in March, 2009 (Richter, et al.) Today, RPG is completing the final report of a USDA sponsored national survey of architects and design engineers on their intere st and needs in specifying modern equipment that can heat and cool commercial class buildings using wood fuels.

We believe clean air obligations can be achieved more quickly, to a larger degree and at lower cost if EPA would take a more broad approach in limiting particulate and carbon emissions and increase the collaborative base in ways that have not been addressed by the rules as proposed.As drafted, adoption of the proposed rules will limit, without scientific basis, nascent growth of the only indu stry that can significantly and simultaneously solve multiple problems, each recognized and being inadequately addressed in other ways. EPA has the potential with a comprehensive approach to:

enable commercial class building designers to meet mandates to cut fossil energy use and carbon emissions; lower the expense associated with wildfire prevention, suppression, and loss of life and property and release of uncontrolled emissions; stimulate a fungible shift of natural gas from thermal use into clean tr ansportation fuels.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Mat Ehrhardt Commenter Affiliation: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1995.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: CAPCOA strongly supports efforts to reduce risks associated with emissions o f air toxics and CAPCOA’s member agencies have long been EPA’s partner in such efforts. However, we are concerned that the proposed Area Source MACT standards will not achieve the desired goal of reducing toxic emissions risk to the nation’s residents, but will create difficulties in meeting a great number of environmental goals of the state of California. We believe that the effect of the standards will be to cause increases in NOx and PM2.5, or shutdowns of existing facilities, causing significant environ mental impacts that have not been adequately addressed by EPA. We are also concerned that EPA’s statements regarding applicability of the MACT standards may have limit the potential for affected parties for participating in the public process.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: John Ledger Commenter Affiliation: Associated Oregon Industries Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2024.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The severity of the proposed standards may lead to the perverse effect of disincentivizing projects that otherwise would realize environm ental improvements.Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Bruce Lisle Commenter Affiliation: Biofuel Boiler Technologies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1981.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Because of the “one size fits all” proposed rule, an installation of small biomass boilers in churches, schools, commercial establishments, will not take place because the proposed control equipment will be more expensive than the boiler equipment and the skill set necessary to operate such control equipment will not be available. This will have the effect of shutting down this marketplace.

Response: Small boilers less than 10 mmBtu/hr do not have applicable limits in the final rule but must perform tun e

- ups, minimizing the burden to boiler operators.

Commenter Name: Mary L. Frontczak Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2163.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: This discrimination against coal extends t o EPA’s proposed area source boiler rule. Area source natural gas

- fueled boilers are not even regulated under that rule, while coal

- fueled boilers are. This will require owners and operators of area source coal

- fueled boilers to spend an additional $160 mi llion in annualized capital costs to comply with the rule.

EPA’s discrimination against coal will evidently have its desired effect. EPA projects that "... the majority of new boilers and process heaters will be built to fire natural gas as opposed to so lid and liquid fuels.” According to the Agency, no new coal

- fueled units will be built in the next three years, while 33 new natural gas/refinery gas units will be built. Moreover, according to comments filed in this docket today by the Industrial Energy C onsumers of America ("IECA") (at page 4), fuel switching caused by the Boiler MACT rule will increase natural gas demand by .65 TCF to .85 TCF in a relatively short time period. As set forth in the IECA comments, this is equal to a 3% increase in national demand (natural gas demand increased by only 2.81 % from 1996 to 2008) and will bring the country to a level of natural gas demand that EIA has not forecast until 2025.

Response: It is necessary to note that the limits of this rule were not a factor in projecting the number of new units. Rather, projections were based on the economic outlook of the energy sector. With the revised emission limits switching to natural gas as a compliance option should be minimized.Commenter Name: Charles B. Jones, III Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Traditional Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1923.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA’s approach focus on individual HAPs has resulted in a failure to recognize the interplay betw een emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, GTMA is concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitations for CO will result in increased energy usage, with the concomitant increase in emissions of NOx and other pollutants. It appears that EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Steven A. Brink Commenter Affiliation: California Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2026.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The standards in the proposed rule could cause existing biomass boilers to add Hg and HCL contr ol technologies, such as activated carbon injection, carbon beds, or wet scrubbers and CO control technology (afterburners or catalytic oxidizers). The likely outcome would be very small emission reductions and likely be prohibitively expensive for anyone to make the investments. The result would be millions of tons of biomass open burned or land

- filled and additional fossil fuels to replace the renewable energy that is currently produced by biomass boilers.

Response: Biomass boile r s do not have Hg or HC l limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Fred Gordon Commenter Affiliation: Herman Miller, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2046.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Production operations and techniques at our manufacturing plants are optimized to increase yield while minimizing waste and scrap. Yield improvement further reduces waste at the same time minimizing raw material demands and consumption. Resin and glue con taining engineering wood products are being used in many applications including the building trades and other commercial applications. Cut

- offs and trimmings are inevitable "byproducts" of the use ofthese engineered wood products. These byproducts provide a viable biomass fuel for small energy recovery boilers such as ours.

Applying emissions standards which are practicably unachievable to small energy recovery boilers such as ours will circumvent the opportunities to reuse, recycle and/or reclaim the fu el value of the types of residual wood materials we have described above. This would be an environmental step backwards. It would prevent the best use and reuse of these biomass materials. Strictly regulating energy recovery units such as ours will effecti vely force manufacturers to landfill viable raw materials and stifle additional innovation and environmental
progress.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Tyler McShan Commenter Affiliation: McShan Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1380 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: People still burn their yards to kill insect pests and just last year the Federal government PAID us to burn thousands of acres of timberland to cut down on the fuel supply and decrease the risk of wild fire. We do some of this every year anyway, last year we just got paid for it. Our boiler is used to burn sawdust that is generated by sawing lumber. The steam is then used to dry our lumber. The fuel is the same material (pine trees) that we were paid to burn last year. If this fuel was not burned we would have to pay someone to dispose of it and we would have to burn natural gas or fuel oil to dry our lumber. In today’s completive market, this would not be feasible. We could not compete and would have to shut down. The only job s in Pickens County in the private sector are in forest products or raising and processing chickens. After 4 generations for raising trees, a renewable source of building products and fuel for renewable energy, I would hate to have to try raising chickens. Not only would our 58 employees be out of work, but the people who cut and haul logs to our mill and our lumber from it would have to find something else to do as well. There has been a lot of hope placed in the future of biofuel and the utilization of o ur forest products as a source of truly green renewable energy. In fact Alabama Power has struck a deal with one of our much larger neighbor sawmills for them to generate renewable power to replace some of that that is currently produced by burning coal. I hope they have already started construction of the boiler to be used for that project because as I understand your proposed regs it is not likely a new boiler could comply.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rul e, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Richard Bellefleur Commenter Affiliation: Wellons FEI, Corp Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 07 90

- 1300.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: A large portion of the end users that will be affected by these proposed rules will be hospitals, schools and small industries looking for a way out of high priced fossil fuels. Most of these potential projects would be in economically challenged rural areas were there is a significant downturn in the forest industry. With these new proposed rules most of these potential projects would no longer be feasible and the ones that are currently in operation would have to be shut down or retrofitted at significant cost to the end user. We think that the EPA should moderate their position on this issue to take into account the social

- economic factors at hand, especially with the smaller scaled and sometimes financially b urdened projects that are affected by the area source rules and regulations.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards which will reduce the compliance burden.

Commenter Name: Steven D. Swanson Commenter Affiliation: Swanson G roup, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1241 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Our company has, in the past, seriously considered installing new biomass boilers fitted with turbines that can generate clean, "green" power to meet our Natio n’s growing demand for renewable energy. Unfortunately, the stringent limits proposed in the Area Source and MACT rule will make projects that are already marginally economical to be that much less so, meaning that in our case, these projects will not occu r. This rule will serve to significantly dis

incentivize new biomass power projects, which until now, had been promoted by both State and Federal programs.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products AssociationDocument Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: While only 22 (19 Area Source and 3 Major Source) of these wood

- fired boilers are currently permitted in Missouri, hundreds of smaller boilers are either operating in or planned to be built in the near future. Included are the “Fuels for Schools” project to replace old fuel oil boilers with modern wood

- fired boilers at seven schools in southern Missouri that is on hold, pending EPA’s final Solid Waste and Boiler rules. Unintended Consequences of this Proposal In a recent article, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack was quoted as saying, “Energy derived from woody biomass has enormous potential benefits for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, developing clean, home

- grown energy, and providing economic opportunities for rural America. Markets for woody biomass can also bolster forest restoration efforts on both public and private lands, improving the ecological health of our forests and reducing the impacts of global climate change.” So true! [Footnote 1: Woody Biomass Utilization, Promoting Healthy Forests and Rural Economies, Newsline, Vol. 9 No. 3, 2010.] Woody biomass provides a cost effective and renewable alternative to fossil fuels. At the same time woody bioma ss is nearly greenhouse gas (GHG) neutral when it comes from sustainably managed forest lands. Biomass energy currently accounts for about 53% of the nation’s renewable energy use or about 4% of our nation’s total energy use (EIA Energy Review, 2008). The preponderance of this woody biomass energy production is by forest related industries, where sawmills supply 74% of their own energy needs from wood by

- products of the manufacturing process. [Footnote 2: Greenhouse Gas and Carbon Profile of the U.S. Forest Products Industry Value Chain, Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44, No. 10, 2010.] The new rules proposed by the EPA will directly impact both forest landowners and forest products companies. Forest management efforts across the nation will be im peded by reductions in markets for low quality wood thus further reducing a landowner’s ability to influence forest composition and forest health. Wood utilized in the U.S. to manufacture forest products is primarily produced on privately

- owned forest land that allows forest landowners to profitably continue sustainable forest management.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilitie s. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John Ussery Commenter Affiliation: Northern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The monitoring requirements of proposed regulations would create an excessive economic cost that would destroy the cost advantage of using this renewable resource and hamper the government’s efforts to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires

.Response: Emission limits and the associated monitoring requirements are revised for the final rule, reducing the burden for compliance.

Commenter Name: Kerry Flick Commenter Affiliation: Metso Power Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1490.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: If the ruling is written into law as proposed, the future of the U.S. biomass renewable energy market willbe significantly impacted. Most new plants will not be feasible from a financial pers pective given the high costs associated with the integration of needed technologies and equipment. There will be a significant increase in the cost to make power and Utilities will be forced to pass this onto the consumer. resulting in a much higher price for electricity. Thus, it is believed that the proposed ruling will discourage, if not eliminate, new development of renewable biomass power. We believe that this is not the intent of the current Administration from an energy or economic policy perspective . As a form of renewable energy, biomass energy is CO 2 neutral hence does not contribute to the global green house gas emissions. Furthermore, producing energy form biomass clearly helps our rural economy and energy security.

Response: Limits for existi ng biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas

e missions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: William H. Verner Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Electric Membership Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1797.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

C omment: Also this proposed rule is in direct conflict with the administration’s push for renewables, in that renewable biomass facilities would be subject to this rule. This could jeopardize

Response: Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from bioma ss boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking, however we believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John Ussery Commenter Affiliation: Nort hern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Northern Mew Mexico College has been planning to install biomass boilers to as part of an ARRA funded upgrade of the heating systems for its El Rito campus. These plans are threatened by the proposed rule. The fuel for these boilers was to have been cordwood and wood scrap obtained from the otherwise unmerchantable wood created by the thinning of the adjacent Carson National Forest. Decades of fire suppression have led to dangerous and unhealthy forests that are at risk of catastrophic wildfire. Extinguishing the natural occurrence of periodic fire has allowed the growth of a significant amount of excess small trees in the forest. The se serve as ladder fuels that are leading to an increase in the number of fires and the intensity of these fires. This increased severity not only threatens communities in these forested landscapes, but releases a tremendous amount of pollution that contai ns many more harmful emissions than wood fired boilers.

Current US Forest Service procedures for forest restoration and hazardous fuel reduction call for the cutting and in most cases burning the excess trees to reduce stand density and to remove unhealt hy trees. Nationwide there are hundreds of millions of acres of national forest that need this treatment.

The thinning of these dense forests usually requires the cutting of 200 to 2000 trees per acre. The amount of fuel brought to the forest floor throu gh thinning can range between 10 and 40 dry tons per acre. The material that is not removed for firewood or other purposes is left to dry so it can be later burned through controlled burns. Over a thousand acres of forest are being thinned this year in jus t the El Rito ranger district of the Carson National Forest near the campus.

Just this week (August 20, 2010) the USDA announced funding for a restoration plan for more than 200,000 acres in the southwestern Jemez Mountains that will receive up to $40 mi llion in federal funds over the next 10 years. This will include the thinning of 90,000 acres, with a target of reducing the number of trees to 40 or 50 per acre from the current 1200 to 2000 per acre. This will create a huge volume of forest fuels that if they are not removed and used as residential or industrial fuels, will either be left to rot, thereby producing large amounts of methane, or more likely, will be disposed of through controlled burns. There are no pulpwood plants or other industries in New Mexico that are able to put these materials to other use.

The open fires of controlled burns usually last for several days and create huge columns of particulate laden smoke that can usually be seen fifty miles away. This smoke creates a health hazard f or those living downwind.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input, but the EPA did not have ample time or data to analyze the potential impacts the rule may have on open burning. However, limits for existing biomass boilers are not inclu ded in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John UsseryCommenter Affiliation: Northern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The emissions of biomass boilers should not be compared to those using non

renewable fossil fuels. The combustion of fossil fuels represents a net addition of carbon to our atmosphere that already bears an excess ive load of carbon. The burning of coal, petroleum and natural gas adds hundreds of millions of tons of carbon which the planet has stored for millions of years. The burning of wood is carbon neutral because it is part of the natural cycle of fixing and re leasing carbon on an ongoing basis.

Properly designed biomass boilers minimize the emission of particulates and combustion byproducts compared to what would be generated by the open burning of forest residues. This reduction would be greater than ninety percent.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input, but the EPA did not have ample time or data to analyze the potential impacts the rule may have on open burning. However, limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The secondary use of wood residues, by

- products of the manufacturing process, for energy production offers societal, economic, and other benefits including greater overall energy efficiency, less reliance on fossil fuels for energy, lo wer GHG emissions, less use of landfill capacity, more U.S. manufacturing jobs, and enhanced use of sustainable American forest products. In fact, the U.S. forest products industry produces more renewable energy than the total produced by wind, solar and g eothermal sources combined! Without wood as a source of fuel for renewable energy production, it is highly unlikely that the state of Missouri will be able to meet its 15% renewable energy mandate by 2021. This is an ou tcome that the EPA should fully
suppo rt, however, the proposed rule will likely have the opposite effect. MFPA asserts that the EPA is not justified in regulating Major or Area Source Biomass Boilers due to the net positive contribution of growing trees and storing carbon in forest products on the carbon cycle. The net annual addition of carbon in forest and paper products is sufficient to offset all direct GHG emissions as well as all indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity by the forest products industry.

Response: EPA i s charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discour age thebeneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Excessive requirements on new boilers: The excessive requirements on new boilers are a disincentive for small businesses to purchase one. Bo ilers are already expensive; the requirements will make new ones even more so. This runs counter to limiting air emissions. New boilers already run cleaner than older ones. EPA could achieve its goal of reducing air emissions by incentivizing the purchase of newer, more efficient boilers. For example, EPA could exempt new boilers entirely, or allow the purchase of a new boiler to waive the annual testing requirements for at least five years.

EPA could have reduced the burden on small entities by providing an exemption on boilers that are only used once or twice per week or for a total of a few hours. Instead, the rule now broadly affects the smallest of small businesses

— and is likely to impact small institutions like schools and churches.

Response: Al l new and existing boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr do not have limits but must conduct tune

- ups, the revisions will reduce the burden for facilities to comply with the final rule.

Commenter Name: David Schutz and John Ussery Comme nter Affiliation: Northern New Mexico College Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1834.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: Nationwide there is enormous benefit for increased use of biomass as fuel. These benefits, as well as the negative impact of restricting the use of biomass fuels are laid out in great detail in the attached National Renewable Energy Laboratory report “The Value of the Benefits of U.S. Biomass Power”

Since the Forest Service has only limited funds to pay for forest thinning, the creation of a biomass fuel market for thinning products would increase the number of acres that could be done with the dollars a vailable. There are hundreds of millions of acres of national forest that require treatment for hazardous fuel reduction, but most of this will remain untreated if there are no commercial uses for the material generated in the process.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: William H. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Carlson Small Power Consultants Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1493.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: For discussion in this section, it will be assumed the existing fleet of >1OmmBtuJhr biomass boiler will require a catalytic CO unit for CO compliance and an ESP unit for PM compliance, a combined investment of several million dollars, even on a modest sized unit.

There are basically two categories that make up the greater than 10 million Btu/hr family of biomass boilers in the U.S. : 1 Process steam boilers in the forest p roducts industry, with and without power generation 2 Independent power biomass boilers supporting renewable power generation

In neither case does the boiler owner have any shred of cost pass through ability. The forest products owner is hemmed in by Ca nadian and international competition and unable to raise product prices. His alternative to a need for a large capital investment is to revert to burning natural gas, oil or propane in his boiler. This outcome is no win for air quality and national
energy security.

The independent power industry is a more complex issue and there have been small pockets in the U.S. (CA, New England) that, at times in the past could have supported the types of capital investments required by your proposed regulations, and i n fact some in these pockets are included in our top 12%. More generally, new biomass power is a marginal investment, needing substantial incentives, a state RPS and cheap fuel to go forward. Virtually everywhere in the U.S., the availability of cheap wind power limits the upside for biomass investments.

The situation for existing biomass power is even worse. Most projects either have ended their original PURPA power contracts or are close to the end. These plants,in most states having RPS legislation, wi ll not qualify for that states’ RPS because only projects "new" since a certain date qualify. I have several clients in this circumstance and they will not be adding additional pollution control equipment; believe me.

You will notice in the above descrip tions I have not mentioned electric utility ownership of biomass power facilities. That is because you can basically count the biomass power facilities owned by traditional electric utilities in their own service territories on one hand. If you were thinki ng that the plants would have a mechanism to pass through increased costs to ratepayers, you were mistaken.

A quick history lesson is in order here. Biomass boilers were installed initially in the forest products industry, though more expensive than foss il fuel boilers, as air quality restrictions on"tepee" burners eliminated that option for mill residual disposal. So, initially, they themselves were a form of pollution control.

The second wave of additions in the 1980’s, was a product of PURPA as utilities were required to purchase the power output from biomass power facilities and fossil based "avoided cost" prices were high at the time. That wave closed the last of the tepee bu rners, brought an option for diverting wood from urban waste streams ahead of landfills, diverted various ag wastes away from open burning and created a home for the noncommercial fraction of fuel from forest management activities designed to lower fire po tential, increase forest vim and vigor and eliminate open burning. All of these diversions had positive national air quality outcomes.

The latest round of industry growth, beginning about 2004

- 2005 was fueled by the availability of tax credits and the ne w state adoptions of RPS standards. This expansion is taking place in areas of the country with historic low power prices (Pacific Northwest, upper Midwest, South) and will feature the same forest management residuals and urban wood diversion as other geog raphic areas. An added benefit to this round of expansions is that forest slash piles will be utilized as fuel versus their traditional method of disposal by open burning. Again, this round of expansion will be a win for national air quality.

With that b ackground and explanation, what do I believe will be the practical impact of EPA’s adoption of the boiler MACT rules for biomass as proposed? For existing forest products industry boilers there will be a mass exodus to natural gas, propane or oil. Those cu rrently considering biomass CHP facilities to eliminate fossil fuel boilers or to replace older boilers will kill those plans overnight.

For the existing fleet of biomass power facilities, the decision will simply be to close on the day prior to the effe ctive date of the new regulations. This will clearly be the last straw for these facilities, as they have no mechanism to pay for these costs and are currently running only to meet long term contract obligations.

