## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 1 of 8 **AREA SOURCE BOILER RULE Comments:** 
 Page 18, Item B.4: It is stated that a boiler is not temporary if it is moved from one location to another in an attempt to circumvent the residence time (maximum consecutive 12 months) requirements of the definition of a temporary boiler. Further clarification of this requirement would be very helpful. If a facility requ ires a boiler for 10 months of a year and decides to rent a mobile unit, would it be allowed to use the same mobile unit at some other location within the same plant or another plant in the system?  Revise the emission limit tables by changing “Particulate Matter” to “Particulate Matter (Filterable)” as was done in the CISWI rules so that it will be clear that the limits do not include condensable particulate matter.  Change **“less than”** to **“equal to or less than”** in section VI end of first paragraph (page 5 7 ) and in two places in 63.11223(d). **Rationale:** The proposal is not consistent as to whether an oil
-fired unit rated 5 MMBtu/hr or more is subject to a biennial tune
- up or five
-year tune - up. At the end of the paragraph in section IV G.1. (page 24) it says "W e are proposing ... to change the requirement for subsequent tune
- ups only for oil
- fired boilers **equal to or less than** 5 MMBtu/hr to a tune - up once every 5 years." This is consistent with Table 2 to subpart JJJJJJ, items 4, 5, 8, and 9 (page 90) which indi cates biennial tune
- ups are required for units greater than 5 MMBtu/hr and five
-year tune - ups for units 5 MMBtu/hr and below. However at the end of first paragraph in section VI and in the proposed revision to 63.11223(d) (in two places) it refers to oil
-fired units " **less than** 5 million Btu/hr".  Change definition of “fossil fuel
-fired” to “fossil fuel
-fired EGU” or delete this term and merge with the definition of EGU. Note: this comment is consistent with comments on the EGU. We suggest these definitio ns be consistent in all of the rules. We note that the definition of EGU was added to the major source rule but not the definition of “fossil fuel
-fired.” **Rationale:** Definition of “fossil fuel
-fired” does not seem to be necessary. If it remains it should probably be “fossil fuel
-fired EGU.” The only place that term is used in the rule is in the definition of “electric utility steam generating unit (EGU)” which was also added. It does not seem appropriate to limit the definition of “fossil fuel
-fired” to EG Us. Two options for addressing this comment follow: Option 1: Consider changing as follows (some changes are to make the definition consistent with the draft EGU rule): Fossil fuel
-

fired EGU means an electric utility steam generating unit (EGU ) that is capable of combusting more than 25 MW of fossil fuels. To be “capable of combusting” fossil fuels, an EGU would need to have these fuels allowed in their operating permits and have the appropriate fuel handling facilities on
-site or otherwise available ( (e.g., coal handling equipment, including coal storage area, belts and conveyers, pulverizers, etc.; oil storage facilities). In addition, fossil fuel
fired EGU means any EGU that fired fossil fuels for more than 10.0 percent of the average annual heat input in any 3 consecutive calendar years or for more than 15.0 percent of the annual heat input during any one calendar year after [COMPLIANCE DATE OF THE FINAL EGU RULE].

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 2 of 8 Option 2: Alternatively, instead of adding this definition, recommend deletin g the term “fossil fuel
fired EGU” and merge the relevant text with the definition of EGU as follow (some changes are to make the definition consistent with the draft EGU rule): Electric utility steam generating unit (EGU) means a fossil fuel
- fired combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale. A fossil fuel
- fired unit that cogenerates steam and electricity and supplies more than one
- third of its potential electric output capacity and more than 25 megawatts electrical output to any utility power distribution system for sale is considered an electric utility steam generating unit. To be “capable of combusting” fossil fuels, an EGU would need to have these fuels allowed in their operating permits and have the appropriate fuel handling facilities on
-site or otherwise available (e.g., coal handling equipment, including coal storage area, belts and conveyers, pulverizers, etc.; oil storage facilities). In addition, fossil fuel
- fired EGU means any EGU that fire d fossil fuels for more than 10.0 percent of the average annual heat input in any 3 consecutive calendar years or for more than 15.0 percent of the annual heat input during any one calendar year after [COMPLIANCE DATE OF THE FINAL EGU RULE]. Fossil fuel
-