The impact on the new expanding biomass p ower industry will be even more immediate. The proposed rules, coupled with EPA’s proposed Tailoring Rule for biomass, will shut down the new industry immediately, and even the threat of this action is beginning that shutdown. Banks will no longer be inter ested in lending to an industry with this capital cost structure, or this level of compliance uncertainty. Manufacturer guarantees will be worthless because of the caveats associated with including startup and shutdown emissions. That shutdown will be wide spread and final, except for perhaps a few utility sponsored projects that know that they can pass through whatever the costs turn out to be.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only mee t a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Steven JarvisCommenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: The EPA proposed rule states that new boiler purchasers have the option of selecting gaseous fuel types that are cleaner to avoid emissions testing. The estimated cost of biomass boiler emiss ion controls at a typical forest products facility will be more expensive than the purchase of a brand new natural gas boiler. However, in many rural areas, natural gas pipelines do not exist and propane is a much more expensive alternative gaseous fuel ty pe. EPA’s proposal rules will force a switch from a renewable and less costly fuel (wood) to natural gas, fuel oil or propane (that is five to six times more expensive per Btu than wood fuel) which are also fossil fuels! MFPA claims that it is economicall y essential for the forest products industry to produce heat and power from existing biomass boilers rather than switching to natural gas or other gaseous fuels. Besides the boiler replacement cost, using natural gas or other gaseous fuels will greatly inc rease heat and power operating costs and create a disposal problem for the wood by

- products that used to be burned as a wood fuel and cannot be sold for non

- fuel purposes.

Response: The final rule has revised limits and new biomass boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Steven Jarvis Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Forest Products Association Document Control Numbe r: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1477.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: It is confusing to MFPA members that every other agency, except the EPA, seems to recognize the importance of wood as a renewable fuel source. It is equally confusing that all agencies don’t seem to recognize the dependence of the forest products industry has on wood for energy production. Simply put, the industry could not operate without using wood for energy.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizin g the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, CIBO Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1783.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40Co mment: EPA states in the Proposed Rule that "new facilities [have] the option of fuel selection in minimizing their compliance costs." 75 FR 31909. This is statement is not accurate. First, specific fuel types are not available at different locations, and new units may need to burn a specific fuel to be viable. Second, EPA cannot arbitrarily set a standard that eliminates a source’s ability to burn specific fuels. This may be the exact case when considering biomass units. EPA has established emission standa rds as stringent as coal for renewable fuels such as biomass. This could discourage the use of renewable fuels. For a comprehensive discussion of these issues, please refer to CIBO’s comments on the Proposed Boiler MACT Rule. [See DCN: 2006

- 0790

- 1783.2 for related comments.]

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impac ts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Bill Perdue Commenter Affiliation: American Home Furnishings Alliance, AHFA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1970.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The wood furniture manufacturing industry burns kiln dri ed wood containing less than 20% moisture to generate the heat and steam necessary to manufacture our finished product. This fuel is produced directly from the furniture manufacturing process. Our industry is one of the original recycling sectors in indust rial manufacturing. Modern manufacturers achieve approximately 50% yield from sawmill wood stock. Rather than dispose of the remaining 50% dry wood biomass in a landfill, the biomass “off

- fall” is beneficially used to produce energy. By combusting kiln dri ed wood in steam generating boilers, the wood furniture industry avoids reliance on fossil fuels for process and domestic heating purposes. Combustion of our wood fuel also precludes landfilling the wood off

- fall, which would add environmental insult to th e injury of being prevented from using a valuable fuel commodity. The proposed rule, in concert with the parallel rulemaking Emissions Standards for Major Industrial/Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, threaten to put an end to the wi despread use of this domestic, renewable, carbon

- neutral fuel.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble f or further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1915.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: There are numerous publicly funded institutional facilities in Maine that may be unable to cover the necessary capital costs for achieving compliance with the proposed standards. The vast majority of those affected units are less than 10 MMBtu/hr. Discont inuation of those affected units or switching to natural gas are not options (natural gas availability is extremely limited in Maine). EPA’s broad inclusion of all units, regardless of design capacity, is a flawed approach that will have a substantial nega tive economic impact on Maine’s municipalities and public health facilities while the decrease in HAP emissions will be minimal.

Response: All boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr are not subject to emission limits.

Commenter Name: Jon Strimling Commenter Affiliation: American Biomass Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1904.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: High compliance costs will discourage adoption of low cost, low carbon heating fuels in the low

- to

- middle income families who are most in need of clean, affordable heating technologies

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable env ironmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Ardis Almond Commenter Affiliation: Almond Brothers Lumber Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1449.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Here is another personal example from our operation: We have barely survived through the recession and for most of last year ran only 30 hours per week. We were able to survive primarily because we are an export mill cutting lumber for world markets and w ere not as damaged by the housing bust. (We are one of the good guys, helping the trade deficit.) We do not have a boiler, but instead we dry our lumber with a direct fired natural gas kiln. As an engineer, I have had a long range plan of converting our dr ying system from natural gas (a fossil fuel) to a steam kiln with a biomass burning boiler (our own sawdust

– a carbon neutral renewable resource). The plan included a co

- generation system to produce electricity for our plant and possibly some of the commu nity. We have cancelled all work on that project because of Boiler MACT. This was one of the plans for the future to make us more efficient and help our company survive in a competitive world. Now this won’t happen, at least until these restrictive
proposa ls are defeated. Even then, I don’t know if I would ever recommend this, when some group at the EPA could shut down a system with few regulations that do not even have to be approved by Congress.On the one hand, government wants us to use more biomass and at the same time creates regulations that make that impossible. I don’t understand it.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers
must on ly meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Weyerhaeuser is concerned with how biomass is treated as a fuel category in this rule and in the major source Boiler MACT rule. Because Weyerhaeuser is a major grower and provider of timber and manuf acturer of wood and pulp/paper products, we have a significant interest both in the markets for the primary timber resources and secondary materials that end up as biofuels or biomass fuels. As on

- site energy producers and consumers, most of our mills use significant quantities of biomass for fuel in its various forms and from a variety of sources. While some amount of fossil fuels are used at most mills and some smaller mills use only fossil fuels, most of our mills primarily use biomass to fuel their boil ers and process heaters. In fact, using 2009 data as a snapshot, among our five U.S. pulp mills the median biomass

- sourced fuel energy consumed for on

- site energy production was 91% of the total on

- site fuel energy consumed. For our major and area source w ood products mills in the U.S. that utilize biomass fuels, the median biomass fuel energy was 85% of the total on

- site fuel energy consumed. [Footnote: Btu basis, estimated from all biomass fuels used to fire on

- site boilers and process heaters during 2009 . For pulp mills this includes recovery furnaces combusting the biomass contained in the recycled pulping liquors.] Our mills also marketed some 4800 billion BTUs in biomass residuals fuels energy to third parties in 2009. And although we do not have a sp ecific estimate, we expect an even larger additional amount of biomass fuel is derived from our timber and forest residuals sales to third parties. Use of these renewable biomass fuels supports the Nation’s goals to reduce dependence on foreign energy sour ces and reduce the greenhouse gas footprint of energy production. Their use also helps incent the longterm keeping of working forest lands as forest. The AWC comments go into more detail on the Forest Products Industry significant use of biomass to self

- sa tisfy energy needs and the NAFO comments address the growing use and importance of this renewable resource nationwide. For example, the AWC comments identify that there are over 800 boilers and process heaters at wood products facilities in the U.S. and th e majority of these boilers burn biomass.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee Commenter Affiliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1873.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: These actions will greatly increase the growth in demand for Natural Gas, a fossil fuel. In spite of the fuel crisis of a couple of year ago, and the Enron Crisis of a decade ago, this action will have the unintended consequence of driving more energy control into the hands of a few. From recent exper ience, we know that the price of Natural Gas can “sky

- rocket” and catch companies mid

- stream and drive many to bankruptcy. This is certain.

Response: With the revised MACT and GACT standards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators w ill use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Joe Muehlbach Commenter Affiliation: Quad/Graphics Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1961.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: This broad, "hypothetical boiler" approach that EPA is proposing will also have another unintended consequence: it will provide a significant disincentive for conversion of existing coal

- fired boilers to renewable energy fuels such as biomass. The anticip ated cost for compliance for biomass boilers under the proposed approach to a MACT standard will likely be prohibitive for anyone considering such a renewable energy conversion project.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in t he final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: AF&PA is concerned about the impact of the area source rule on our leadership in the national effort to increase the use of renewable energy. Of late, many forest products facilities are reducing their consumption of fossil fuels and increasing their use of biomass. In 2008, 65 percent of the total energy used by AF&PA member pulp and paper mills was generated from renewable sources. At wood products facilities, 74 percent of energy used was produced from biomass sources. The Forest Products Industry leads all other industries in the useof renewable energy and utilization of industry

- generated by

- product materials. In other words, our industry combines a tradition of recycling with a strong degree of energy independence.

For the forest products industry, “sustainability” is not a buzzword or a marketing slogan

-- it is our foundation. We are, and must be, committed to ensur ing that our resources will be as plentiful and available to future generations as they are today; to preserving and growing our contributions to the economy; and to fostering the wellbeing of the communities where we live and work. We responsibly produce essential products to meet basic human needs from renewable and recyclable resources. The economic, societal and environmental aspects of our industry’s sustainability include the following:

* Employing over 900 thousand workers

– more than the automotiv e industry

– often in small rural communities where good paying jobs are critical

* Being among the top ten manufacturing employers in 48 states generating many more jobs in industries throughout the supply chain and in local businesses, which sustain co mmunities and families

* Continuously evolving and innovating our paper, packaging and wood products to meet society’s needs

* Bringing home ownership within reach for millions of Americans

– which enhances economic vitality and social stability

-- by providing affordable, energy

- efficient building materials.

We sustainably use renewable resources since trees provide our raw materials and energy. The industry grows more trees (4 million daily) than are harvested. We practice sustainable forest management, and today America has more forestland than 50 years ago. Demand for forest products keeps millions of acres of land sustainably forested for future use while providing habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities for the community, enhancing our air and water resources and sustaining the economy of the r egion. Finally, our industry has combated illegal logging around the world and supports only responsible/sustainable use of forest

resources.
We produce and use more renewable energy than any other industrial sector

– and more than all the solar, wind an d geothermal power combined. Paper, pulp and wood products mills generate 65% of their energy needs from carbon

- neutral, renewable biomass

– equivalent to 200 million barrels of oil annually. The forest products industry is the nation’s leader in the use o f co

generation technology (also called “combined heat and power”).

A more thorough discussion of these sustainability and renewable fuel issues is contained in our comments on the major source boiler rule (See Section II submitted to Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

2 002

- 0058; we incorporate those comments by reference). That discussion also includes a thorough enumeration of all the other regulatory challenges and impacts affecting the paper and wood products industries, discussions that are also relevant here.One of our major concerns is the impact of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) emission limits proposed for area source boilers. We are concerned that, if implemented as proposed, they could deter building new and eliminate many existing area source boilers. If such a re sult would occur, many of the achievements listed above might be reversed. Additionally, many of the renewable fuels programs in the 30+ states that have implemented them would be challenged to meet their goals. However, we feel that no such dire consequen ce is necessary. We discuss later in these comments the options available to the agency within the confines of the Clean Air Act that would both enable it to reduce HAP and meet statutory requirements. Implementation of these recommendations may enable mos t of the areas source boiler operations of the forest products industry to continue to operate and sustainably contribute to the communities in which they operate.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: W. James Wagoner Commenter Affiliation: Butte County Air Quality Management D istrict Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1993.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The facility is required to utilize agricultural biomass, such as orchard prunings, as fuel. If the plant closes, this material will likely, once again, be dis posed of by open, uncontrolled burning that results in significantly higher criteria pollutant emissions and may also release higher levels of toxic air contaminants into our air basin.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input, but the EPA did not have ample time or data to analyze the potential impacts the rule may have on open burning. However, limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee Commenter Affiliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1873.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: At a time when we should be increasing our sustainability by decreas ing our dependence on fossil fuels, this is a major step backwards for the country. This will have a detrimental effect on development of the very fuels we need to use most to slow the flow of wastes into our landfills.Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Joe Muehlbach Commenter Affiliation: Quad/Graphics Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1961.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: As a company running several manufacturing plants in an ozone non

- attainment zone as well as impacted by PM2.5 non

- attainment we are particularly interested in any action that has the potential to increase NOx emissions. Concerns have been raised by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources that the pollution control approaches required for other pollutants in the rule may have the unintended consequence of increasing NOx emissions. Tremendo us efforts have been made in Southeastern Wisconsin resulting in measurable improvements to the air quality and the state is now on track to comply with both the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards and anything that may set back those efforts are cause for c oncern.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Oil and Wood Use and Prices for the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

- In 2008, New York State used 1.9 billion gallons of distillate fuels (includes #2 home heating oil, kero sene, and diesel fuel) and 557.2 million gallons of residual fuel oil. The commercial sector consumed 76.1, 41.9, and 8.2 trillion British thermal units (Btu) of distillate, residual fuel oil, and wood fuel respectively. Likewise, the industrial sector con sumed 19.7, 6.9, and 14.2 trillion Btu of distillate, residual fuel oil, and wood fuel (NYSERDA, 2010)[footnote: NYSERDA. 2010. Patterns and Trends New York State Energy Profiles: 1994

- 2008. NYSERDA, Albany, NY.] Between the year 2007 and 2008, distillate fuel and residual fuel prices increased by 33% and 43% respectively while natural gas prices increased by a lesser amount, 10

– 14%. This price variation created an economic incentive for facilities to switch fuels. The price of wood for the commercial and industrial sectors is not reported by NYSERDA, however, it has been reported that residential wood prices increased only 3% during this period (NYSERDA, 2010)[ Personal communications with wood fuel industry personnel].

Attempting to replace any signifi cant portion of heating fuels, particularly wood and distillate fuels, with natural gas, propane, or electricity would require extensive infrastructure expansion, excessive lead times, and considerable expense.Response: With the revised MACT and GACT s tandards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators will use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Jon Strimling Commenter Affiliation: American Biomass Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1904.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: If left unchanged, this rule has the potential to inflict catastrophic damage on the wood pellet industry at a tremendous cost to society. The adoption of wood pellet stoves has been driven b y the low cost and environmental benefits of wood pellet fuels. Pellet stoves have in many cases displaced traditional wood stoves, resulting in net benefits to air quality. Wood stove change out programs across the country have spurred pellet stove adopti on and resulted in lower emissions and cleaner air. It is critical for the EPA to understand how wood pellets act as a substitute for other higher emissions biomass fuels like cord wood. If this rule goes into effect, the long term impact on the biomass th ermal industry could be slowed adoption of pellet fuels in stoves and boilers, which will undoubtedly translate to continued use of older, less efficient, higher emissions wood stoves in millions of households across the country.

Response: Limits for ex isting biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. With the final limits, EPA is not providing preferential treatment for one biomass type over another.

Co mmenter Name: Robert L. Garfield Commenter Affiliation: Food Industry Environmental Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1835.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: In fact, it could create an incentive for facilities to switch away from ga s to other fuels. Both outcomes should be avoided.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commen ter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5Comment: Keeping cost impacts of federal regulations for boiler emissions to a minimum is important for th e future of our villages. An increase in cost of the installation and operation of heating systems means people will continue to rely on the import of diesel for heating fuel and the export of local dollars. Unemployment will continue to be significant as biomass harvest jobs fail to materialize.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: David J. Prior Commenter Affiliation: New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, NYSERDA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1913.2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Fuel S witching Away From Wood and Oil

- If petroleum, coal, and/or wood boilers are converted to natural gas in sufficient quantity, there could be an adverse impact within the electricity sector, particularly on peak gas days during winter months when hourly gas demand is at its highest level. The majority of New York’s natural gas electric generation fleet operates with interruptible fuel contracts. On peak gas days when the supply of natural gas for electric generators is diminished due to increased use by firm service end

- use customers, dual

- fueled units would be forced to switch to backup petroleum fuels. Certain gas

- fired units would be unable to operate, and the unmet electricity requirements would have to be met by units that burn coal or oil. This would ha ve an adverse impact on electricity prices, system reliability, and emissions.

Liquid fuels, particularly in the downstate region (Long Island, New York City, and its northern suburbs), play a major role in serving heating demand. The proposed rules may lead to increased fuel conversions away from liquid fuels, where available. Rather than attempt to meet the requirements of the rules, some boiler owners may elect to convert to natural gas or propane, which are given a blanket exemption from the emissions monitoring requirements under the proposed rule. In some instances, increased fuel conversions may lead to localized or regional strain on the natural gas infrastructure, particularly during periods of sustained cold weather that promote high heating dema nd. Depending on the scope, location, and timing of fuel conversions, the capacity of the local, regional and interstate natural gas transmission and distribution system could be challenged to absorb any large scale transition. Propane is available in rur al areas of NYS but not in NYC. However, propane is a more costly fuel and there would be minimal environmental benefits from switching from ultra

- low S home heating oil to propane.

Response: With the revised MACT and GACT standards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators will use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Ass ociation (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Attempting to meet the proposed CO limits will lead to increased NOx emissions and potentially increased PM2.5 and other pollutant emissions for many l iquid

- fired boilers. This could result in making those boilers subject to the NSPS D standards and require New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration analyses and offsets. None of these activities appear to have been addressed in this ru lemaking’s cost or burden analyses or considered in establishing the time needed for compliance. We recommend these impacts be considered as the rule is finalized and that the Agency make clear that the Part 60 General Provision’s pollution exemption appli es to emission increases of criteria pollutants due to modifications associated with complying with this regulation, provide a mechanism for extending compliance time where NSR or PSD permitting is needed, and incorporate the cost of that permitting and of fsets in the economic and other analyses.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: William C. Scott Commenter Affiliation: Collum's Lumber Products, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1796.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The limits are so unreasonable that the impact analysis in the rule assumes that no new biomass boilers will ever be built at major sources. This is absurd given the fact that biomass is greenhouse gas

- neutral and the government is pushing increased use of renewable
energy.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burde n to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. It is necessary to note that the limits of this rule were not a factor in projecting the number of new major source units. Rather, projections were based on the economic outlook of the energy sector.

Commenter Name: Jon Strimling Commenter Affiliation: American Biomass Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1904.1Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The biomass thermal industry has great potenti al to grow, innovate, and support local community energy independence and greenhouse gas reduction through the replacement of fossil fuel heating with high efficiency biomass boilers. As proposed, the only certainty is that the Area Source rule will devast ate the biomass thermal industry and small businesses, and local government and schools will be forced to look for non

- renewable fossil fuels for their heating needs.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: For combination fuel boilers where biomass is routinely a large portion of the fuel heat input but coal is the regulated fuel subcategory, [Footnote: EPA defines the coal subcatego ry in this rule to be when coal makes up at least 10% of the heat input.] the proposed CO limit inadvertently incents increasing the proportion of coal heat input to more easily comply with the standard.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. The subcategory definitions have also been revised.

Commenter Name: Gary Rubenstein Commenter Affiliation: Kauai Island Utility Cooperative, KIUC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2028.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: The rulemaking assessment should also include the effect of boiler locat ion when evaluating feasibility and cost of retrofit requirements. Fuel and infrastructure constraints must be considered. For example, Kauai’s electrical generation and consumption are restricted to the island; electrical interties between the Hawaiian is lands do not exist. Also, there is no natural gas on Kauai. All of KIUC’s generating units at Port Allen are fueled on #2 Diesel fuel, which must be brought to the island by barge from refineries in Honolulu. All of these factors affect the cost and feasib ility of measures that require the use of ultra

- low sulfur fuel or alternative fuels.In addition, KIUC does not own its fuel storage facilities at Port Allen

— KIUC leases tanks from Chevron at its nearby tank farm. A regulation requiring KIUC to use a lo wer sulfur fuel in one type of generating unit would increase KIUC’s costs for fuel storage, as well as for fuel, and thus would impose an additional cost factor. Also contributing to increased costs is that not only fuel but also everything used on the is land must be transported by barge from the mainland or from other countries, via Honolulu. This increases the cost of living and the cost of doing business compared to typical costs on the mainland. Any evaluation of cost

- effectiveness must account for the premiums that will be paid for materials, equipment, and labor at KIUC’s location.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental benefit.

Commenter Name: Robert L. Garfield Commenter Affiliation: Food Industry Environmental Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1835.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: EPA’s focus on individual HAPs has resulted i n a failure to recognize the critical interplay between emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, we are concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitations for carbon monoxide (CO) will result in incr eased energy usage, with the concomitant increase in emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other pollutants. Further, EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal bo ilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1984.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: To meet the proposed area source NESHAP limits may require controls in some circumstances, that will come into conflict with the effluent guidelines for wood products mills that prohibit discharge of process wastewaters. Certain air pollution control devi ces that generate process wastewater have previously been exempted from this effluent guideline when used at facilities also covered by the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP) MACT Rule (subpart DDDD). 40 CFR Part 429, the Timber Products Processing Point Source Category states that "there shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters" for facilities covered under subparts B, C, D and M (dry process hardboard, veneer, finishing, particleboard, sawmills and planing mills ). In conjunction with the PCWP rule, these subparts were narrowly modified to allow discharge from air pollution control devices (APCD) associatedwith controlling HAP emissions covered by PCWP. However, mills in the wood products industry subject to Part 429 cannot legally discharge wet scrubber or other wet control device blowdown from APCD that are installed to comply with this area source NESHAP because they constitute process wastewaters. Scrubbers and wet electrostatic precipitators may be required b y some wood product industry boilers subject to Part 429 in order to comply with these air standards. EPA could avoid this concern by adopting work practice standards to meet the GACT standard and drop the proposed MACT standards as previously discussed, so wood products facilities will not face the problem of a new and potentially high volume process wastewater that is difficult to manage and not possible to permit and discharge from the site. However, if EPA chooses to insist on setting numerical emissio ns limits, then the effluent guidelines definition of "process wastewater" in 40 CFR §429.11(c) must be amended to exclude wastewater from air pollution control devices on boilers complying with this area source NESHAP. We refer EPA to the AWC
comments on this issue, which provide more detailed descriptions of the APCD wastewater volumes and other relevant information to support a similar recommendation.

Response: There are not emission limits for existing biomass boilers in the final rule, and thus only new boilers would install control devices and would have the opportunity to design their system to comply with effluent wastewater guidelines.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OA R

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Much of the biomass utilized in district heating system in Alaska is harvested in wildfire prevention measures and to improve forest health. In communities without biomass systems, wood harvested for firebreaks is usually burned in uncontrolled outdoor fires and results in significant air emissions. Emissions from uncontrolled wildfires are substantially greater than the smoke from biomass boiler use.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input, but the EPA did not have ample time or data to analyze the potential impacts the rule may have on open burning. However, limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus mi nimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26Comment: Well recognized in combustion engin eering is the tradeoff between CO and NOx emissions. Many state environmental standards recognize this and have placed far greater emphasis on the control of NOx in their SIP and state/local standards than CO since CO is rarely

a non

- attainment issue and o zone frequently is. An extremely low CO limit can be environmentally problematic. Again, the GACT language in the Clean Air Act allows for flexibility in this. The States of California and Maine commented on this issue with Maine providing a report to EPA in February that is referenced elsewhere in these comments:

The Maine DEP is concerned that EPA’s dataset may be incomplete in regards to the types of boilers predominantly in Maine and to the types of fuels burned by these boilers. We are also concerned that EPA may develop standards that do not take into account the NOx controls required for many of the Maine facilities and the effect that controlling for CO, which inversely affects NOx, as well as other pollutants.”

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discuss ion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54

Comment: AF&PA strongly supports EPA’s conclusion that fuel s witching is not an appropriate MACT floor or beyond

- the

- floor control option. This conclusion is particularly apt with respect to wood products facilities, due to their need to employ a mix of fuels to control costs and their heavy reliance on residual bio mass for fuel. Further, gas

- firing requires a great deal of infrastructure, while many forest products facilities often are located in rural areas that lack the necessary gas infrastructure. More generally, gas supplies are limited and industrial uses are of lower priority than residential uses during times of supply shortfalls and cold weather. Industrial boilers also compete with utility boilers for gas supplies and increasing electricity demand in the coming years, coupled with increasing reliance on nat ural gas to meet that demand, will place further strain on limited gas supplies and distribution networks. We comment on this issue extensively in our submission for major source boilers (See Section XXII, docket EPA

- HQ

OAR2002

- 0058; we incorporate those c omments by reference).

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input; fuel switching is not considered as an option.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1939.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 65Comment: EPA has concluded that no additional water would be used or wastewater would be generated due to the controls required by GACT (see 75 Fed. Reg. page 31917). That may be true in most cases but there ma y be situations where a facility determines it can best meet the GACT requirements with a wet control device. In that event, wood products facilities would not be able to discharge the wastewater because the effluent limitations guidelines for the Timber P roducts Processing Point Source Category in 40 CFR part 429 subparts B (Veneer subcategory), C (Plywood subcategory), D (Dry Process Hardboard subcategory), and M (Particleboard Manufacturing subcategory) prohibit the discharge of process wastewater pollut ants. "Process wastewater" is defined quite broadly, with only a few exclusions. (See 40 C.F.R. § 429.11(c)). Facilities within these source categories would be prohibited from discharging the blowdown from a wet control device installed on a boiler.

EPA recognized this same problem when it established MACT standards for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products category and amended the definition of "process wastewater" in the Timber Products Processing effluent guidelines to exclude wastewater generated b y the types of air pollution control equipment EPA had identified as the basis of MACT standards for those source categories subject to a zero discharge effluent guidelines. (See 40 C.F.R. § 429.11(c); 69 Fed. Reg. 45,944 at 45,964). AF&PA/AWC commented ex tensively on this issue in the major source rules, which we refer you to for a complete discussion (See Section XXI, Docket EPAHQ

- OAR

- 2002

- 0058; we incorporate those comments by reference)

Response: There are not emission limits for existing biomass boi lers in the final rule, and thus only new boilers would install control devices and would have the opportunity to design their system to comply with effluent wastewater guidelines.

Commenter Name: Jim Simon Commenter Affiliation: American Sugar Cane League Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2281.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The ASCL’s fundamental overarching comment is that the Proposed Rule, as it pertains to the combustion of biomass, is contrary to the efforts of the current Administration with regard to “green” energy initiatives. The Proposed Rule provides a disincentiv e for both the use of renewable resources and the reduction of our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.

The Proposed Rule (40 CFR 63, subpart JJJJJJ) establishes emission standards for coal

- fired, oil

fired, and biomass

- fired boilers located at area sour ces. Bagasse meets the definition of “biomass” in the Proposed Rule. Therefore, all bagasse

- fired boilers located at area sources are subject to the §112(d) standards of the CAA. The pollutants covered by subpart JJJJJJ are mercury, particulate matter (PM) (as a surrogate for non

- mercury urban HAPs), and carbon monoxide (CO) (as a surrogate for polycyclic organic matter (POM) expressed as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (7

- PAH)).Response: Bagasse units are still in the biomass subcategory. However, li mits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Commenter Affiliation: Governor of the State of California Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1777.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: California has adopted some of the nation’s most ambitious renewable energy and greenh ouse gas reductions goals and I am concerned that rule changes being considered by your agency will undermine the progress we are making.

While I understand the need to update standards to reflect new technologies, U.S. EPA must carefully consider the tr ade

- offs that must be made in meeting California’s ozone reduction and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The attached comments by our energy and environmental agencies outline major concerns about how your proposed boiler standards may cause California’s exi sting biomass

- to

- energy facilities to close.

California’s 40 biomass plants provide approximately 800 megawatts of electricity generation capacity that last year produced 5,700 gigawatt

- hours of electricity, representing about three percent of Californi a’s total in

- state power generation. In addition, these facilities employ 750 people on

- site and support 1,200 to 1,500 jobs in the fuel supply infrastructure. I know the Obama Administration is working as hard as we are to increase, not eliminate, green j obs.

While I support your efforts to adopt national regulations to reduce hazardous air pollutants, I have significant concerns that these proposed standards would have adverse impacts on California’s environment and economy. Therefore, I strongly urge y ou to reconsider the proposed standards for existing biomass

- to

- energy facilities.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Charles R. Faulds Commenter Affiliation: Texas El ectric Cooperatives, Treating Division Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1641.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: Advantages of utilizing biomass will diminish under the EPA proposed rules at the same time other departments of the government are encouraging and even subsidizing biomass facilities. Under the proposed rules, facilities could spend millions of dollars on controls and still not meet emission standards. The additional costs will be passed on to consumers and the producer is no long er competitive. Production and jobs for many facilities could be relocated to foreign countries where little concern for the environment exists and will cause a greater detriment to the environment and our economy than burning legitimate fuels in properly functioning boilers.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impa cts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Brad Hunter Commenter Affiliation: GreenWood Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2099.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed EPA ruling would effectively put a stop to additional investmen t in the United States as the biomass industry would move most of its capital to off

- shore projects, especially Europe where there is a more balanced regulatory approach to biomass energy and emissions.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Ronald W. Gore Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1494.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The proposed rules impose severe emission restrictions on the combustion of biomass. Since many facilities may not be able to afford the controls required to meet the proposed MACT limitations, it appears that the proposed rules will drive these facilitie s towards the combustion of natural gas to meet energy requirements. Since biomass is a renewable source of energy, this appears to run contrary to the current Administration’s stated desire to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable sources of e nergy.
Alabama, along with other States, is facing mandatory renewable energy targets in the future. For obvious reasons, wind, solar, geothermal, and many other renewable sources are not viablein Alabama. Biomass appears to be the primary alternative. Our State may not be able to meet its goals if biomass usage is discouraged.

Additionally, given the current Administration’s desire to regulate Greenhouse Gas emissions, it is perplexing to the Department that the EPA would drive facilities away from ut ilizing what may be considered a ‘carbon neutral’ fuel. Furthermore, when combined with the recently proposed solid waste definition, it appears that the fate of wood residuals may be landfills, where it will decay into methane, which has a CO 2 equivalence of 25:1.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: David P. Tenny Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1884.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The promotion of renewable energy is a national policy that EPA must follow.

As described above, forests can play an important role in reducing and managing greenhouse gas emissions. Expand ing the sources of renewable energy is a central feature of both national and international policy to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

The EPA, in considering approaches toward addressing climate change, has long recognized that responsibly managed fores ts are considered one of five key “groups of strategies that could substantially reduce emissions between now and 2030.” See Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the CAA, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,354, 44,405 (July 30, 2008). Similarly, the United Nation’s Inte rgovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) report on mitigation technologies highlights forest management as a primary tool to reduce GHG emissions. Id. at 44,405

- 06; see also NAFO, Carbon Mitigation Benefits of Working Forests (identifying trading pla tforms and registries that recognize forest management), available at http://nafoalliance.org/mitigation

- benefits

- working

- forests/.

President Obama has emphasized that renewable energy derived from feedstocks such as forest biomass hold the key to transi tioning the nation to a “sustainable, low carbon energy future.” See Letter from President Barack Obama to Governors John Hoeven and Chet Culver (May 27, 2009), available at http://www.governorsbiofuelscoalition.org/assets/files/President%20Obama’s%20Respo nse5

- 27

- 09.pdf; see also President Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 74 Fed. Reg. 21531

- 32 (May 5, 2009).With Presidential endorsement, if n ot direction, of national renewable energy policy and the role of biomass in that policy, EPA must conduct its programs in a manner consistent with that policy. In light of this policy, EPA must not adopt any mandatory environmental controls, such as those set forth in the proposed rulemaking, that will require large expenditures of time and resources by industry, but are not necessary to protect human health and the environment. Similarly, to act consistently with this nation’s renewable energy policy, EPA must not impose restrictions on biomass boilers that are not legally required and that stand to disadvantage the use of biomass as a fuel source. The proposed rule lacks any justification for its departure from this policy and, as explained below, is thus arbitrary and capricious.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economi c impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Commenter Affiliation: Governor of the State of California Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1777.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: In California, BTE boilers are tuned to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions at the expense of some increased carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (an attainment pollutant) because of Californ ia’s ozone nonattainment problem. Modifying a biomass boiler to meet the CO emissions requirements used as a surrogate for non

- dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) will result in higher emissions of NOx that may trigger New Source Review (NSR)
req uirements for best available control technology and offsets. ARB believes U.S. EPA needs to

re

- evaluate the increased NOx emissions of this proposed standard and the impacts on states, such as California, in meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standar ds for ozone.

Response: Biomass boilers do not have CO limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Michael T. Palko Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895. 1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: These new rules will directly impact both forest management and wood products industries. Forest management efforts across the nation will be impacted by reductions in markets for low quality wood thus further reducing a manager’s ability to influence forest composition and forest health. Elimination of such markets resulted in 300

- 400% increases in fuels reduction treatment costs in the western US.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in th e final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Brad Hunter Commenter Affiliation: GreenWood Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2 006

- 0790

- 2099.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The lack of coordination between EPA and other government agencies provides another red flag for all private companies that are interested in this space. The president and congress have repeatedly promoted the greater utilization of biomass to provide ren ewable heat and energy to reduce the countries reliance on imported oil and carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and ma ny industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass. Please note that greenhouse gas

e missions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Affiliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Importantly, as you reduce boiler CO emissions, under certain circumstances NOx emissions will increase. For this reason, we suggest that EPA further explore and discuss the relationships between CO and NOx and align its priorities so that the regulated community does not fi nd itself in an untenable compliance challenge involving “technical dissonance.” This issue is more pressing given the fact that many states have non

- attainment zones for ozone NAAQS, and NOx is an ozone precursor.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Robert R. Scott Commenter Affiliation: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1952.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Comment: Balancing CO reductions with nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions already in place in

ozone non

- attainment areas Many states that have been designated non

- attainment for ozone, including New Hampshire, have worked diligently over the past 1 5 years to reduce ozone through the reduction of NOx emissions. Since forcing down CO emissions can result in increases in NOx emissions from fuel burning devices, this current effort to control organic HAPs through reductions in CO may negate the efforts conducted by states to improve ozone levels. NHDES encourages EPA to balance CO and NOx emission levels to achieve optimum boiler efficiency as well as minimize the impact on state’s efforts to reduce ozone.

Response: The final rule only includes CO lim its for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: If owners or operators of combination boilers anticipate difficulty complying with the proposed CO standard, they may have to switch away from biomass and burn more coal to be able to comply with the coal subcategory emission standards. This unintended co nsequence of replacing biomass with coal is contrary to national energy and climate policy, which encourages the use of more renewable biomass fuel.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers
must o nly meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Matthew Markee Commenter Affiliation: IN Group Companies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1965.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: IN does not believe such adverse consequences are EPA’s intent, however using CO as a surrogate for organic HAPs destruction would result in substantially higher NOx emissions and lower energy efficienc y nationwide.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Co mment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Many states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) expressly for the purpose of encouraging the development and deployment of biomass fired units as a matter of public policy. The MACT standards EPA has proposed for biomass

- fired boilers will create a huge barrier to the development of renewable energy biomass projects, which will cause many to be cancelled because of the choices EPA has made in developing these proposed standards. As a matter of public policy, EP A should encourage the combustion of wood biomass. The combustion of biomass is becoming increasingly important to Duke Energy and other utilities as renewable energy laws are adopted by more states, and are possibly applied to all states as a result of fe deral mandates. Section 112 affords EPA great flexibility in how it establishes MACT standards for these sources even after considering the recent guidance EPA has received from the courts. The combustion of biomass has the beneficial effect of conserving natural resources. Unfortunately, the stringent MACT limits EPA has proposed for IBs burning biomass will greatly inhibit the combustion of biomass in the future.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Malcolm Milne Commenter Affiliation: Durgin and Crowell Lumber Co. Inc Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1987.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Durgin & Crowell is in the lumber manufacturing business. We directly employ approximately eighty

- five (85) people, and purchase raw material (i.e. logs) from almost two hund red (200) different suppliers each year. The vast majority of our lumber is sold to end

- users outside the State of New Hampshire. The majority of the revenue derived from the sale of our products goes right back to the local community. Our existing wood

- fi red boiler has been in service for nearly thirty (30) years, over which time it has been upgraded and modified to run as efficiently as practicable. We perform annual tune

- ups, pursuant to our New Hampshire Air Emissions permit. At some point, the company would like to install a wood

- fired cogeneration plant at the mill to replace the old wood

- fired boiler. If, as some claim, the proposed emissions limits are unreasonable and unachievable, it would certainly affect the feasibility (let alone the cost) of a new cogeneration system at our facility. New standards may be necessary, but they should be reasonable. Unreasonable standards may lead to unmarketable costs for boiler manufacturers.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in th e final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion.

Commenter Name: Kevin F. Biernacki Commenter Affiliation: Veolia Energy North America Document Control Numbe r: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2273 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: This proposed regulation may force boilers that supply steam for heating/cooling purposes to large urban populations to transition off of fuel oil to natural gas. If this were to take place, energy prices may become inflated at times. It is unclear whethe r potentially inflated energy prices have been taken into consideration within the proposed regulation’s cost benefit analysis.

Work closely with industry to develop representative oil firing CO emission limits to ensure that add

- on controls or major cap ital improvements would not be required to meet the intent of the regulation as stated within this regulation’s background documentation. If certain boilers would not be able to satisfy the CO emission limit for fuel(s) regulated by this rule, facilities m ay be forced to fire a fuel that is not in the best economic interests of their energy customers (e.g. a facility may be forced to fire natural gas in lieu of fuel oil even if natural gas rates exceed those of fuel oil).

Response: With the revised MACT and GACT standards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators will use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: National studies are clear that biomass emissions impacts health. It is also clear that rural Alaskans suffer disproportionately from poor lung health. We cannot exclude a contribution of biomass emissions to these health impacts. However, EPA must not overreach with its regulations and cause undue hardship for rural Alaska communities. The economic development and jobs creation from biomass heating systems will be stymied by the increa sed cost for the installation and operations of biomass systems under the new emissions regulations. To ask too much at too high of a cost may create unintended consequences, with communities forced to continue to import high cost petroleum fuels for heati ng.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Robert Klemans Commenter Affiliation: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1955.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA HAP Regulation of Biomass: FCG believes that renewable fuels sho uld be considered as part of a diverse energy supply portfolio, and our members are pursuing options, such as biomass, that can help us continue to provide reliable and affordable energy to our
customers. Economic renewable energy resources are unevenly d istributed across the United States and the Southeast. Currently, one of Florida’s most promising economic renewable resources is biomass. Most renewable resources provide an intermittent supply of energy, but biomass generation is capable of producing a r eliable supply of baseload energy, making it extremely beneficial. However, the stringent limits and requirements in the proposed IB MACT decrease the prospect of producing reliable renewable energy from biomass. Florida needs the capability of producing

r enewable energy from biomass. FCG believes the proposed stringent emission limits within the proposed IB MACT may hinder the technologic and economic drivers for new and biomass conversion projects in Florida. EPA should encourage the combustion of biomas s as substitute fuel for coal or oil as a matter of good public policy. The combustion of biomass will become increasingly important to utilities if renewable energy standards are adopted by more states and are possibly applied to all states as a result of federal mandates. Biomass is an abundant and renewable domestically

- produced fuel that can help reduce reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuel. Prescribing stringent HAP emissions limitations on biomass boilers will create a significant barrier to the continued use and expansion of biomass fuels.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discus sion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: David P. Tenny Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1884.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The combined effect of these arbitrary and unnecessary controls would substantially increase the cost of using biomass as a fuel source. As such, the proposed rule would negate the several government programs providing incentives to use biomass and to dev elop technologiesreliant on biomass. With devalued incentives and increased costs, the nation would risk losing biomass as an integral part of renewable energy policy. The effect of the proposed rule would ultimately land at the foot of the forest landown er as biomass markets fail to grow or even disappear as heat and power facilities turn to other fuel sources. Most forest landowners calculate a return on their investment on a variety of markets for forest products. The elimination or dramatic reduction o f a significant market such as biomass could affect the attractiveness of forestland ownership to the degree that owners look to use of the land for purposes other than forests in order to obtain an economic return.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: David Suess Commenter Aff iliation: DSG Solutions, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1977.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: This proposed regulation may force boilers that supply steam for heating/cooling purposes to large urban populations to transition off of fuel oil to natural gas. If this were to take place, energy prices may become artificially inflated at times due to this regulation. Have larger societal economic concerns like inflated energy prices been taken into consideration within this proposed regul ation’s cost benefit analysis. In addition, with more facilities transitioning to only firing natural gas and new facilities in certain regions being mandated to fire solely natural gas, regional over reliance on natural gas should be taken into considerat ion since regional fuel flexibility is of importance.

Response: With the revised MACT and GACT standards for the final rule, EPA does not anticipate boiler operators will use fuel switching to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Micha el T. Palko Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1895.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The use of locally available, renewable biomass in thermal or combined heat and power applications provides thousands of jobs in the Northeast and other regions where non

renewable, unpredictably priced heating oil and other fossil fuels are now used as t he predominant source of heat. Biomass thermal energy has great promise, and we cannot emphasize enough how damaging this rule could be to current and future use of biomass for heating and CHP (combined heat and power). We are in favor of fair and effectiv e regulation of biomass boiler emissions, but EPA’s proposed rule goes much too far.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilitie s. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Commenter Affiliation: Governor of the State of California Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1777.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: If implemented as proposed, the MACT regulations will have a significant impact on the ability of biomass

- to

- energy facilities to continue to operate in the State and the State’s ability to meet its 33 percent renewable energy goals by 2020.