f ired means an electric utility steam generating unit (EGU) that is capable of combusting more than 25 MW of fossil fuels. To be “capable of combusting” fossil fuels, an EGU would need to have these fuels allowed in their operating permits and have the appropriate fuel handling facilities on
-site (e.g., coal handling equipment, including coal storage area, belts and conveyers, pulverizers, etc.; oil storage facilities). **Corrections:**  Page 6 9 . Revise instructions for amendment 2 to clarify that paragraph (c) is being changed. Also the amended introductory text for 63.11195 says "(a) through (i) " but should say "(a) through (k)."  Page 7 7 . 63.11223(d) Change "oil
-fire" to "oil
-fired" in two places in this paragraph.  Page 78 . Revise instructions for amendment 1 1 to clarify that paragraph (a)(5) is being changed.  Page 81 . Revise instructions for amendment 12 to clarify that paragraph (g) is being added.  Page 84 : Revise instructions for amendment 13 to include the definitions added to the rule in the redline versi on.  Page 91/92 . Definition of Qualified Energy Assessor is followed by "mean" which should be changed to "means". The first part of the definition is awkward; too many prepositions. It appears that the entire change in the definition consists of changing "to opportunity" to "for opportunity” in the introductory sentence. Perhaps the sentence can be more simply stated as "(1) someone who has demonstrated capabilities to evaluate energy savings opportunities for steam generation and major energy using syste ms, including, but not limited to:"

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 3 of 8 **Major Sources**
 **Can EPA explain how it would establish a limited use subcategory based on a capacity factor approach (10% CF), rather**  **than 10% of the time in a year?** EPA does not know how to establish a subcategory based on capacity factor that meets the requirement of section 112(h), and therefore, EPA is maintaining the “10 percent of hours” approach.

 **Define natural gas curtailment.** Natural gas curtailment is already defined in the rule as “period of natural gas c urtailment or supply interruption.”  In the Background section that begins on page 11, EPA should consider providing a summary of the issues that it reconsidering in this action, to assist the public in understanding this rule. While the issues are too dif ficult to describe in a list, the EPA added a sentence at the end of the background section to point the reader to section V. The sentence is as follows: The issues upon which the EPA is soliciting comment are discussed in section V of this preamble.

 Page 15, 2 nd Paragraph: This paragraph establishes the criteria under which a multi
-fueled combustion unit would be subjected to either liquid or solid fuel
- based emission limits for fuel
based pollutants. The criteria appear to cover only those units that co -fire liquid and solid fuels. Are there units in your database that co
-fire liquid and gaseous fuels? Specifically, if a unit fires less than 10 percent liquid fuel and the rest as gaseous fuel, would it be covered under the emission limits for gas? Yes. The “Gas 2” subcategory is defined to include such units.  Page 16, 2 nd Paragraph: Same question for the combustion
- based pollutants as in above Item 1. Same answer as above.  Pages 18 – 20, Table 1: We are requesting further clarifications on the fol lowing items: o In several places, the emission limit for a particular pollutant and source subcategory is indicated by “NA.” It is not clear as to what “NA” stands for. For example, for HCl and Hg emission limits, it appears that the emission limits shown for existing solid fuel boilers may apply to all other subcategories of solid fuel boilers. However, for the existing biomass kiln
- dried stokers, the same “NA” shown for the alternate CO CEMS limit, may mean no applicable emission limit. Please confirm. NA means not applicable. Changed several of the “NA” entries to “ND” to indicate that no data are available to develop a limit for that subcategory. NA and ND are now defined in the footnotes. o A 3 - run average test requirement (Note a) is shown for particulate matter and CO? Since this note does not appear for HCl and Hg, does it mean that a compliance test is not required for these two pollutants? It does not mean that. Added footnote “a” to th e HCl and Hg columns. o On Page 15, it is stated that a liquid
-fueled unit firing less than 10 percent solid fuel would have to meet the required liquid fuel emission limits. Do these emission limits (e.g., for HCl and Hg) still apply, if this unit fires so lid fuel only for a short period? Yes, as long as the annual heat input is maintained in such a way that meets the liquid fuel subcategory definition (all subcategories are defined on an annual heat input basis).