Development of biomass as an energy source is very important to the State of California. The State, through Governor Schwarzenegger’s Executive Order S

- 06

- 06, establishes a 20 percent target for biomass within its established State goals for renewa ble generation for 2010 and 2020. Currently, generation from biopower resources provides about 20 percent of California’s renewable energy or an estimated 2.8 percent of California’s total in

- state power generation.

In order to support biomass facilitie s and other renewable energy resources, California imposes a public goods charge to provide incentives and financial support to make them economically viable. More than 70 percent of California’s biopower generation from solid

- fuel biomass facilities in th e State receives funding from this program.

Despite State subsidies, the total generating capacity from solid fuel biomass has decreased from 994 megawatts (MW) in the 1 990s to 667 MW today, despite a potential to generate 3,421 MW from biomass resource s. Only one new facility has been developed since 2000.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for furt her discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: David P. Tenny Commenter Affiliation: National Alliance of Forest Owners Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1884.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: In addition to an econo mic justification for adopting alternative compliance methods or reduced emission limitations for biomass boilers, there is an environmental justification. Biomass is a “clean” fuel and, as described in Section I above, the combustion of biomass iscarbon neutral. As such, by encouraging the use of biomass boilers, this rulemaking could have a positive impact on the nation’s carbon footprint. In addition, as an abundant, renewable, domestic energy source, the use of biomass for energy has a positive contrib ution toward the nation’s energy security. NAFO is concerned that because the proposed rule’s stringent, numeric emissions limitations for biomass units are largely unachievable, it would create a disincentive to the continued and expanded use of biomass f uels and, in turn, could encourage the use of higher

carbon fossil fuels. As described by Metso Power, the proposed rule would discourage, if not eliminate, new development of renewable biomass power. See Attachment 1 at 2. [See submittal for Attachment 1. ] Notably, EPA’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis, at page 3

- 2, estimates zero new biomass units. Discouraging current or new enterprises from using biomass would be inconsistent with the CAA’s emissions reduction goals.

Response: Limits for existing biom ass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emission s from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: J. Michael Geers Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1861.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The uncertainty to meet limits during SU/SD is causing biomass projects to be postponed and will lead to project cancellations and state renewable energy goals not being met.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on startup and shutdown.

Comment er Name: Robert E. McKenna Commenter Affiliation: Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1920.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA’s focus on individual HAPs has resulted in a failure to recognize t he critical interplay between emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, we are concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitations for CO will result in increased energy usage, with the concomitant inc rease in emissions of NOx and other pollutants. Further, EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.Comme nter Name: James P. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1941.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: NOx vs CO [See submittal for all figures.] NOx and CO data obtained from Red Shield

- Old Town, SAPPI

- Somerset No.1 Power Boiler, and Verso Paper Androscoggin was compiled into Figures and the inverse correlation between and NOx and CO was evident. These Figures can be found in Appendix A.

Verso Paper Androscoggin provided annual NOx and CO stack test data shown in Figure #1. This Figure indicates NOx decreases as CO increases and vice versa.

SAPPI Somerset provided daily CO and NOx data from April through July (Figure #2); the correlation was seen again.

This phenomenon was also seen in the data collected from the Red Shield facility; particularly when the facility was burning only whole tree chips (Figure #3). CO and NOx variability was much lower when CDW, a dry fuel, was included in R ed Shield’s fuel mix as in September 2007 (See Figure #4

— note the scale on this Figure is the same as the scale used for Figure #3). As shown by Figure #5, CO and the percent oxygen were much less variable when dry fuel such as CDW was part of the fuel m ix; in turn NOx was higher.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Arnold Schwarzenegger Commenter Affiliation: Governor of the State of California Document Con trol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1777.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Continued operation of the biomass

- to

- energy facilities supports state and federal healthy forest initiatives, helps our agricultural sector, assists solid waste disposal, and ena bles utilities to meet renewable energy mandates.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to f acilities.

Commenter Name: Edward J. Wilusz Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Paper CouncilDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2133 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: In addition, biomass is a “clean” fuel in many of the same respects as the Gas 1 fuels. Perhaps more importantly, biomass

- fired boilers produce no net GHG emissions, which make the combustion of biomass an important tool in managing and reducing the Nation’s carbon footprint. Similarly, biomass is an abundant, renewable domestic ally

- produced fuel that can help reduce reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuel and, thus, improve the Nation’s energy security. Prescribing stringent HAP emissions limitations on biomass boilers will create a significant barrier to the continued use an d expansion of biomass fuels and incentivize the use of less desirable fossil fuel alternatives.

In light of the inordinate costs of complying with the proposed HAP emissions limits for biomass boilers and the strong policy reasons for promoting the comb ustion of biomass, EPA has ample justification to prescribe work practices rather than HAP emissions limitations for biomass boilers.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on MACT versus GACT regulation.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: NASF has an interest in promoting markets for forest products including forest derived biomass. New markets for biomass have significant potential to improve the management of both private and public forest lands. We have concerns that the proposed Area Source rule will prevent new markets for forest biomass from developing. Unnecessarily stringent regulations in the proposed rule can be cost prohibitive and have the potential to prevent new investment in woo d

- based bioenergy facilities. This will cause boilers to increase their use of fossil fuels which runs counter to the nation’s renewable energy goals. Further, lack of markets for biomass will increase onsite open burning which can have negative public hea lth impacts due to the release of methane and black carbon. We strongly encourage EPA to avoid finalizing regulations that have unintended consequences that limits forest role in delaying the nation’s shift to clean, renewable energy.

Response: Limits f or existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenho use gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.Commenter Name: Teresa Marks Commenter Affiliation: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2005 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 2

Comment: Arkansas has identified biomass as a legitimate and readily available alternative energy source. Many of the boilers in Arkansas that will be impacted by this rule use biomass as a fuel source. Biomass is a readily available "waste" product in Arkansas. Stringent requirements for biomass fueled boilers that do not pose a health risk, as addressed in the proposed rule, could very likely force these facilities to convert from biomass as a fuel to natural gas due to the costs related to monitori ng and compliance demonstrations. The elimination of biomass as an alternative energy source would result in this waste material being abandoned or disposed of in landfills or incinerators. Although the Clean Air Act does not specifically require it, we as sert that the overall impact to the environment through cross media transfer of pollutants from the air to the land and water resulting from the storage and disposal of biomass should be properly evaluated and addressed prior to finalization of this Boiler MACT.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rul e.

Commenter Name: Kevin Van De Wege Commenter Affiliation: Washington House of Representatives Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2164.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Such regulations would harm our vital forest products industry and hurt the prospects for expanding our nation’s green energy production and the jobs it brings.

While we strongly support the goals of achieving strong protections for public health and hi gh environmental performance, we are concerned that there will be unintended consequences with the current draft proposal. Without careful reconsideration these regulations may unnecessarily harm Washington’s critical forest products industry

-- and that o f other states in the union

-- and our burgeoning efforts to utilize waste wood from the state’s forest lands for renewable energy production.

The forest products industry is critical to all areas of Washington State, representing 11% of all manufacturin g jobs and playing a particularly important role in rural, timber

- dependent communities.

The sector provided over 45,000 jobs in 2005, generated approximately $16 billion in gross business revenue, and paid out over $2 billion in wages and over $100 mill ion in tax receipts.As the state has invested in the renewable energy field, we have looked to the forest products sector to take a leadership role. In particular we have focused on renewable biomass power as an arena where we have a competitive advanta ge and an ability to increase distributed domestic power generation and utilization of previously wasted forestry resources.

A 2005 state biomass inventory found that as a state we are “blessed with a vast and diverse, annually renewable biomass, which a lthough in places is presently utilized for energy, fertilizer and feed, in other places is still quite underutilized and capable of being a significant factor in bioenergy, biofuel, or bioproduct production.” The inventory found that Washington State has an annual production of over 16.9 million dry tons of underutilized biomass which could be capable of creating 15.5 billion kWh of electrical energy, or almost 50% of the state’s annual residential energy consumption.

This focus on biomass power has resu lted in significant levels of public and private investment. In 2006 the state energy freedom fund provided $6 million to the Grays Harbor PUD to invest in a new biomass boiler used by the Grays Harbor Paper Company to generate process steam for the 100% r ecycled green paper plant and electrical power for the PUD.

In 2009 the Port Townsend Paper Company received a $2 million dollar stimulus grant to upgrade its biomass boiler. This grant is being matched by $2 million in private funds generated by other e nergy saving projects in the mill. This boiler is now a part of a proposed $55 million cogeneration project that will provide the equivalent of 35 construction jobs for one year and will create 30 new jobs. In addition, it helps sustain the 290 permanent m ill jobs.

Also in 2009, the Nippon Paper Company in Port Angeles received a combination of loans and grants of $2 million to support a planned $71 million investment to replace an existing steam boiler with a biomass boiler retaining 234 permanent jobs a nd adding 10 temporary jobs.4

A 2009 state study on pulp and paper boilers showed great opportunities for reduced fossil fuel usage and increased renewable energy production

– but old boilers will need to be upgraded.

With the capital costs involved an d the current state of the market, it would be unfortunate if limited capital resources went into short term investments to meet unattainable standards rather than a longer term strategy of investing in aging infrastructure that can continue to create jobs and meet core business objectives while increasing renewable energy generation and environmental performance.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizi ng the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Troy Runge Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2245Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The stringent emission limits on biomass units may force new biomass fuel boiler projects either to significantly upgrade their existing pollution

- control equipment or consider switching to natural gas. Ultimately, this addition al hurdle for the use of biomass will increase the use of fossil fuels, which is counterproductive to President Obama’s energy policy and Wisconsin’s investment in bioenergy. The rule may severely limit and/or potentially eliminate the use of agricultural biomass fuels, threatening the development of a new local, renewable energy market.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities . See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Arie Verloop Commenter Affiliation: Jansen Combu stion and Boiler Technologies, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1856.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposed MACT/GACT/CISWI rules promote natural gas firing over renewable biomass and establish limits based on arbitrary statist ics rather than health risk. The current administration is promoting the use of renewable energy, such as bioenergy and biopower. In contrast, the new proposed rules are more stringent for the bioenergy approach than for traditional fossil fuels such as oi l and coal. These rules will harm new enterprises and help push the country toward using fossil fuels, while making it difficult to build new boilers, especially biomass boilers that support renewable energy and greenhouse reduction initiatives.

Respons e: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Joseph M. Cloutier Commenter Affiliation: RE

- Gen, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2284.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: We are especially concerned that the proposed changes make take affect as the Administration’s support of biomass has been unwavering and involves almost every member of the Cabinet from the White House, USDA, DOE, Interior, Council on Environment Quality, EPA, DOJ, Treasury and Commerce. As well, in Congress biomass has been inclu ded in every single piece of renewable energy legislation beginning with the Public Utility Policy Act of1978. Support for biomass is universal, bi

- partisan, and spans the scope of virtually every major energy policy enacted by the Congress.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Gailyn Messersmith Commenter Affiliation: Messersmith Manufacturing, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1949.1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 3

Comment: The proposed emission limits and testing requirements will dramatically increase the cost of biomass boilers and discourage the use of renewable biomass fuel.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final r ule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Eric Trauner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Numb er: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2286 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It is not sound policy to put such demands on modestly

- size boilers burning fuel other than natural gas. Placing such demands on modestly

- sized solid/ liquid fuel boilers will create a rush for conversion to natural gas, to the point where natural gas sup plies could be strained. US

- EPA itself acknowledges this reality

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply but will still provide a valuable environmental bene fit.

Commenter Name: Mike Beebe Commenter Affiliation: Governor, State of Arkansas Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2001 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: We understand that it is often difficult for the EPA to consider and address broad environmental effects when dealing with specific media

- related rulemaking. However, I feel thatthe time is ripe with this rulemaking to do just that. The EPA has promoted the development of alternative energy sources for a number of reasons, including the protection of air quality. Unfortunately, when one looks at EPA’s specific rulemaking, the impact has been to discourage that very goal. This proposed rule is an example. Arkansas has considered the overall impact to the environment of energy production in our State. We have identified and promoted biomass as a legitimate and readily available alternative energy source. Many of the boilers in Arkansas that will be affected by this rule use biomass as a fuel source. Biomass is a readily available "waste" product in Arkansas. Using this "waste" as a fuel source eliminates many environmental issues that would otherwise have a crippling effect on this State and its citizens. Th e overly stringent requirements for biomass

- fueled boilers that do not pose a health risk, as addressed in the proposed rule, could very likely force these facilities to convert from biomass as a fuel to natural gas, due to the costs related to monitoring and compliance demonstrations. The elimination of biomass as an alternative energy source would have a cascading impact on the State and the environment by this material either being abandoned or by forcing the disposal of this heretofore useable commodity in landfills or incinerators. Although the Clean Air Act does not specifically require it, we assert that the overall impact to the environment through cross

- media transfer of pollutants from the air to the land and water, resulting from the storage and d isposal of biomass, should be properly evaluated and addressed prior to finalization of this Boiler MACT. This is simply sound public policy.

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass.

Commenter Name: Christoph er S. Bond Commenter Affiliation: Missouri, United States Senate Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2200.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Ironically, EPA’s imposition of standards so expensive that they force forest

- product facilities to a bandon their use of biomass to power their operations would drive those that survive to more carbon

- intensive energy sources such as coal, predominant in Missouri, or propane. Not only would facilities release more carbon from their energy sources, but the carbon from the biomass byproduct would still be released into the atmosphere after it is discarded. Thus, EPA’s proposal threatens both the administration’s goal of encouraging renewable, lower

carbon fuels and reducing carbon emissions.

Response: Lim its for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that gr eenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.Commenter Name: George M. Israel Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Chamber of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1996.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Discouraging the use of biomass

- fueled boilers would be particularly punitive to Georgia. Biomass is a locally sourced, abundant, and renewable fuel that is crucial to maintaining and improving the Nation’s energy security as well as the economies of the areas where they are located. This fact is particularly important in Georgia and the rest of the southeast with our somewhat limited options for generating renewable energy.

The net result of this rule would be to discourage the development and u tilization of environmentally

- beneficial energy alternatives.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Alicia Oman Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufactu rers Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2234.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Biomass is a “clean” fuel in many of the same respects as the Gas 1 fuels. Biomass

fired boilers produce no net GHG emissions, which makes the combustion of bioma ss an important tool in managing and reducing the Nation’s carbon footprint. Similarly, biomass is an abundant, renewable domestically

- produced fuel that can help reduce reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuel and, thus, improve the Nation’s energy secu rity. Prescribing stringent HAP emissions limitations on biomass boilers will create a significant barrier to the continued use and expansion of biomass fuels and incentivize the use of less desirable fossil fuel alternatives.

Response: Limits for exist ing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Kevin P. Bundy Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2009.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Comment: More particularly, we understand that industry representatives have submitted, and are likely to submit, comments in each of these dockets asking that sources combusting biomass be treated differently from sources burning other fuels. Some of these commen ts seek either broad exemptions, or less stringent forms of regulation, under sections 112 and 129 on the basis that biomass combustion is purportedly “carbon neutral,” renewable, or otherwise environmentally beneficial.

Response: EPA is charged with re gulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this rule. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficia l use of renewable energy sources such as biomass.

Commenter Name: Keith A. Craig Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Hardwoods Development Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2017.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Additionally, many wood products manufacturers currently use wood waste to fuel their own processes and facilities. The proposed rule would in many cases force these companies to return to fossil fuels and add that useable waste to landfills. Adoption of the proposed rule is counterproductive to the federal and state goals of increasing production of alternative renewable biomass energy.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GA CT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Troy Runge Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2245 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The rule may increase either the facility costs and/or agricultural biomass fuel costs (e.g. fuel may have to be processed to remove minerals) so significantly that these homegrown fuels could not compete with imported fossil fuels like coal or natural gas.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further dis cussion on the economic impacts of the rule.Commenter Name: Paolo Maffei Commenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2276 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It seems senseless that co

- gen facilities, which bur n forest or ag waste should be subjected to emission requirements similar to larglesil

- fuel burning power plants. Coal, oil or natural gas that has been safely seq alGinNitiround for millions of years is equated to forest waste, which had a life cycle of d ecades, rarely centuries and in our area is subjected to fire on a regular basis. The material entering a co

- gen plant is destined for incineration, either in a controlled burn, a timber or thinning operation burn

- pile or, often, in a catastrophic wildfire

. Why would the intrinsic benefit of a co

- gen plant, both from the aspect of a cleaner burn and the equivalent unburned fossil fuel be ignored? I have direct knowledge of lost co

- gen opportunities due to current policies. The greatest concern in much of C alifornia, especially in our County, is fire. Forests need to be thinned and the value of the timber is rarely sufficient to cover the cost. We also believe that a viable forest industry is important for the economy, watershed protection and also the envir onment. A good policy would require all power distributors in California to purchase enough electricity from co

- gen plants to drive up the price of the feedstock. Giving economic value to forest waste would help pay for trucking and thinning. Many to whom the free market is a mantra seem reluctant to trust the allocation of resources to the invisible hand of the market to achieve a desired objective (such as with a carbon tax). They often prefer the taxpayer directly subsidize industries. Insurance and fire fighting costs would be greatly reduced by passing on to the consumer an imperceptible* cost increase to reduce the cost of fighting wildfire.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Troy Runge Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2245 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Without agricultural biomass fuels, additional pressure would be put on wood resources (as a substitute for coal), potentially increasing the cost of woody fuels and distorting existing forest product s markets, thereby threatening sustainability of harvesting.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.Commenter Name: Eric Trauner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2286 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: In an era of debate about anthropogenic global warming, it’s unwise to put excessive demands on use of biomass and energy

- intensive solid waste. US

- EPA acknowledges that biomass is a carbon

- neutral fuel source. Furthermore, there will be increased landfil ling of biomass as well as energy

- intensive solid waste under this proposal. Not only will this strain landfill space, but anaerobic decay of biomass and solid waste produces methane gas, a decidedly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Indeed, a strong case can be made that US

- EPA should be encouraging use of biomass and solid waste as fuel rather than landfilling, in order to reduce net greenhouse gas impact.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, a nd new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: W. Randall Rawson Commenter Affiliation: American Boiler Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1897.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: If properly designed to reflect the broad range of boiler designs and operational conditions, as well as manufacturers’ emission guarantee levels, the Proposed Area Source Rule will stimulate the creation of jobs in the boiler and boiler

- related equipment industry. To the extent that EPA develops an Area Source Rule rulemaking that is achievable in practice for boiler owners and operators, the proposal will create solid, well

- paid, professional, skilled and unskilled manufacturing jobs attendant to the upg rade, optimization and replacement of existing boilers around the United States. In addition, service jobs associated with the installation and maintenance of these systems, as well as service jobs associated with required tune

- ups and energy assessments w ill be created. These jobs will be significant contributions to our local, state and national economies

– contributions that must not be overlooked or minimized.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commen ter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4Comment: We, as manufacturers, want to be on record that we support reasonable emission limits, but we believe the EPA’s a pproach in determining the currently proposed limits is flawed and will have severely negative impacts on the biomass boiler industry if implemented as proposed. Already, the uncertainty caused by the Draft Rule has brought the commercial wood boiler marke t to a virtual standstill until the final rule is determined, the industry, which is composed overwhelmingly of small businesses, is suffering severe economic strain due to the EPA’s approach to the Area Source Boiler Rule.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Mat Ehrhardt Comm enter Affiliation: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1995.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Carbon monoxide vs. nitrogen oxides: Much of California is designated nonattainment for the N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone; however, most of the state is in attainment of the carbon monoxide (CO) standard. Therefore permitting practices and emissions

- reducing regulations have been historically aimed at reducing nitrogen o xides (NOx), an ozone precursor, often at the expense of increasing CO. This well

- understood CO vs. NOx trade

- off has been openly discussed, acknowledged, and accepted as a valuable tool in California’s battle against ozone.

Implementation of a straightf orward CO standard as a surrogate for HAPs, without making other risk assessment and reduction options available, has the potential to seriously damage the ability of California air districts to meet these very important clean

- air requirements. As discusse d below, we believe this damage comes without a corresponding benefit to the public in risk reduction.

For instance, twelve BTE facilities operate in the San Joaquin Valley, a largely rural area with some of the most stringent air quality regulations in the nation. These facilities were all subject to new source review (NSR) requirements during their initial permitting processes and were all found to be meeting Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements through the implementation of selective n on

- catalytic reduction (SNCR). Consequently, all twelve have very low NOx emissions. In addition, each of these operations has been found, through California’s facility

- specific “Air Toxics Hot Spots” program, to have an insignificant risk on the residents of the San Joaquin Valley. However, five of them would violate the proposed area source CO limit.

Imposing the proposed CO limits on these facilities would undoubtedly cause increases in NOx, either from tuning of the existing equipment to reduce CO or the installation of additional CO

control combustion equipment, as suggested by EPA. In either case, any increase in NOx is unacceptable in many ozone nonattainment air basins in California. Businesses in California’sozone nonattainment areas have spent billions of dollars to meet the state’s very stringent NOx control requirements, and any increase in N Ox must be countered by additional NOx controls on other sources. Unfortunately, there are no stationary NOx sources that can be further controlled with existing technologies in many areas. Both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the San J oaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District are “extreme” nonattainment areas for federal ozone standards. Both have produced ozone attainment plans that rely on “black

- box” technologies that have yet to be developed, without which attainment is not possi ble. Thus, ANY increase in NOx from stationary sources in these areas must be carefully considered.

Similarly, attempts to limit the growth in NOx emissions resulting from the control of CO may also result in additional ammonia emissions. SNCR controls N Ox via the injection of ammonia, and increasing NOx calls for increasing ammonia injection and, inevitably, additional ammonia emissions from the stack. This ammonia slip then can cause downwind toxic health risk situations that would not otherwise exist, and potentially increases in secondary PM 2.5 creation in the form of ammonia sulfates and nitrates.

In the case of the MACT standards in question, insufficient consideration has been given to the potential public health impacts of the inevitable NOx inc reases and probable ammonia emissions increases that would result.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: George M. Israel Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Chambe r of Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1996.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The use of biomass as a fuel should be promoted as one of the fundamental elements of a smart and effective national environmental and energy strategy. U nfortunately, given the costs and technical difficulties of meeting the proposed emissions limitations for new biomass boilers, the proposed rule would have exactly the opposite effect

– it would erect a significant and potentially insurmountable barrier t o the construction of new biomass boilers. The proposed standards would create a strong disincentive to building biomass boilers.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Do uglas I. Greenhaus Commenter Affiliation: National Automobile Dealers AssociationDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2047.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Heaters regulated by Part 279 are used by tens of thousands of facilities, the majority of whom are small businesses seeking to avoid the use of and to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, to avoid potential off

- site used oil mismanagement (with its a ttendant environmental harms and liabilities), and to save money. The use of these heaters serves as an effective incentive to accept do

- it

- yourselfer oils whose well known potential for mismanagement often threatens environmental harm. Modern used oil spa ce heaters are very clean burning with emissions even cleaner than those assessed by EPA in conjunction with the State of Vermont in their 1994/96 report.

Response: Classification of used oil pertains to the Identification of Non

- Hazardous Materials That Are Solid Waste and it is out of scope for this boiler rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Martha E. Rudolph Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1979.1 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 5

Comment: Just as EPA should not overlook the alternative fate of landfill gas and biogas should combustion of these fuels be discouraged by the proposed rules, EPA should also not overlook possible deleterious environmental effects of new regulati ons that overly constrain existing and emerging technologies that use woody biomass for the production of renewable energy and other purposes. As Governor Ritter and the Western Governors’ Association have repeatedly communicated, Colorado and the Inter

- mo untain West face forest health problems of monumental proportion. Landscape

- scale insect infestations, disease, decades of fire suppression, and persistent drought have left Colorado forests in a state of elevated risk for catastrophic wildfire. Not only d o such intense fires compromise ecological health and watershed functionality, they pose risk for people, their communities and public infrastructure located within or adjacent to forested land. Importantly, they also are sources of PM, CO 2 , CO, NOx, S02, and other pollutants in amounts and concentrations that dwarf emissions typically associated with biomass boilers and other means of controlled combustion of woody biomass. Since public financial resources are insufficient to underwrite large scale hazardo us fuels reduction and forest thinning projects that are critical to reducing these risks and to restoring forested landscapes to healthier conditions within generally accepted ranges of natural variability, private investment tied to the potentially profi table use of woody biomass is a vital public policy objective. Unfortunately, more stringent air quality standards, if not clearly warranted from a public health standpoint, could dramatically impact the ability of private operators and local communities t o use locally harvested materials for heating or small scale power generation since the cost of the advanced control technologies are, in many instances, more expensive than the entire project. EPA should thus take a very rigorous look at whether, and if s o in what instances, woody biomass should be included in, or excluded from, these proposed rules.To further underscore the importance of the role of woody biomass use in managing Colorado’s forest health issues, see the attached August 10, 2010 letter f rom Governor Ritter to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Martin T. Booher Commenter Affiliation: Ethan Allen Interi ors, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1974.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA should consider the degree to which the rule is in conflict with the national policy of promoting distributed generation and the use of biomass as a domes tically

- sourced renewable fuel.

Response: Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: C.A. Vandersteen Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2246 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: LFA strongly supports the use of biomass as a renewable source of energy in an effort to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases. There are numerous forest products industries that have postponed their plans to build biomass

- fired boilers because of unclear regulations and the possibility of stringent emission requirements that will shut down the facilities once constructed. As EPA turns to developing final rules, we hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and jobs.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boile rs must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulem aking.Commenter Name: Michael Wagner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2271 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: I have several other major concerns regarding the financial and logistical burdens that the propo sed area source boiler rule would impose on affected facilities for insignificant benefits on human health and the environment. I am concerned with the absence of a heat input size threshold for applicability of the proposed emission limits to new boilers and the extensive stack testing requirements in the rule. The absence of a minimum size exemption for new boilers in the rule will create a huge roadblock to the use of locally available biomass as boiler fuel. Many small entities (schools, businesses, off ice buildings, etc.) in rural areas rely on small wood fired boilers for heating and/ or steam generation. For example, several small school districts in my area have wood fired boilers in the 6 to 8 million BTU per hour range to heat their schools for mos t of the school year. When these boilers reach the end of their useful lives, the affected schools would need to switch to natural gas or propane boilers because they would be unable to afford the cost of control to meet the proposed limits for new biomass boilers and they could not afford the cost of annual stack testing on the boiler. The restrictive nature of the emission limits coupled with extensive stack testing requirements in the proposed version of 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart JJJJJJ

— National Emis sion Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources are disproportionate to the level of air pollution generated by the affected area source facilities. My perspective as a state regulator in a rural area is that the proposed rule contains many unrealistic and unachievable requirements, discourages the use of locally available biomass as a fuel source, would impose significant additional costs on small facilities, and would force many small compa nies to go out of business. As a result, I must recommend that U.S. EPA make sweeping changes to the proposed area source boiler rule so that the limitations and requirements in the rule better reflect the financial, economic, and operational realities tha t are faced by the small commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities that would be affected by the proposed rule.

Response: New and existing small boilers less than 10 mmBtu/hr do not have applicable limits in the final rule but must perform tu ne

- ups, minimizing the burden to boiler operators.

Commenter Name: Darrell Soyars Commenter Affiliation: Avista Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1989.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: The Proposed MACT CO Emission Limits for Area Source Biomass Boilers May Result in Increased NOx Emissions By setting an emission limit for CO at 160 ppm at 7% 02 as a means of reducing organic HAP emissions, boiler operators will be forced to focus on reducing CO emissions. This may have theunintended consequence of increasing collateral NOx emissions within the bounds of their existing permits, requiring a modification to permitted emissions limits, and/or the installation of additional emission controls to maintain compliance with permit limits. Industry boiler manufacturers typically recommend that the best way to reduce CO in a wood waste stoker boiler is the use of an over

- fire air system and operations at higher levels of excess air. Both of these techniques result in decreased efficiency and increased NOx emissions.

Response: CO limits for existing bi omass boilers are not included in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Martha E. Rudolph Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1979.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Th e proposals will hinder the re

- use of other byproducts that currently have a viable use as a fuel or ingredient (i.e. waste oil

- when used at the facility that generated that oil, waste tire bead/cord, etc.), as well as hinder the re

- use of materials that may have a future use as a fuel or ingredient. For example, requiring that the metal wire bead/cord in the tires be removed and the tires be shredded prior to the burning of waste tires in cement kilns is both unnecessary and wasteful. Cement kilns can ea sily burn whole tires as fuel

— the BTU content of whole tires and shredded tires is the same. Perhaps more significant, ASTM 5.2 suggests that cement kilns burn waste auto tires at sufficient temperatures to oxidize the wire from tire beadkord. Not only d oes the cement kiln benefit from the energy released from this oxidation, but it benefits from the iron oxide created because iron oxide is a critical component in cement chemistry. Removing the metal from the tires not only increases processing time and r esources, it reduces the incentive for beneficial energy recovery, Since whole tires can be burned in cement kilns, the shredding of, and metal removal from waste tires provides no benefit and should not be required.

Response: This comment is out of sco pe to the Area Source Boiler rule.

Commenter Name: Sheila C. Holman Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2222.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: NC DAQ und erstands that EPA’s interpretation of its normal MACT floor setting protocol is to identify the top performing facilities for each regulated HAP individually. In general, pollutant control of one HAP is normally not in conflict with control of other HAPs, and in some cases there are co

- benefits of collecting another HAP while controlling the initial HAP. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx), there is a conflicting means of control in terms of temperature, a key driver for each pollutan t. For example, combustion zone temperature increases that reduce CO emissions generally raise NOx emissions, and conversely,lower combustion temperatures reduce NOx emissions but with a tradeoff of raising CO emissions. While neither CO nor NOx are HAPs and CO is being proposed as a surrogate for POM, both are regulated criteria air pollutants and should be controlled. In actual practice, combustion adjustments to minimize both CO and NOx emissions must be balanced with the need to maximize boiler efficie ncy.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Trent A. Dougherty Commenter Affiliation: Ohio Environmental Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1922.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: With these rules, the EPA can encourage the development of constant, consistent, and reliable sustainabilitiy standards for biomass and co

- generation proposals. States such as Ohio, which are in the early stages of strong renewable energy mandates from Investor Owned Utilities, have been inundated with applications for conversions of coal plants, or to allow co

firing with pulversied coal. This is also a product of very broad definition of ren ewable “biomass energy” that includes little guidance to IEUs or Public Utility Commissions as to where and how this biomass is generated/harvested in order to truly be a cleaner and renewable energy source. CleanEnergy advocates, such as OEC, see renewabl e energy and clean energy as synonymous

– meaning that a renewable source must also have a carbon dioxide and other criteria pollutant emission much greater than its fossil fuel counterpart. Such a concept of clean energy demands a full life cycle analysis of the fuel stock for biomass. Important considerations in a life cycle analysis include where the biomass comes from, how quickly it is replenished, and how it must travel from source to boiler. Each of these factors has a direct and significant impact o n the total pollution emitted.

Response: Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Bass Commenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2250 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Tuolumne County as with many counties in California, have very large forested areas and wildlands. There are also significant amounts of biomass associated with these lands, creating the obvious po tential for catastrophic wildfires. A general concern with the adoption of this rule is that the required technologies and work practice standards may be so expensive and onerous that it may cause existing biomass boilers to stop utilizing biomass waste, a nd newboilers to not be built at all. The loss of these boilers could result in biomass emanating from public and private lands being burned in an uncontrolled manner (open burning), rather than in properly designed and controlled facilities.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Nam e: Jay C. Moon Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2000 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA’s focus on individual HAPs has resulted in a failure to recognize the critical interplay between emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, we are concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitation s for CO will result in increased energy usage, with the concomitant increase in emissions of NOx and other pollutants. Further, EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Scott Manley Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2258.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA’s focus on individual HAPs has resulted in a failure to recognize the critical interplay between emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, we are concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitations for CO wil l result in increased energy usage, with the concomitant increase in emissions of NOx and other pollutants. Further, EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boi lers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Mat Ehrhardt Commenter Affiliation: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1995.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7Comment: Califo rnia needs biomass to energy facilities.

CAPCOA believes the ability to continue to operate and site BTE projects is critical to California’s efforts to address multiple environmental issues. Renewable energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction consid erations are creating a strong impetus for such facilities. Landfilling of agricultural and forest organic waste is not an option in California, where landfill diversion goals are increasing from 50% to 80%. BTEs are a necessary option for diversion of

was te that has historically been burned in the open: the well

- controlled combustion emissions from a California BTE reduce emissions by 50% to 90+% when compared to open burning, depending on the pollutant.

In fact, in the San Joaquin Valley, where the near

- elimination of open burning is an important attainment measure, open burning has already been banned by regulation, to the extent possible. The factor that has limited the ban to something less than 100% is the cost

- effectiveness of burning all waste in a BTE. Regulations that increase the cost of operating a BTE will make it more costly for producers, such as farmers and forest land managers, to divert their biomass to a BTE, and therefore increasing NOx and other combustion emissions due to the increase in open burning.

California’s biomass boilers utilize biomass materials that are produced from operations independent of the fuel value; in fact, significant quantities of biomass wastes are currently open burned for disposal where the existing economics of alternative uses is not favorable. These economics would become even less favorable if existing boilers were to shutdown as a result of the proposed MACT rule.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Robert G. Hedden Commenter Affiliation: Oilheat Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2249 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The area source standards proposed for boilers include different standards for existing versus new boilers. As opposed to major sources, which establishes separate minimum thresholds for new and existing sources, the Clean Air Act standards required for a rea sources does not have a mandate to distinguish between new and existing sources: (5) Alternative standard for area sources With respect only to categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the Admini strator may, in lieu of the authorities provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (f) of thissection, elect to promulgate standards or requirements applicable to sources in such categories or subcategories which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants. {Emphasis Added) We believe that setting a much more stringent emissions standard for new or reconstructed boilers will discourage the use and i ntroduction of more efficient and less polluting boilers and encourage "band aid" fixes to avoid the more restrictive standards. The effect will be to increase, not decrease, pollution.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on MACT versus GACT stand ards.

Commenter Name: A. Steven Young Commenter Affiliation: Association of Independent Corrugated Converters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1994.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA’s focus on individual HAPs has resulted in a failu re to recognize the critical interplay between emissions controls and emissions of other pollutants. For example, we are concerned that the controls necessary to meet the stringent emissions limitations for CO will result in increased energy usage, with th e concomitant increase in emissions of NOx and other pollutants. Further, EPA failed to account for this interrelationship in its economic analysis.

Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Disastrous effect on rural communities

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards. With the changes it will reduce the burden for facilities to comply and should not hinder rural communities.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 07 90

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14Comment: Encouraging increased dependence on fossil fuels for thermal needs impedes federal, state and local renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Forest products industries and other businesses alike re ly on renewable, low cost wood residue for heating. Restricting biomass thermal applications through unreasonably expensive and compliance measures of questionable value will serve the counterproductive purpose of encouraging nonrenewable fossil fuels use and reduce local self

- reliance.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the ec onomic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not within the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Christy Sammon Commenter Affiliation: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1954.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: The rules as proposed create a disincentive to the combustion of biomass and an incentive to burn natural gas.

The wood products industry uses a higher percentage of renewable energy than any other industry. The bark, sawdust, and other byproducts generated in the manufacturing process typically provide enough fuel to fire the boilers and meet the steam demands of the facility. The combustion of these biomass fuels is greenhouse

- gas

- neutral, and if these materials are not burned for fuel they will be hauled to a landfill where they will anaerobically decompose to methane gas which has 21 times the greenhouse gas impact of CO 2 . Substituting a traditional fuel such as natural gas f or this use will increase operating costs by as much as 30%, and if the entire wood products industry changed to natural gas, it would consume a significant percentage of the total U.S. natural gas production.

The proposed rule concludes that no new biom ass boilers will ever be constructed at major sources in the United States as a result of the stringency of the rules. Given the government’s push for the use of renewable energy, this outcome would be absurd. A greenhouse

- gas

- neutral fuel would be turned into a waste which would degrade into methane gas creating 21 times the global warming potential when compared to its combustion as fuel. Solar and wind are not reliable renewable energy sources in the southeastern United States, so biomass provides the

on ly viable option for renewable energy in this part of the country.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. With this redu ced burden it is not anticipated that facilities would switch to natural gas as a compliance option. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule. Please note that greenhouse gas emissions from biomass boilers are not withi n the scope of this rulemaking.Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: American needs more, not less, wood energy. Sin ce hand fired wood combustion systems are less efficient than automated ones, the proposed regulations would eliminate the opportunity for hand firing in the commercial, industrial and institutional markets. If these standards are adopted, users of wood fu el in these markets will be required to use chips or pellets. Since chipper and pelletizers are not commonplace, these regulations will eliminate the opportunity for people to harvest their own fuel. A tree on someone’s property will no longer be a fuel wi thout the added cost of chipping or pelletizing. Wood brings energy security and independence and deserves a fairer hearing than it is currently getting in these proposed regulations.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Ener gy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Encouraging increased dependence on fossil fuels for thermal needs impedes federal, state and local renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction goa ls. Forest products industries and other businesses alike rely on renewable, low cost wood residue for heating. Restricting biomass thermal applications through unreasonably expensive and compliance measures of questionable value will serve the counterprod uctive purpose of encouraging nonrenewable fossil fuels use and reduce local self

- reliance.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to fa cilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Steven A. Brink Commenter Affiliation: California Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2026.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16Comment: Without substantial adjustment to the proposed rules, the biomass powerplant industry cannot comply and will cause a shift of heat and power generation back toward nonrenewable fossil fuels destroying the opportunity for States to have a stro ng component of biomass as part of their renewable portfolio.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble fo r further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: America needs to get off its dependence on imported fossil fuel. To this end the Federal government has invested billions of dollars to expand the use of renewable, low/no carbon fuel, Biomass fuel is more dependable than wind or solar and has the added benefit of a more benef icial impact on the local economy. The cost of all air emissions needs to be balanced by the impacts created by those emissions. Every alternative energy has its NIMBY’s who stand in the way of increased market penetration. As someone who is convinced that renewable wood fuel will help increase the longevity of the resources on our “spaceship earth” while strengthening our communities by making them more energy independent, I see this draconian proposed MACT standard as lacking the balance this Country’s en ergy policy so desperately needs. Are the marginal environmental benefits of these regulations really worth the cost?

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus m inimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Lee B. Zeugin Commenter Affiliation: Utility Air Regulatory Group Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1957.1 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: The combustion of biomass will become increasingly important to utilities as renewable energy standards are adopted by more states and are possibly applied to all states as a result of federal mandates. The combustion of bi omass has the beneficial effect of conserving natural resources. Unfortunately, the stringent MACT limits EPA has proposed for industrial boilers burning biomass will greatly inhibit the combustion of biomass in the future.Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the economic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Comm enter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: If this proposal goes through as written, it will effectively eliminate all small commercial, industrial and farm related wood heating equi pment. Moreover, it will devastate the industry and force the rural user onto fossil fuels at a significantly higher yearly operating cost.

Response: All biomass boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr do not have limits but must conduct tune

- ups, the revisions will reduce the burden for facilities to comply with the final rule.

Commenter Name: Arthur Blazer Commenter Affiliation: Council of Western State Foresters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1962.1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 21

Comment: Comparing Table 2 to Table 5 [SEE PDF FOR TABLES] above demonstrates that the proposed EPA standard is significantly lower than current European standards. Significant research and development funding as well as support for biomass energy implementation have resulted in AWC systems that can perform to these standards. The implementation of significantly more rigorous standards in the US without support of technological improvement will have substantial impacts on both the biomass boiler in dustry and the current and potential users of biomass systems.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name : Martin T. Booher Commenter Affiliation: Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1974.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: As the EPA has acknowledged, Congress has enacted a number of programs in recent years evidencing the strong national policy in support of the development and use of renewable sources of energy, including biomass and biomass

- derived fuels. Solid Waste Rul e, 75Fed. Reg. at 31,887 (citing Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”) (Pub. L. 110

– 140)). Among other federal incentives, tax credits are available for investment in and production of biomass

- based energy. 26 U.S.C. §§ 48, 45. In addition , nearly every State also promotes the development of renewables, including the use of biomass and biomass

- based fuels. See generally DSIRE: Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency, at http://www.dsireusa.org. This broad policy support for the increased use of alternative fuels stems in part from the recognized need to diversify domestic fuels and offset imports from abroad, increasing national security through energy independence.

A number of other federal agencies have policies or progr ams to specifically incentivize the use of biomass. For example, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducts extensive biomass research in an effort to develop biomass

- based fuels that will reduce national dependence on foreign oil, improve air quali ty and support rural economies. The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) also have expressed a strong commitment to expanding the use of biomass as a source of energy. DOE & USDA, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenerg y and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion

- Ton Annual Supply (Apr. 2005); see also Memorandum of Understanding On Policy Principles for Woody Biomass Utilization (June 2003) (signed by the DOE, USDA and DOI) (demonstrating interdepa rtmental commitment to develop and apply consistent and complementary policies and procedures to encourage use of woody biomass byproducts). The USDA’s Biomass Crop Assistance Program (“BCAP”) provides financial assistance to biomass producers for use at d esignated facilities as heat, power, biobased products or biofuels. 75 Fed. Reg. 6264 (Feb. 8, 2010) (proposed rule).

At the very least, and as recognized by the EPA, energy from biomass, including wood and other biogenic materials, is generally preferab le to fossil fuels. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31,888. Indeed, biomass will be a critical component of the fuel mix as the United States transitions away from use of fossil fuels. Ethan Allen believes that the Area Source Boiler MACT, if finalized as proposed, will undermine these national policies.

Response: EPA is charged with regulating industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters and many industrial boilers use biomass as a fuel. Consequently, we must regulate these units under this ru le. We believe that the final rule should not discourage the beneficial use of renewable energy sources such as biomass.

Commenter Name: Martin T. Booher Commenter Affiliation: Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 197 4.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: Ethan Allen also is concerned that EPA’s rules will have the effect of promoting the increased use of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. The capital costs required to control carbon monoxide emissions from wood

- and oil

- fired boilers, the uncertainty over whether materials would be considered solid waste and the increased cost of sourcing fuel from traditional fuelsuppliers will result in industrial and commercial boilers being shut down or converted so that th ey can fire natural gas. The subsequent decrease in the demand for biomass likely would cause prices to drop, undermining the pricing supports needed to sustain future investment and growth in biomass

- derived fuels development. This also will have a negati ve impact on the development of renewable distributed generation, which will have widespread consequences for grid reliability in rural and urban communities.

In light of the foregoing, Ethan Allen believes that EPA’s proposed rules will work in concert to foster a result that is inconsistent with the current national policy of promoting the use of renewable fuels such as biomass. It is imperative that EPA further consider the potential effect that the proposed rules will have on the use of biomass and ot her biogenic fuels, including the likelihood that it will encourage the increased use of fossil fuels such as natural gas.

Response: The final rule includes revised MACT and GACT standards, minimizing the burden on facilities. As such, it is not antici pated that facilities would switch to natural gas as a compliance option.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: Therefore, the limits will also impact the nation’s goals to depend more on alternative energy and less on fossil fuels. Most of Maine is rural with many trees and recently a depressed forest industry. Using wood fuel will help the local economy and decre ase the use of fossil fuels.

Response: Limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities. See the preamble for further discussion on the econo mic impacts of the rule.

Commenter Name: Martin T. Booher Commenter Affiliation: Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1974.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: Aside from the potential impairment of national energy policy, Ethan Allen is concerned that EPA’s proposed rules also will impact landfill capacities. As discussed above, by reducing the volume of biomass and non

- hazardous secondary materials consumed in commercial and industrial boilers on a national scale, the proposed rules will have the unintended effect of directing that same volume of material to landfills. Before finalizing the proposed rules, EPA should further consider the potential impact on landfills, including both theeffect on landfill capacities and the potential emissions that may be produced as the landfilled materials decompose.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input, but the EPA did not have ample time to analyze the potential impacts the rule may have on landfills. Howeve r, limits for existing biomass boilers are not included in the final rule, and new boilers must only meet a GACT PM limit thus minimizing the burden to facilities.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: There are different means of controlling particulate matter in the gas stream of a wood fired boiler. The most simple and basic of these is to use a Multiple cyclone in order to take the particulate out of the gas stream trough the use of centrifugal force. This method is very cost effective and eliminates approximately 75% of the particulate in the gas stream. This piece of equipment alone will not be sufficient to r each the new proposed limits. An Electrostatic Precipitator or a bag house has to be added to the energy system in order to bring the particulate even further down. Adding these types of filtering equipment will add significant cost to the projects. In mos t cases, especially in smaller applications, it can greatly compromise project economics thus hindering North American efforts to transition from fossil fuels to greener heating alternatives. A limit of 0.25 lbs/MMBTU would be more reasonable and achievabl e with the multiple cyclone units alone, especially when dealing with area source sized projects with limited funding.

Response: See the preamble for discussion on the revised PM GACT limits.

Commenter Name: Myra C. Reece Commenter Affiliation: South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1859.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: We believe that the EPA should take into consideration how this rule could affect the emissions of non

- HAP pollutants and whether the rule produces the greatest overall air quality and public health improvement. For example, the Area Source Boiler Rule requirements for carbon monoxide (CO) may cause increases in greenhouse gas and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emiss ions. The EPA’s current approach to regulating air emissions does not prioritize pollutants for comprehensive air quality management and in some cases may exacerbate air quality issues.Response: The final rule only includes CO limits for coal boilers; see the preamble for discussion on CO limits.



### Health Benefits

Commenter Name: Charles Niebling Commenter Affiliation: New England Wood Pellet Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 08 36 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA’s model for calculating health costs overstates the health impacts of emissions in rural areas with lower population density (which is the location of most biomass boilers), because the model and data were develop ed based on densely populated urban areas [See submittal for Reference 3]. This bias causes the EPA impact model to overvalue emissions reductions from rural biomass boilers in its cost

- benefit analysis.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the he alth benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in close
p roximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

Commenter Na me: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: These boilers and incinerators produce particulate matter

- – tiny bits of solids and aerosols formed by the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions. Particulate matter is the most dangerous of the widespread air pollutants. Particulate matter triggers asthma attacks, heart attacks, and strokes, among other da mage, but most critically, particulate matter kills. Breathing find particles increases the risk that children with asthma and older adults with chronicobstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease will end up in the emergency room or the hospit al.

These units also spread mercury and lead, hazardous metals that can harm children’s brains, hurting their IQ and limiting their ability to learn and to remember what they have learned. Many of the other toxic pollutants spewing from these sources c ause cancer, including formaldehyde, dioxin, cadmium, furans, and hydrochloric acid. Because these devices are so numerous and so widespread, their toxic pollution infiltrates communities across the nation. Their harm to health settles heaviest on those wh o live near them, communities that are often poorer, less well educated, and minorities.

Study after study finds that pollution harms these folks far more than it does others. Cleaning up these boilers and incinerators will save lives. EPA estimates th at between 2,000 and 5,000 lives will be saved every year because of the changes put in place by these requirements beginning in 2013.

But that’s only part of the benefits. Having less pollution to breathe should benefit

– - should prevent over 3,000 no n

- fatal heart attacks, avoid over 35,000 cases of worsened asthma, and eliminate nearly 3,400 hospital and emergency room visits each year

– - each year.

Response: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulates and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects and reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health benefits.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: We urge EPA to not allow industry to burn waste in uncontrolled and unmonitored facilities. We see today powerful and vocal industry lobbies here opposing these rules. We’re not that powerful and, certainly today, not that vocal; but we represent children with asthma and the communities next door to these facilities. We speak for the adults on oxygen who cannot be here to say that we must have air that does not make it harder for them to breathe. We speak for those whose lives are threatened by the pollution spewing from these boilers and incinerators. All of us deserve to breathe clean air. We are counting on EPA to deliver cleaner, healthier air in every community. Too many peop le have suffered too long. Now is the time to require all of these plants to clean up.

Response: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulates and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects and reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health benefits.Commenter Name: Los Angeles Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 56

Comment: We object to the U.S. EPA using only health risk assessments as its only measure of public health impacts. HRAs are not based on any public health baseline from a scientifically conducted health survey of impacted environmental justice commun ities. HRAs do not identify all public health impacts by illness category; do not identify how many people are afflicted, and cannot tell you if cancer is increasing or decreasing.

We request the U.S. EPA include a health impact assessment to provide inf ormation not provided in a health impact assessment. EPA also failed to include an assessment of individual hot spot EJ communities. Wilmington is one of those communities that should have been looked at more thoroughly to identify what the standard in an appropriate measure to protect a hot spot EJ community, and we ask that you do that.

Your standard identifies specific chemicals that we feel is not adequate. There are over 100 plus toxic HAP chemicals that have been identified and we want a standard to be applied to every single one of them. You have stated in there that you have identified or called a category of a surrogate or CO, for example. Well, you can’t compare a thousand pounds of benzene to a thousand pounds of CO by average in.

You quote in there

-- as one of my final things

-- that you would be avoiding 110 to 300 premature deaths in 2003. Obviously, the staff did not look at our figures in the harbor. We average that number of deaths every single day in the L.A. harbor community. So before quoting a number you need to look at the actual data, which you’re going to get from the Los Angeles County Department of Health and the California Department of Health. And those will provide you reliable numbers. [Panelist question] With regard to the health assessments you will be describing, will you have some further description as to what those assessments should be considering?

MR. MARQUEZ: Yes. There is a provided consulting firm, Health Impact Partners, that conducts these. And U.C.L.A. and U.C . Berkeley both have institutes or departments within the universities that also specialize in health assessments.

So that you do know, U.S. EPA Region 9 last year attended a class and sent about six to seven members. As well as L.A. County Department of Health sent about four to five staff members, in addition to about of us E.J. organizations and attended a class here in Los Angeles. Actually, it was about two years ago. And in all of the public comments that have been made regarding that course and mov ement, they have recommended a health impact assessment to perform in addition to an HRA.Response: A agrees that it is informative to estimate how many fewer people would experience air pollution

- related health effects as a result of this regulation. T he regulatory impact analysis conducted as part of the rule includes a health impact assessment, which quantifies a variety of health effects avoided by the rule, including mortality, hospital visits, asthma attacks, school loss days, among others at the n ational level. It is important to note that air pollution is only one of many contributing causes of mortality and morbidity.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 67

Comment: I wanted to come as a private citizen because, I mean, I live in D.C. When you look around, we are impacted by petrochemical industries and chemical industries not because they’re right here in our back yard but because they’re basically upwind and becaus e we’re downwind, we’re failing at our air toxics tests.

There are reasons why basically our lungs are being poisoned and they’re not because of emissions that are happening right here in our back yards. And a lot of it are coming from boilers and inci nerators that aren’t being regulated with off

- the

- shelf technology. And for us, it’s just really important to see communities protected.

I’m a person who’s of childbearing age. I am probably going to be having kids in the next five years. I have no ide a what pollutants are going into my lungs, what those pollutants are going to have on my reproductive system, what they are going to have on my potential children down the line. And as I get older, it just gets more distressing that the EPA basically has t he authority to move forward with promulgating protective rules, yet we’re seeing things like the definition of solid waste that genuinely are not protective of people.

Response: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulates and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects and reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health benefits.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenter s Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 53

Comment: I think it can go without saying that often these things can go past the regulations that not everyone obeys the regulations; they do what they can to protect the bo ttom dollar, and in the long run, a healthy society will do more to

-- without missing workdays or sick days

-- sick days will do more for the economy than being allowed to burn more substances close to home.Response: EPA agrees that exposure to fine particulates and toxic air pollutants is associated with severe health effects and reducing exposure to these pollutants is associated with substantial public health benefits.

Commenter Name: Michael Wagner Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Contro l Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2271 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The preamble of the proposed rule makes several references to a group of 30 "urban air toxics" that U.S. EPA is using as justification for some of the emission limits in the proposed

r ule. Most area sources in Wisconsin with biomass (wood) boilers are located in rural areas with limited population so concerns about "urban air toxics" are irrelevant. The amount of air pollution generated by biomass (wood) boilers at area sources in Wisco nsin is significantly less than the amount of air pollution generated from open burning, residential wood stoves, and outdoor wood burning units. As a result, stringent regulation of area source boilers will have little if any impact on the air quality in Wisconsin other than forcing some companies to go out of business.

Response: See responses to Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397, Comment Excerpt Number : 42, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0609, Comment Excerpt Number : 1, Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985, Comment Excerpt Number : 58, and Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0836, Comment Excerpt Number : 10.

Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: The use of the Fann et al. (2009) methodology to estimate reduction in ambient levels of PM2.5 is improper. The Fann et al. methodology has not undergone a rigorous peer revie w as should be required for any methodology utilized by US EPA for estimating the effects of a regulatory scheme on the health of the US population. The Fann, et al. methodology uses a flawed emission inventory (US EPA’s 2001 National Emissions Inventory) and projects that inventory out to 2015. The 2001 inventory has been replaced with a newer inventory which should have been utilized. Because Fann does not include the revised inventory in the open sourced study, it is impossible to see how Fann projected emissions out to 2015. He only makes a vague statement that the projected inventory includes several federal regulatory programs such as CAIR.Fann utilizes the CMAQ version 4.4 regional air quality model to estimate PM2.5 ambient air quality levels assoc iated with various regulatory schemes. The CMAQ version 4.4 model has several flaws which render it’s use to estimate PM2.5 levels inappropriate without a comparison to actual PM2.5 levels in modeled areas. This version of CMAQ significantly overestimates PM2.5 levels when compared to actual measured PM2.5 levels. Because CMAQ overestimates PM2.5, several updates to this model have been made to correct these known deficiencies. Despite these known problems, Fann et al. make no effort to correct for this ove restimation or make any comparison to actual measured PM2.5 levels. Consequently, it can be presumed that the model as used by Fann, overestimates PM2.5 ambient air quality levels resulting from each ton of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. This will nece ssarily result in an overestimation of the change in PM2.5 level resulting from the reduction of each ton of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. Similarly, by overestimating the change in PM2.5 ambient air quality levels, the Fann et al. methodology also o verestimates the benefits of the associated reductions. US EPA should not utilize outdated versions of regional air quality models which over estimate impacts when analyzing the economic impacts associated with the proposed regulations. US EPA should revi se this analysis to properly account for the deficiencies of the Fann methodology and the associated inventory and regional air quality model.

Response: Thank you for the comment.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center, George M ason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1837.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: To calculate the expected benefits of reducing emissions of the fine

- grained particulate matter known as PM2.5, EPA uses a “benefit per ton” approach, meaning the agency assumes that each ton of pollution has the same health effects. The best practice in regulatory analysis is to use marginal benefit analysis: each ton of pollution is treated separately.[ 2 See OMB Circular A

- 4 (2003), available at http: //www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a

- 4.pdf. ] For many pollutants and other hazardous substances, the health effects from a small amount of exposure are not proportional to those from a larger exposure.[ See e.g. Werner Lutz, “Dose

response relationship and low dose extrapolation in chemical carcinogenesis,” Carcinogenesis 11, no. 8 (1990): 1243

– 1247.] In some cases, a small amount of exposure have the reverse effect of a larger exposure.[ See e.g. Edward Calabrese and L inda Baldwin, “U

- shaped dose

— responses in biology, toxicology, and public health,” Annual Review of Public Health 22 (2001):15

– 33.]

EPA cites evidence that there is no safe threshold for PM2.5 (i.e. exposure to any amount has negative health effects) and that the health effects of exposure to PM2.5 are directly proportional to the amount of exposure. These studies did not prove a linea r relationship exists but found that there was insufficient data to disprove either the assumption of a linear relationship or thenonexistence of a threshold. Thus, many relationships which were not tested may be equally valid. Only one study looked at wh ether other relationships might better explain the health effects over different levels of exposure

— finding a non

- linear relationship. However, national PM2.5 levels have only been measured since 1999 and most counties have levels so low that measurement i s not possible.[ Tom Walton, Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters Draft Report, EPA (2010).]

Response: Based on the conclusions of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment on Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009), long term exposure to fine particles has a causal link to premature mortality, even at low ambient levels. In addition, exposure to fine particles is associated with cardiovascular and respiratory health effects. The methodology for estimating the health benefits associated with reducing PM2.5 and precursor emissions is based on peer

- reviewed publications (see Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009).

In 2006, EPA solicited expert opinio ns on the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality, which concluded that the benefits of reducing exposure to PM2.5 is substantial.

The weight of scientific evidence strongly supports modeling PM

- related mortality and morbidity by usin g concentration

- response functions that do not incorporate an assumed threshold. In 2009, the final Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter indicated that “[o]verall, the studies evaluated further support the use of a no

- threshold log

- linear m odel...” (U.S. EPA, 2009). In 2010, the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board “fully supports EPA’s decision to use a no

- threshold model to estimate mortality reductions. This decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Analyses of cohorts using data from more recent years, during which time PM concentrations have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality. Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF” (EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- 10

- 001). Our approach to estimating PM

- related health impacts is consistent with the key findings in these reports. In addition, our approach is consistent with the on

- going PM NAAQS review.

In conjunction with the commenter’s concern and consistent with recent scientific advice, we have replaced the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new “lowest measured level” (LML) assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncerta inty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify the PM

- related mortality impacts using the full range of modeled air quality concentrations.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Mer catus Center, George Mason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1837.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Comment: To estimate total health effects, EPA used mortality data from two studies looking at the effects of PM2.5 on urban populations.[ Francine Laden, Joel Schwartz, Frank E. Speizer, and Douglas W. Dockery, “Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Extended Follow

- up of the Harvard Six Cities Study,” American Journal Of Respiratory And Critical Care Medicine 173 (2006) ; C. Arden Pope III, Richard T. Burnett, and Michael J. Thun et al. “Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long

- term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution,” Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no.9 (2002):1132

– 1141.] The first was
p ublished in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a team led by Arden Pope, using data from the American Cancer Association. The second was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine by a team led by Francine L aden and funded by EPA. There are substantial differences between the results of the two studies: premature mortality would be reduced by the proposed rule from 300 incidences according to Laden’s study but by only 110 incidences according to Pope’s study. In addition to substantial differences between the two studies, there were also substantial differences within each study for different cities. An earlier study by an EPA team which devised the methodology used to calculate benefits used for this rule, fo und that a one ton reduction in area source carbon (using Laden’s methodology) would generate $2.5 million in benefits in Phoenix but only $280,000 in Denver. The study’s authors hypothesize that the differences result not only from different population de nsity but also from environmental factors such as wind and temperature, and from differences in the underlying health of residents of different regions.

EPA’s method only identifies costs for nine separate cities and merges the remainder of the country i nto a single national region. For the national region, benefits per ton from reducing area source carbon were estimated at $720,000, more than small urban areas like Salt Lake City ($140,000) but also more than Atlanta ($610,000), Chicago ($510,000), and N ew York and Philadelphia ($570,000).[ Neal Fann, Charles M. Fulcher and Bryan J. Hubbell, “The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution,” Air Quality, Atmosphere and Healt h 2 (2009):169

– 176.] This figure is almost certainly high for rural areas with low populations, but this may be masked in the averages by many larger urban areas which are included in the national region. The team who originally devised the methodology als o cautioned against attempting to apply their research to urban areas other than those already studied.[Id.]

The original EPA study identifies several factors that may explain large differences in the benefits from reducing PM2.5. First, even among fine

- grained particulate matter, there are different types which have different effects on mortality. Reducing area source carbon by one ton in Atlanta creates $670,000 while removing a ton of volatile organic compounds (VOC) creates only $1,200 in benefits. Re ducing a ton of area source ammonia is harmful, creating a negative benefit (or social cost) of $4,100 .[Id.] Different sources may emit the same type of particulate matter but differences in the height of the exhaust stack or the velocity at which partic les leave the stack may affect how many people are exposed.[Id.] For example, reducing area source carbon creates greater benefits than reducing mobile source carbon.[Id.] Additionally, different locations have different mortality rates, which the authors theorize may be due to different population densities and the initial health of people living in different locations.EPA combines all the regional benefit per ton statistics to create an average benefit per ton for the entire country for each regulated source. This would be the benefit per ton if emissions levels fell equally across the country. The analysis does not consider how benefits would vary if emissions are not reduced equally across the country, or how different regulations might differently af fect different regions. The proposed rule indicates that EPA preferred more stringent regulations if the source was more likely to be found in urban areas, but because the economic analysis uses a national benefit per ton and only addresses the rule as a w hole, the agency has no information to indicate whether this decision improved the quality of the rulemaking. As the evidence presented by EPA demonstrates, it not only matters whether a source is urban but in which urban area it is sited. By looking at be nefits by region and separating out individual regulatory actions the analysis could show how each alternative affects each region, thus guiding policy makers to the best outcome rather than justifying the regulation after the fact.

The analysis should a lso address any uncertainty over where reductions are likely to occur. The agency addresses uncertainty over how much benefits a reduction in emissions would create by reporting benefits using the mortality estimates from both studies. However, EPA does no t estimate any uncertainty about the location or type of pollution to be reduced. Overall, the agency likely underestimates uncertainty surrounding benefits. This does not necessarily mean the agency has overestimated or underestimated benefits, but accura tely measuring uncertainty can help policy makers improve the quality of decision making. For example, EPA might consider phasing in new regulations more gradually (starting in areas where net benefits are likely to be highest or are most certain) and meas ure how accurate initial estimates were. This information can then inform policy going forward. Calculating the additional benefits and costs from each ton of each pollutant reduced also helps the agency to improve the quality of rulemaking. The current r egulatory impact analysis only tells policy makers whether the rule is likely to generate net benefits. A marginal benefit analysis would allow policy makers to decide if a more or less stringent rule would increase net benefits, or if an alternative appro ach would be better.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average h ealth benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commerci al/institutional applications in close proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, inclu ding population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for speci fic locations may vary.Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee Commenter Affiliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1873.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The justification for the action is admirable, but short

- s ighted, as the detrimental effect of the loss of work and the decrease in quality of life caused by this action will more than offset the few lives and discomforts the proponents enumerate as justification AND ACTUALLY COST LIVES! One would have to believe , based on the justification, that most of these solid

- fuel

- burning sources are all placed in urban settings, in reality, most are in rural, low

population areas. It has been widely discussed, researched and proven that UNEMPLOYMENT causes far more deaths , drug use, domestic violence, smoking, dependency, etc than this list. So, it will have the opposite effect than that they hope to achieve. According to the CDC reports that the deaths per 100,000 rose from an all

- time low of 760 in 2007 to 838 in 2009 du e to the economic downturn, essentially unemployment. That is an increase of 234,000. This occurred even as the emissions from boilers were decreased by a large percentage due also to the economic downturn. I believe this correlation essentially negates th e justification and exposes the projection of mortality improvements as a myopic grasp that ends up being a rounding error. This is certain.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the ex isting geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in close proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national avera ge estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incide nce rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center, George Mason Uni versity Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1837.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: The evidence presented by EPA suggests that the greatest benefits from reducing emissions will come from reducing emissions in urban areas where higher population density is greatest means a larger number of people would be affected by the pollution.[ Sup ra note 10.]Further, there is more evidence of the benefits from urban areas than from rural areas where particulate matter levels are frequently too low to measure. There is thus less uncertainty about the benefits from reducing emissions around cities. Establishing an emissions standard for metropolitan areas would be less costly because fewer emitters would be affected and because some emitters would be able to choose to locate in areas where the standard did not apply. This could potentially increase benefits if moving emissions away from the urban areas reduces human exposure to PM2.5, even if total emissions fell by less.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average h ealth benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commerci al/institutional applications in close proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center, Georg e Mason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1837.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Even among cities, the benefits from reducing PM2.5 vary greatly. Establishing separate standards depending on location could increase benefits by m aking standards more stringent where the benefits are highest and less stringent where benefits are lowest. As with urban standards, emitters could locate in areas where the social costs of pollution are less, to avoid the most stringent regulations, reduc ing costs and increasing benefits from the regulation.

Response: Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and othe r local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Num ber: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: EPA makes a statement regarding the number of lives saved per year by applying emission restrictions but does not specially identify which areas of the country that such reduction of emi ssions would affect the saving of lives. In addition, there is no discernable waythat EPA can prove their statement and it is only stated as an estimation. No area or areas are identified where air quality is affected to the extent that such purported emi ssions could cause death.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically , EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur eith er in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in close proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits e stimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetize d benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

It should be noted that we have not modeled the benefits for areas outside of the continental United States.

Commenter Name: Matthew Todd and David Friedman Commenter Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) and National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2025.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 59

Comment: The claimed health benefits resulting from this proposal are significan tly overstated. The preamble indicates that the Agency cannot estimate the benefits from the HAP reductions resulting from this rule, but that they estimate the rule will result in reductions of 2,700 tons of PM2.5 and 1,500 tons of SO2 per year. EPA estim ates the monetized benefits in 2013 associated with these reductions at between $1.0 billion (2008 dollars) and $2.4 billion (2008 dollars) when using a 3 percent discount rate (or from $0.9 billion (2008 dollars) to $2.2 billion (2008 dollars) when using a 7 percent discount rate. For the PM2.5 portion of these estimates EPA has not provided scientific justification for its proposed approach of extrapolating PM mortality risks to the lowest modeled ambient levels. An examination of the expert group advice cited by EPA in support of this approach reveals mostly the opposite, i.e., preference for the use of a threshold or apparent threshold for PM risk assessment. A critical review of the published literature also fails to provide support for EPA’s proposed n ew method for PM risk assessment. Many of the published studies cite evidence for nonlinearity and thresholds. Therefore, we do not believe that EPA’s new approach to extrapolate mortality risks attributed to exposure to ambient PM linearly to the lowest m odeled levels is or can be scientifically supported. As a result, the alleged economic benefits attributed to reductions in exposure to PM2.5 also fail because they are built on a faulty foundation.Additionally, EPA claimed the PM2.5 and SO2 credits for the NAAQS standards and it is unreasonable to claim them again. Under the NAAQS program, the NSPS and SIP programs would lead to optimizing the ways in which PM2.5 and SO2 are reduced and it is unlikely minor reductions from very small sources, such as is proposed for regulation here would be ranked highly in the overall hierarchy.

Response: The weight of scientific evidence strongly supports modeling PM

- related mortality and morbidity by using concentration

- response functions that do not incorporate an assumed threshold. In 2009, the final Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter indicated that “[o]verall, the studies evaluated further support the use of a no

- threshold log

- linear model...” (U.S. EPA, 2009). In 2010, the Health Effects Subcommi ttee of the Science Advisory Board “fully supports EPA’s decision to use a no

- threshold model to estimate mortality reductions. This decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Analys es of cohorts using data from more recent years, during which time PM concentrations have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality. Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF” (EPA

- SAB

- COUNCIL

- 10

- 001). Our appr oach to estimating PM

- related health impacts is consistent with the key findings in these reports. In addition, our approach is consistent with the on

- going PM NAAQS review.

In conjunction with the commenter’s concern and consistent with recent scientifi c advice, we have replaced the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new “lowest measured level” (LML) assessment. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not vie w the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify the PM

- related mortality impacts using the full range of modeled air quality concentrations.

EPA anticipates PM and SO2 emission reductions as a result of this rule, and the benefits associated with thes e emission reductions are appropriate to include in this RIA. These emission reductions would occur regardless of an area’s attainment status under the NAAQS, but these emission reductions might help those areas that are in non

- attainment to reach attainme nt.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: Health Considerations EPA makes a statement regarding the number of lives saved per year by applying emission restrictions but does not specially identify which areas of the country that such reduction of emissions would affect the saving of lives. In addition, there is no discernable way that EPA can prove their statem ent and it is only stated as an estimation. No area or areas are identified where air quality is affected to the extent that such purported emissions could cause death. Therefore,such unscientific statements regarding the saving of lives without context r egarding air quality emissions for implementation for such a sweeping regulatory authorization is specious and lacks definition.

Response: Based on the conclusions of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment on Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009), long term exposure to fine particles has a causal link to premature mortality, even at low ambient levels.

The methodology used to estimate the heal th benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with reducing on e ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in close
pro ximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mix tures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

It is important to note that EPA has only modeled the benefits for the continental United States.

Commenter Name: Martin Lunde Commenter Affiliation: Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2065.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Inaccurate assessment of health effects from biomass boiler particulate matter

Response: Based on the conclusions of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment on Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009), long term exposure to fine particles has a causal link to premature mortality, eve n at low ambient levels. In addition, exposure to fine particles is associated with cardiovascular and respiratory health effects. The methodology for estimating the health benefits associated with reducing PM2.5 and precursor emissions is based on peer

- re viewed publications (see Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, 2009).

Commenter Name: Charlie Cary Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Combustion Systems, Inc Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1990.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8Comment: The positive impacts of these proposed standards are significantly overstated. The EPA rule making is to reduce “urban” HAPs. Accordingly, EPA has modeled its calculations of health costs on data obtained from areas of high density. As a result, the agenc y incorrectly overstates the value of emission reductions in the rural areas where most wood boilers are located.

Response: The methodology used to estimate the health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribut ion of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with reducing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2) from the existing sour ces. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in close proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably under estimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollution mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

Commenter Name: Kyle Gibeault Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council, BTEC Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1914.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Furthermore, EPA’s model for calculating health costs overstates the health impacts of emissions in rural areas with lower population density (which is the location of most biomas s boilers), because the model and data were developed based on densely populated urban areas. [Footnote: Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell, “The Influence of Location, Source, and Emission Type In Estimates of Human Health Benefits of Reducing a Ton of Air Pollut ion,” June 2009.] This bias causes the EPA impact model to overvalue emissions reductions from rural biomass boilers in its cost

- benefit analysis.

Based on weak correlation of CO and POMs, the lower toxicity of PM from completely combusted biomass vs. pe troleum PM, and the likely overstatement of health impacts in areas of low population density, BTEC believes there is a good basis that the exceptionally strict standards proposed in the rule are unwarranted.

Response: The methodology used to estimate t he health benefits associated with the proposed rule presumes the existing geographic distribution of these emission sources, which includes both urban and rural sources. Specifically, EPA estimated the national average health benefits associated with redu cing one ton of a PM2.5 precursor emission (such as direct PM2.5 or SO2)from the existing sources. Because available data show that a large majority of area source boilers occur either in urban areas (67%) or in commercial/institutional applications in cl ose proximity to susceptible populations (99%), using national average estimates probably underestimate the magnitude of the associated health benefits.

Location

- specific benefits estimates depend on many factors, including population density, air pollut ion mixtures, meteorology, exposure patterns, baseline health incidence rates, and other local factors. At a national level, EPA has high confidence in the magnitude of total monetized benefits, but the benefits for specific locations may vary.

Commente r Name: Steven A. Brink Commenter Affiliation: California Forestry Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2026.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Further Biomass Thermal Energy Council shows EPA’s health cost model does not account fo r lower human population density in rural areas (which is where most biomass boilers are located) creating a higher value for emissions reduction, which affects the cost

- benefit analysis.

Response: Thank you for your comment.



### Other

- Impact Analysis

Commenter Name: Michael Hutcheson Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2012.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: The US EPA improperly overestimates energy and fuel savings associated with required energy au dits, annual tune

- ups and required combustion controls. US EPA should not include any energy savings associated with energy audits as these audits will not guarantee any energy savings. They are only assessments. Similary, US EPA’s own data shows that affe cted units are already conducting boiler tune

- ups (page 32025 of preamble which states, “The data we have suggests that units typically conduct tune

- ups”). Consequently, US EPA should expect little benefit from boiler tune

- ups as these are already normal p ractice throughout industry. As a result, Ameren believes that the fuel savings estimate of 1 % of annual fuel consumption is an overestimate and should be revised downward to reflect realistic estimates of fuel savings.Response: The fuel savings est imated for the final rule are those associated with the required
tune

- up requirement. There are several references in the docket that show the benefit in improved energy efficiency and fuel savings of a tune

- up.



### Executive Orders

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Commenter Name: Michael A. Livermore Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1899.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Given the mandate from Executive Order 12,866, EPA’s default practice should be to design regulations that maximize net social welfare, unless directly forbidden by statute. Since Section 112(d)(2) cannot be read to prohibit such a goal, the agency should pursue any beyond

the

- floor regulations where benefits justify the costs. This interpretation is not forbidden by the D.C. Circuit opinion in Sierra Club v. EPA (2004), and EPA’s regulatory impact analysis indicates that, particularly for the Major Source Proposal, more stringent emission standards than those currently proposed would increase social welfare.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input See preamble for response to comments on how CO limits were modified. See preamble for respons e to comments on the pollutant

- by

- pollutant approach. See the Preamble for discussion on how we addressed and revised CO limits. Thank you for your comment.

Commenter Name: Ben Brandes Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1980.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: NMA believes that the regulatory analysis supporting the proposed rules is fatally flawed because it fails to take into account the cumulative impact of all of EPA’s now

- numerous compl eted, pending and expected rulemakings that are intended to and will have the effect of substantially reducing the usage of coal in the United States. These rulemakings include those affecting the use of coal for electric generation, where EPA is implement ing a coordinated program to create, in its words, a ?clean, efficient, and completely modern power sector, those affecting the use of coal for industrial, commercial and institutional purposes, such as the two rules specifically at issue here, and those d irectly affecting coal mining.All of these rulemakings together will produce a dramatic and cascading series of effects not only in the coal industry but throughout the economy. There will be direct effects on coal employment and indirect effects on empl oyment generally in the economy as a result of higher energy prices. Higher energy prices will also affect GDP and economic activity generally. American competitiveness will also be affected, as higher prices undermine the ability of American business to c ompete, with resulting off

- shoring of American business and jobs. Impact analysis performed by EPA now proceeds on a rulemaking

- by

- rulemaking basis, as if one rulemaking is unconnected to the next and as if the regulatory consequences are not cumulative. As a result, EPA’s impact analyses mask the cumulative effect of the Agency‘s overall regulatory program. Individual

- regulation impact analyses often predict limited effects, when in truth the compounding effects of the overall program may produce extremel y large
consequences. This Balkanized approach to impact analysis impairs the public’s right to notice and comment regarding EPA regulation. For instance, EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Boiler MACT rule shows relatively minor effects, which migh t lead the public to believe that the rule is relatively innocuous. Cumulative analysis, on the other hand, is likely to lead to a far different conclusion

— that coal usage will decline dramatically as a result of the combined effect of numerous EPA rulemak ings with attendant serious economic consequences. Armed with that information, the public would likely provide significantly different comment on the rule. EPA and other cooperating agencies rely upon similar cumulative impact assessments when analyzing
p roposed federal actions subject to the National Environmental Procedure Act, and the public should be afforded the same opportunity here. Analyzing cumulative impacts is not just good policy, it is required by Executive Order 12866 and the notice and comm ent rulemaking provisions of the Clean Air Act (?CAA). NMA therefore urges EPA to defer final action on the two rules at issue here until the necessary cumulative impact assessment is produced. The specific type of analysis that NMA recommends is set forth

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the revised Regulatory Impacts Analysis report, that is located in the docket, on how we may have addressed this comment.



### Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA maintains this proposed rule is not a "significant energy action" as it will not have significant adverse impact on supply, distribution, or use of energy. This may be true for urban areas of the continental U.S., but for rural Alaska, this proposed rule will most likely be a "significant energy action". Nationwide, the proposed rule impacts less than 0.7 percent of

re venue. While "percent of revenue" may provide a meaningful benchmark in the urban U.S.,due to the excessively high cost of fuel and maintenance and the small market base over which to amortize these costs in rural Alaska communities

— - percent of revenue" is not a relevant benchmark. While annualized costs of this rule are estimated to exceed 1% of operating revenue in rural Alaska, compliance costs could easily exceed 50% of net annual operating revenues. While biomass is not the most significant source o f heating in rural Alaska, in many areas of Alaska it is the only alternative to extremely high costs petroleum fuels. Thus, the State of Alaska feels this proposed rule is onerous and unnecessary considering the reality of space heating in bush Alaska.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the Preamble on how we may have addressed this comment.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: There will be a significant increase in fuel sample analysis. This would place a huge burden on state agencies to analyze the fuel for compliance.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The fuel analysi s that is conducted is in place of stack testing. This should not increase the burden on state agencies.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 9

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

There will be a substantial increase in the number of compliance tests and CEMS certification tests. We currently have 4 positions available for reviewing test protocols, observing the tests and reviewing test reports. The Division’s workload is going to i ncrease and current budget constraints simply mean that the agency will not be able to witness all tests.

Response: The revisions to the final rule will result in fewer area source boilers conducting compliance tests. In addition, the frequency of compliance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial.Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentuck y Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

New or existing boilers are required to conduct initial and annual performance tests as well as CEMs c ompliance testing. The increase in compliance tests will impact the state financially. The state currently spends approximately 3 business days per compliance test observation, per source. The work load includes reviewing compliance test protocols, observi ng the test, and reviewing the final test report. EPA estimates there are currently 183,000 area source boilers and the potential for 6,800 new sources in the next 3 years.

Response: In the final rule, the only existing area source boilers subject to e mission limits and, thus, performance tests are large coal

- fired boilers of which there are an estimated 572 boilers. In addition, the frequency of performance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial. Therefore, the burden to state and local agen cies has been reduced.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

The required ASTM methods listed in the tables 4 and 5 to Subpart JJJJJJ of Part 63 are not available free of charge. In order for state, local, or tribal agencies to observe and review testing methods following the ASTM methodology, the agencies would be required to purcha se copies of the testing methods. A free resource library such as the online EMC website would be beneficial to financially strapped agencies seeking the method information.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their suggestion.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: Burden to State and Local AgenciesThis proposed area source rule will have a major impact on t he regulated community and the Division through added regulatory burden to sources that have otherwise avoided direct regulation under the CAA. The number of sources that will require ongoing compliance monitoring in the form of inspections and testing ove rsight will increase significantly if this proposed rule is promulgated in its current form.

Response: In the final rule, the only existing area source boilers subject to emission limits and, thus, performance tests are large coal

- fired boilers of which there are an estimated 572 boilers. In addition, the frequency of performance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial. Therefore, the burden to state and local agencies has been reduced.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentu cky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

Many of the coal, biomass, and (primary) oil fired units located at these area sources may also be

r egulated by the 40 CFR 60 Subparts Db and Dc of the NSPS, however this proposed rule adds a significant additional testing and management practice requirements to units over 10 MMBtu/hr input ratings. This will be a huge additional burden on the Division s ince compliance with the emission limits is largely based in this testing and will require inspector involvement, supervisory oversight, and management coordination of the review and compliance determination of these new requirements.

Response: In the f inal rule, the only existing area source boilers subject to emission limits and, thus, performance tests are large coal

- fired boilers of which there are an estimated 572 boilers. In addition, the frequency of performance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial. Therefore, the burden to state and local agencies has been reduced.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

The additional work practice standards and management practice standards include, at a minimum, a biennial tune

- up requirement for every non

- gas fired boiler. Combined with annual CO testing of all non

- gas boil ers over 10 MMBtu, the impact on the Division resource will bedevastating. Tracking, inspection, and oversight of these requirements alone would require additional full time staff in every field office in the state.

Response: In the final rule, the onl y existing area source boilers subject to emission limits and, thus, performance tests are large coal

- fired boilers of which there are an estimated 572 boilers. In addition, the frequency of performance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial. Th erefore, the burden to state and local agencies has been reduced.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: Burden to Sta te and Local Agencies

Since many of these units will be at facilities that do not have a permit from the Division there will be an additional burden of educating these sources. These sources typically require a larger amount of time to explain the requir ements and to provide basic compliance assistance to achieve compliance with the rule.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. EPA is planning on implementing an outreach effort to these small facilities.

Commenter Name: John Lyons Commenter Affiliation: Kentucky Division for Air Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2218.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: Burden to State and Local Agencies

The Division recommends that the annual CO testing requirement be reduce d to biennial or even less frequent as a way of reducing the burden on both the Division and regulated sources.

Response: In the final rule, the frequency of performance tests has been reduced from annual to triennial.

### Executive Order 13175, Consul tation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: EPA states this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as it does not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between Federal government and Indian tribes.

The State of Alaska questions how EPA knows whether this rule has direct impacts on tribal governments without EPA having

- consulted" Alaska tribes to begin with. This is a significant consideration in rural Alaska where this rule will have signi ficant cost impacts to members of Alaska tribes, From the perspective of AEA, who interacts and works with Alaska tribes on a regular basis, this federal proposed rule DOES have substantial direct effects on tribal governments responsible for the well bein g of their tribal members

- made more difficult with the cost impacts of this rule.

In particular, section 3, parts (b) and (c) of the executive order speak to providing tribal governments the maximum administrative discretion possible and encouraging tri bes to develop their own policies to meet rule objectives, defer to tribal standards, and most importantly, consult with tribes as to the need for alternatives that would limit the scope of the federal standard. In section 5 on the specifics of consultatio n, federal agencies must, for any regulation that has tribal implications, have consulted with tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and provide documentation of that consultation. AEA does not ‘Know if ‘EPA has taken these steps with Alaskan tribes, or

- ventured to determine if this proposed rule even has an impact on Alaskan tribes. AEA believes EPA should consider farther tribal input on these rules even if it means developing a separate rulemaking for the "rural" p art of Alaska.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.



### Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 12Comment: MR. THOMAS: How are you defining "environmental justice communities"? You have to

-- I know it’s a very complicated issu e. MR. TEJADA: Yeah, the EPA doesn’t even really have a good definition of environmental justice communities, and I think that’s one of the things that NEJAC is

-- is struggling with, as well, finding exactly what it means to take environmental justice an d give it its full measure in the decision

- making process, exactly where that comes into the decision

- making process, exactly who are environmental justice communities. That’s one of the things that I think that is most challenging about Houston, is that it’s not just the usual suspects. I think most of the ten

- point communities of major industry in the Houston area are obviously environmental justice communities following the regular interpretations of low socioeconomic levels, the racial profile of the community, its proximity to major sources, is a good start. But especially in Houston, one of the things that my organization has been struggling with a lot over the past year is that we are finding small, yet major sources of pollution buried within our entire community from unusual suspects, such as automotive mechanics, things such as metal fabrication or foundries. So I think these sorts of rules that deal very specifically and are very well defined in things such as a boiler versus an incinerator or solid waste, especially in the Houston region, which I think even by a narrow definition of environmental justice community would probably have more EJ communities than anywhere else in the United States; that is further multiplied when you look at Houst on itself being the largest city without any form of zoning in the United States. If you actually pull back the cover of Houston, you start to find many communities sprinkled throughout the entire region that face very specific, but very serious threats from air emissions. We’re dealing with one about a half mile from downtown right now. A historic black community that has a boundary in the center of the community, and that boundary from its permit, which was only taken out a few years ago, its histori c operational practices, the emissions and locations of the different units within the facility that, that community has been very poorly served by a poor regulatory definition of how a boundary of that size should operate. And this rule or these rules ar e exactly the sort that need to be very specific and very well defined in order to better protect exactly those sorts of communities that don’t have the profile of Manchester or Galena Park or Baytown.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industr ial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/In stitutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, NESCAUM Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2137.1Comment Excerpt Number: 28

Comment: Numerous health studies have linked exposure to elevated PM levels to a wide range of detrimental heart and lung health effects, including increased risk of premature death. Children in particular may be at greater risk in some respects than adults from e xposure to air pollution for a number of reasons. Those under the age of 17 have a higher resting metabolic rate and oxygen consumption rate per unit of body weight than adults, which results in a relatively greater volume of air passing through the lungs. Children engage in activities such as playing outdoors that could increase the amount of air pollutants they take into their bodies. Children are growing and can sustain permanent damage if toxic exposures are high enough during critical growth stages, wi th children under the age of 17 years old at greater risk of hospitalization due to respiratory disease with increased PM

- 10 exposure.

With these types of relatively greater risks for children from exposure to air pollution, NESCAUM is concerned about th e various efforts being pursued by government agencies and the private sector to encourage use of small biomass boilers in institutional settings, specifically schools and hospitals (the latter setting also affects sensitive adults, such as those with
resp iratory disease). Typically, these boilers have not had to comply with emission limits.

Implementing a strong area source standard, specifically for PM and CO emissions, will better protect the health of these sensitive populations.

Response: EPA than ks the commenter for their input. See the Preamble for discussion on how we addressed and revised CO and PM limits.



### Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: The UMRA requires, where feasible, consideration of future compliance costs imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. EPA states their estimates of future compliance costs of the proposed rule would not have disproportionate budgetar y effects on any particular areas of the country, state, or local governments, or types of communities (e.g. urban or rural). This position does not contemplate rural Alaska. It is difficult to find the citation for this estimate or data offered to show th is demonstration in either the federal register notice or Regulatory Impact Analysis. Alaska Energy Authority has not been contacted by EPA as part of this estimate and to their knowledge, tribes and rural communities have not been contacted as well. AEA h as solid financial reasons to believe this proposed rule WILL have disproportionate impact on rural Alaska communities depending on biomass heating. AEA encourages EPA,under the auspices of the UMRA, to bring its considerable resource to bear on a cost im pact determination of this proposed rule on rural Alaska communities.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See preamble on how we may have addressed this comment.

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Comm unity Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The UMRA requires, where feasible, consideration of future compliance costs imposed by the rule and any disproport ionate budgetary effects. EPA states their estimates of future compliance costs of the proposed rule would not have disproportionate budgetary effects on any particular areas of the country, state, or local governments, or types of communities (e.g. urban or rural). It is difficult to find the citation for this estimate or data offered to show this demonstration in either the federal register notice or Regulatory Impact Analysis. The Alaska Energy Authority, part of the State of Alaska, and the entity that oversees most energy projects and implements energy policy in the state, has not been contacted by EPA as part of this estimate and to their knowledge, tribes and rural communities have not been contacted as well. AEA has solid financial reasons to believe this proposed rule WILL have disproportionate impact on rural Alaska communities depending on biomass heating. AEA encourages EPA, under the auspices of the UMRA, to bring its considerable resource to bear on a cost impact determination of this proposed r ule on rural Alaska communities.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See preamble for on how we addressed and revised requirements for biomass

- fired area source boilers.



### Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business Re gulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (RFA) of 1996 SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et Seq.

Commenter Name: Mike Hubbard Commenter Affiliation: National Council of Textile Organizations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1062 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comme nt: Much higher costs than those estimated by EPA: The testing, reporting, and record keeping costs (due to a mercury limit) will be significant. Most minor source companies are small, so the effect will be greater on their overall operational costs.Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See preamble on how we addressed and revised the final rule to reduce the burden on area source facilities.

Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Busin ess, NFIB Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1631.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Regulation affects small businesses in a substantially different way than it does large businesses. When a large business needs to comply with a new regulati on, it designates its regulatory compliance officer

— or officers

— with the task. These individuals know their way around regulatory technicalities that most lay persons do not easily understand.

For the small business owner, there is no regulatory comp liance officer. This burden falls squarely on the owner, who, more times than not, is responsible for everything from ordering inventory and hiring employees, to taking out the trash at the end of the day. And while they may be expert in their craft, compr ehending regulations, formalizing plans for their implementation and filling out paperwork is an extremely burdensome exercise.

Even beyond the significant time regulations take away from a small business owner trying to make a living, the per

- employee c ost of regulation is significantly greater for small businesses. A study performed by economist Mark Crain for the U.S. Small Business Administration estimated that regulations cost Americans $1.1 trillion annually. Importantly, the study also showed that small businesses face a 45 percent greater regulatory burden than their larger counterparts. [Footnote: Crain, W. Mark, The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms, 2005, http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs264.pdf.] The compliance burdens presented by th ese rules are great because small business owners will need to spend significant time to understand these rules, make expenditures to expensive consultants to bring the facility up to compliance, and greatly increase the amount of time he or she spends on paperwork compliance.

EPA has aimed for the platinum standard with this rule when the gold standard would be effective. The result will have serious and harmful consequences for the small businesses forced to comply with this rule.

Response: EPA thank s the commenter for their input. See the revised Regulatory Impacts Analysis report, located in the docket, on the revised costs and impacts on small businesses resulting from the changes made in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Randy Bush Commenter Aff iliation: Virginia Forest Products Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1492.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Comment: The Virginia Forest Products Association is a non

- profit organization representing members engaged in or supporting the forest products industry in the Commonwealth of Virginia. While our membership includes companies of varying sizes, our typical member would best be classed as a small business, with the majority being family owned and operated.

Recent economic conditions have placed a severe toll on the industry ... easily the worst since the Depression, with many facilities closing their doors either temporarily or permanently. As an example, studies have shown the number of sawmills in the Stat e in 2009 is one

- half of the total found in 1999, just 10 years previously. Any additional regulatory burdens, particularly those that have questionable cost vs. benefit ratios, placed on the industry will put many more facilities at risk.

We believe the proposed Area Source Boiler Standard is far more stringent than needed to assure protection of health and the environment due to HAP emissions from the affected boilers. As mentioned earlier, the membership of the Virginia Forest Products Association face s a withering economic slump (both global and domestic) with fierce competition from overseas manufacturers. Therefore, it is imperative for mandatory environmental controls such as these standards to be tailored as closely as possible such that health and the environment are protected without requiring unnecessary expenditures of time and resources.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the revised Regulatory Impacts Analysis report, located in the docket, on the revised costs and imp acts on small businesses resulting from the changes made in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Bass Commenter Affiliation: Tuolumne County Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2250 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The economic impa ct of this proposed rule as it is currently written does not support the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel’s recommendation that the EPA carefully weigh the potential burden of compliance requirements and consider options for small entities. Several ele ments of the proposed rule are believed to be too stringent and too costly, and may not protect ambient air quality or public health, as described, if boiler operations are forced to shut down and biomass waste disposal is conducted through open burning.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the revised Regulatory Impacts Analysis report, located in the docket, on the revised costs and impacts on small businesses resulting from the changes made in the final rule.

### Executive Order 1 3211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

Commenter Name: Jon Bolling Commenter Affiliation: Prince of Wales Community Advisor Council Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1935.1 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 8

Comment: Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

EPA maintains this proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as it will not have significant adverse impact on supply, distribution, or use of energy. This may be true for urban areas of the continental U.S., but for rural Alaska, this proposed ru le has a very large potential to be a “significant energy action”. Nationwide, the proposed rule impacts less than 0.7 percent of revenue. While “percent of revenue” may provide a meaningful benchmark in the urban U.S., due to the excessively high cost of fuel and maintenance and the small market base over which to amortize these costs in rural Alaska communities

– “percent of revenue” is not a relevant benchmark. According to the Alaska Energy Authority, while annualized costs of this rule are estimated to exceed 1% of operating revenue in rural Alaska, compliance costs could easily exceed 50% of net annual operating revenues. While biomass is not the most significant source of heating in rural Alaska, in many areas of Alaska it is the only alternative to e xtremely high costs petroleum fuels. Thus, the State of Alaska feels this proposed rule is onerous and unnecessary considering the reality of power production and distribution in rural Alaska.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See prea mble for revised discussion on impact on energy supply based on the changes made to the final rule.



### Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

Commenter Name: Los Angeles P ublic Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0397 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: We are concerned about the open process with regard to the chemicals and the things that are being put into these boilers. Our concern goes to the regulatory officials, the EPA and all of the other agencies. We have been dealing as environmental justice advocates for years over regulations and the enforcement of rules. Very oft en our communities suffer because laws are not enforced, rules are not applied, and community members are not informed about the process as the process unfolds.We think that in order for us to have a fair opportunity to have clean air, to have a safe

en vironment, to have a place where our children can grow and we can trust our air quality, we have to have strongly regulated boilers. This is an attempt to

-- as we see it, to allow industry to get away with burning a lot of chemicals that they can’t otherw ise get rid of.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing S ources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant s for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Arling ton Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 48

Comment: So, how is EPA evaluating the environmental justice impacts of these rules? In the documents that were provided for the webinar that the Agency conducted last Wednesday

-- the rather excellent webinar I might add

- – in those documents it described the dem ographic evaluation of population distribution around the sources impacted by the Boiler MACT CISWI rule and the definition of non

- solid hazardous waste.

EPA’s demographic analysis of the industrial boilers rule clearly shows that 33 percent of the
pop ulation around these existing facilities are people of color, and 29 percent of the population around the CISWI incinerators are people of color. Both analyses demonstrate that areas in closest proximity to these two categories of facilities exceed the per centage of people of color in the nation’s population at large, which is 25 percent.

I want to note that while the demographic analysis represents a significant step forward by EPA in determining the potential impacts of its rulemaking, it is nonethele ss an insufficient analysis of adverse impact of the operations of these facilities on the nearby communities.

The demographic analysis also shows that surrounding communities also have higher levels of people living at or below the national poverty le vels. EPA’s determination of benefits of these rules to environmental justice communities outweighing impacts is spotty and needs to be expanded to include public health impacts that extend beyond the simple and mere demographic analysis.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance forNew Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Insti tutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Arlington Public Hearing Transcript Comm enter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0396 Comment Excerpt Number: 64

Comment: I really wanted to talk a little bit more about the stories of communities that I’ve been in in terms of there are all kinds of things that are thrown in boilers that are small, medium

sized, large, and essentially exempting facilities across this country from having to install protective controls on those facilities, has continued to put those communities at risk.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources : Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Margaret E. S heehan Commenter Affiliation: Energy Justice Network Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1053.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: A Request That the EPA Further Study the Effect of Biomass Emissions on Environmental Justice Issues.

The EPA should continue to consider the disproportionate impact that incinerators have on poor and minority communities. According to the EPA’s webinar on national emission standards for boilers, process heaters and incinerators27 ,for populations living n ear disposal and processing facilities that may receive wastes diverted from incinerators, the results suggest that percentages of low

- income and minority populations are slightly higher than national average. These results should not be used to justify av oidance of heightened standards for incinerators because low

income communities are already disproportionately affected by pollution. [See Reference 28 in submittal.] The pollution from industrial air pollution sources, such as incinerators, accumulates in places where minority populations are disproportionately affected. Id.The EPA should do more studies to test the background levels of already existing pollution of communities affected by incinerator emissions. Background levels of air pollution in the se communities are often higher than in other areas because, in general, low

- income neighborhoods experience more of all forms of pollution (including air and water pollution, as well as toxic waste pollution) than do neighborhoods that maintain higher le vels of income. [See Reference 29 in submittal.]

For example, a biomass incinerator was planned to be built in Springfield, Massachusetts, a city described as already having “an ‘F’ in air quality.” [See Reference 30 in submittal.] In fact, Springfield r anks number fourteen on the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America’s ranking of U.S. Metropolitan areas according to prevalence of asthma. [See Reference 31 in submittal.] The EPA should use the results of studies of background emissions to strengthen re gulation of emissions; for example, if an inner

- city community already has high dioxin emissions, emission standards should be higher.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for th e following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for A rea Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) tha t are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: There has been a lot of talk over the past couple of years from EPA about protecting environmental justice communities ensuring that environmental justice is a part of the decision

making process of everything that EPA takes on. I think that this is a clear example where better protecting and better serving environmental justice communities would be better served by a stricter interpretation of what is a solid waste; as well, using carbon monoxide as a surrog ate for other sorts of VOCs, especially those which we struggle so mildly with in the Houston area. I don’t think that, again, is going to serve environmental justice communities well.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; Nation al Emission Standards for HazardousAir Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identi fication of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed lis t of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Number: 82

Comment: Many of the other air toxics pollutants seen from these sources cause cancer including, formaldehyde, dioxin, furans, and hydrochloric acid. My mother is battling cancer, and I hope to do all I can to shelter myself and the rest of our family from such a cruel disease. Because these devices are so numerous and so widespread the air pollution infiltrates communities across the nation. Their harm settles heaviest on those who live near them, communities often that are poor, less educated and populated by minorities. Study after study confirms that it can harm these individuals far more than it does others.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Sta ndards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commerc ial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is loca ted in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Houston Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: See transcript for detailed list of commenters Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 0985 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 91

Comment: At the same time, as well, there is another study going on in Corpus Christi concerning benzine releases from current existing refineries in the area. This is conducted by a local group called the Citizens for Environmental Justice, conduc ted after ten years of refusal to bond the Texas commissioner on environmental quality to conduct such a study. That
year

- end study determined there were absorbantly high benzine levels in people living in the Hillcrest community immediately adjacent to s everal refineries in the northern part of Corpus Christi. In Addition to that, as we determine now, as a consequence of that study, that hundreds ofmillions of dollars worth of hydrocarbons are in the ground and the groundwater beneath the Hillcrest nei ghborhood currently right now seeping into people’s homes and into their bloodstreams. We would urge that the EPA

-- TCEQ, as well, and specifically the EPA move toward a more cumulative study of emissions

-- to look at the emissions not just at any one p lant, but of all those in the immediate vicinity, whether it be looking at SO2 or mercury or lead or particulate matter or what have you.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) t hat are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Robert H. Colby and G. Vinson Hellwig Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) Document Control Number: EPA

- H Q

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 2022.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: In its discussion of environmental justice issues, EPA asserts that the rule meets environmental justice concerns because it does not increase HAP emissions in minority and low income areas. We suggest that this is too low a test for disparate impact. If this rule reduced HAP emissions broadly across the country, except in minority and low

- income areas, a disparate impact might result. Here, it has been established that industrial boilers are often located in minority/low

- income communities and that the re ductions in HAPs from the proposed rule will in fact disproportionally impact those communities

– but in a beneficial way. EPA’s preamble should reflect this fact.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standard s for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- haza rdous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: N/A Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Clean Air Task Force, Natural Resources Defense Counc ilDocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1982.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 35

Comment: EPA HAS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. EPA says it can’t examine environmental justice issues in the area source rule for boilers, but belie ves the "substantial" emission reductions will have benefits for "all persons" living near area source boilers. 75 Fed. Reg. at 31294. But if these boilers go from burning natural gas to plastics and spent solvents, clearly emissions will rise for those bo ilers. Environmental justice is about affording equal protection to everyone, so even though for the entire class of thousands of area source boilers emissions will have been reduced, clearly at the boilers burning waste emissions will have risen. In the major source and CISWI rules, EPA admits that minorities are disproportionately impacted but claims that because the rule does not "allow emissions increases" it won’t have EJ impacts. 75 Fed. Reg. at 32048 and 75 Fed reg. at 31973. Burning waste instead o f natural gas or oil or coal will make emissions of air toxics rise, so EPAs claim that emissions cannot rise is fiction. The fact is that it will be the boilers who need the added economic benefit of replacing their fuel costs with waste burning that are most likely to burn waste, such as schools, hospitals, low

- income apartment buildings, etc. The result of this is that air toxics emissions will rise at precisely places where reductions should occur (schools, hospitals, and residences).

Response: EPA t hanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial S olid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institu tional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.

Commenter Name: Cheryl Johncox Commenter Affiliation: Minn eapolis Neighbors for Clean Air Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1971 Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: The EPA should continue to consider the disproportionate impact that incinerators have on poor and minority communities. According to th e EPA’s webinar on national emission standards for boilers, process heaters and incinerators, [Environmental Protection Agency. Background on National Emission Standards for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Commerc ial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) Units. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/apti/webinars/20100609combustion.pdf] for populations living near disposal and processing facilities that may receive wastes diverted from incinerators, the res ults suggest that percentages of low

- income and minority populations are slightly higher than national average. These results should not be used to justify avoidance ofheightened standards for incinerators because low

- income communities are already dispro portionately affected by air pollution. [Ash, Michael & Boyce, James. (2009). Tracking Toxic Pollution from America’s Industries and Companies to our States, Cities and Neighborhoods. Pg. 8. Retrieved from http://college.usc.edu/pere/documents/justice_in_t he_air_web.pdf.] The pollution from industrial air pollution sources, such as incinerators, accumulates in places where minority populations are disproportionately affected. Id. The EPA should do more studies to test the background levels of already existi ng pollution of communities affected by incinerator emissions. Background levels of air pollution in these communities are often higher than in other areas because, in general, low

- income neighborhoods experience more of all forms of pollution (including a ir and water pollution, as well as toxic waste pollution) than do neighborhoods that maintain higher levels of income. [Morello

- Frosch, Rachel. “Discrimination and the Political Economy of Environmental Inequity.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 2002, Vol. 20, pp.477

- 496.] For example, a biomass incinerator was planned to be built in Springfield, Massachusetts, a city described as already having “an ‘F’ in air quality.” [Mobilization for Climate Justice. (2010). Coaltion of Activists Prot est Biomass Incinerators at State Global Warming Hearing in Springfield, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/06/coalition

- of

- activists

- protest

- biomass

- incinerators

at

- state

- g lobal

- warming

- hearing

- in

- springfield

- massachus etts/#more

- 2973.] In fact, Springfield ranks number fourteen on the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America’s ranking of U.S. Metropolitan areas according to prevalence of asthma. [Human Resources. Business and Legal Resources. (2004). Asthma Group Ranks Worst Metro Areas. Retrieved from http://hr.blr.com/newsAlternate.aspx?category=5&topic=66&id=9412.] The EPA should use the results of studies of background emissions to strengthen regulation of emissions; for example, if an inner

- city community already ha s high dioxin emissions, emission standards should be higher.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed env ironmental justice.

Commenter Name: Chris Mello Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Energy Authority Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2006

- 0790

- 1653.1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: This rule will unnecessarily raise heating costs for rural Alaska po pulations that are predominantly Alaska Native and have incomes predominantly below the poverty level. If these communities cannot manage their energy costs, the sustainability of this lifestyle is in peril. This unintended consequence of increased costs t o install and operate biomass district heating systemswill force communities to continue to use antiquated and inefficient diesel heating fuels and will force them to continue to pay the highest fuels costs in the nation. Unemployment will continue as bio mass harvest jobs do not materialize. This rule will hinder the ongoing and substantive effort to move rural power generation and heating in Alaska to renewable sources. We do see the potential for an environmental justice problem associated with this rule unnecessarily increasing power and heating costs.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. See the document “ Review of Environmental Justice Impacts for the following Proposed Rules: Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; National Emission Sta ndards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; and Identification of Non

- hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) that are Solid Waste ” that is located in the docket on how we addressed environmental justice.Table 1