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 4 of 8  Page 24, 2 nd Paragraph: It would be very helpful if the points of measurement for the pressure drop are defined, i.e., from what point to what point in the scrubber? Added “across the scrubber” to indicate where the pressure drop should be measured.  Pages 17 - 21, Table 1: We understand the establi shment of a compliance option that allows the use of CO CEMS as an alternative to CO stack testing and oxygen monitoring . If an affected source currently uses CO CEMS , it seems unreasonable to require that they install additional monitoring equipment for CO stack testing. However, we note that the CO CEMS limits appear to be very different in some instances than the CO stack testing limits (e.g., 1400 ppm versus 58 ppm for Biomass Dutch Ovens for the CO CEMS and CO stack testing limits respectively). We request further information and explanation on the reasons and implications of these very different limits. The limits are based on the available data, and the data sets are different for the stack test limits and the CEMS limits. We are taking comment on an approach that would change many of the CEM
- based limits, and also discuss incorporating autocorrelation into the CO CEMS analysis, which would incorporate additional variability where we have significantly robust data sets .
 Pages 220 - 224, §63.7533 “ Can I use emission credits earned from implementation of energy conservation measures to comply with this subpart?” While we understand EPA’s desire to recognize facilities that implement energy efficiency measures that improve the efficiency of or impact the steam required from affected units, we are concerned over the lack of guidelines and specific requirements for the emissions credits. Specifically, we are concerned with directing the source to create criteria for determining the energy savings from each measure implemented, as well as requiring an applicable delegated authority to review and approve this. We believe it will be difficult to adequately estimate the impact of many potential efficiency measures without detailed guidelines and requirements. We also question the validity of recognizing efficiency measures that may have been implemented as far back as 2008. It would seem that the establishme nt of an output
- based emissions limit option itself would already incorporate the value of these past efficiency measures. We are concerned that the way this subpart is structured, it could a) create national inconsistency in how emissions credits are crea ted and applied (possibly creating gaming), and b) burden the “ applicable delegated authority” who do not have expertise on energy efficiency measures in industrial facilities. **We recommend EPA explicitly take comment on the emission credit concept, how to**  **administer it consistently across the country.**  o Page 49: “Legal Authority for Emission Credits. One petitioner questioned the legal authority of the emission credit system and stated that it should be removed from the final rule. However, the petitioner provided no support for its position, and the EPA continues to believe that the emission credit system is legal as promulgated. Therefore, no changes are being proposed.” **We request additional information from EPA on the legal authority for the emission cred**  **it system as proposed.** Does EPA outline the legal rationale for these emissions credits somewhere else? Can this be explained again here? While the specific legal rationale is not outlined, the general philosophy is that each unit meets the emission limi ts as required, but the credits allow for consideration of energy efficiency measures that have been implemented. Regardless, we have added language to specifically request comment on: (1) the overall concept of the emission credit provision, (2) how to ad minister it consistently across the country, and (3) available

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 5 of 8 guidelines to inform the delegated authority's decision to approve the implementation plan.

- In anticipation of public comments requesting health
- based emissions limits for acid gases (and beca use this issue was raised in the petitions for reconsideration), we believe this proposed rule would be strengthened by clearly articulating EPA’s reasoning for not proposing health
- based em issions limits for acid gases. We responded to the health
- based emission limit comments in the preamble to the final rule, and no new information was provided in the petitions or supplemental data submittals in support of a health
- based provision.

-  Revise the emission limit tables by changing “Particulate Matter” to “P articulate Matter (Filterable)” as was done in the CISWI rules so that it will be clear that the limits do not include condensable particulate matter. This clarification would be consistent with the preamble which refers to “the filterable PM emission limi ts” on pages 46 and 115. OK

 Double check the alternate CO CEMS 10
- day average emission limits. Many of the limits are higher than the 3
- run average limit which would be expected. However, some of the limits are lower (some by a factor of 6). CEMS limits m ay not always be higher, depending on various factors including the testing conditions (load), use of supplemental fuels (potentially undocumented for some data sets), and the availability of data. Regardless, we are taking comment on a couple of approache s that would adjust many of the limits. **Corrections:**  Table 2 to subpart DDDDD: 1) In 4th column, delete “(lb per MMBtu of steam output)” from the heading row since limits in this column of the table are not all in these units. Done. 2) The sample volume in the last column of item 1a should probably be 120 liters (should match item 1a of Table 1 to subpart DDDDD since the limits are identical). 120 liters is correct, and the value in table 2 has been fixed. 3) In the last column for i tem 10c, the footnote after D6784 should be b instead of a. Change made.  Table 6 to subpart DDDDD: Based on alignment of methods for item 3, it is not clear if they all apply to both a and b or if the first method applies to item a and the rest to item b. They all apply to “a.” Format changed to clarify.  Table 8 to subpart DDDDD: Delete the word “block” from item 7b. Done. Also item 11c should be 11b. Done.  Table 10 to subpart DDDDD: Add “§” in front of 63.8(g). Done. RIA **REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS: NATION AL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR**  **POLLUTANTS FOR INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS AND PROCESS HEATERS** General Comment: We appreciate EPA’s efforts to provide an update to the Boilers RIA. We appreciate the updated information provid ed at the beginning of the RIA. We request that the current organization be maintained, with the previous RIA included as an Attachment (e.g. Attachment A). For the updated material at the front, we’d suggest for both the costs and the benefits that the changes be delimited in the following way, and presented in a summary CBA table:

- Methodological/Estimate changes

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 6 of 8 - Rule changes With the approach outlined above, it should be easier for the reader to understand how/why the costs and benefits estimates have changed. We are including the document with the February RIA as an appendix. We summarize the changes in paragraph form but don’t know how to provide the table mentioned. There are no methodology changes and relating estimate changes to particular rule changes is not possible because the underlying cost and emission changes are for the whole set of changes to the rule rather t han individual changes. **Specific Comments Section 2.1.3.8, Page 2**  **- 14, Table 2**  **- 10; Section 2.2.3.8, Page 2**  **- 30, Table 2**  **- 18; Section 2.3.3.5, Page 2**  **- 47, Table 2**  **- 28; Section 2.4.3.9, Page 2**  **- 66, Table 2**  **- 39:**  The employment total is far higher than the total cal culated by adding up the various columns. For example, in Table 2
- 39, employment totals 827,430, but adding up the various columns only results in around 300,000 employees. Therefore, unless there are around 500,000 employees in the 1,500+
- employee category, then there is an error. There are around 500,000 employees in the 1,500+
- employee category (550,000 in greater than 500 minus 28,025 in 500 to 759, minus 18,119 in 750 to 999, and minus 28,338 in 1000 to 1499) from http://www2.census.gov/econ/susb/data/dynamic/0809/us_4digitnaics_emplchange_2008
- 2009.xls and table 2
- 39 . **Section 4.1.2.4.1, Page 4 -**  **11, Table 4 -**  **3:** Since the overall results of the Morgenstern et al. study are statistically insignificant, it seems more practical to not provide corresponding job estimates, but to simply indicate the overall employment impacts were found to be statistically insignificant. Because of the interest in emplo yment EPA has used this study for a number of regulations to estimate the mean net employment and provided the 95% confidence interval results to reflect the high degree of uncertainty (the interval includes zero so we are showing we don’t know the sign of the effect but the interval itself is helpful when others give exaggerated claims of huge job changes well outside our 95% confidence interval. **Section 7.2.5, Page 7 -**  **14, top and bottom paragraphs:** It seems a range for value of statistical life should be used rather than the mean value. Making this adjustment would provide an improved measure of uncertainty in the benefits calculations. As described in the RIA, EPA determined that a single, peer
reviewed estimate applied consistently best reflects the advi ce it has received from the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board until updated guidance on mortality valuation is available. The Agency continues its efforts to update its guidance on this issue. **Section 7.3, Page 7 -**  **21, Table 7 -**  **2 and Table 7 -**  **3:** The table shows the estimated reductions in health incidences for both SO2 and Direct PM 2.5. Since some studies have found no significant effect of PM2.5 on mortality, perhaps zero should be included in the PM 2.5 and SO2 range (since SO2 is included be cause it is a precursor to PM 2.5), as Electric Power Research Institute has suggested. EPRI indicated: “Since some models in some studies do not find a statistically significant effect of PM2.5 on mortality, the effects range could even include zero...” ( Source: EPRI PM2.5 Reductions and Impact on Premature Death: An EPRI perspective; Issue Brief 1018632.) In addition, the same EPRI briefing states the EPRI
Washington University Veterans Study did not find any statistically significant mortality associatio ns with PM2.5, but found some PM components that were significantly associated with mortality. The EPRI briefing goes on to say: “Of great significance for CAIR, this study did not find a significant association between the sulfate component of PM and mortality...if this study were used to derive estimates of health benefits attributable to reductions in SO2 emissions, the numbers would differ from those

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 7 of 8 derived from the Pope et al...some studies have shown that estimated impacts of PM diminish when other co
- pollutants are considered in the analyses. If the co
- pollutants are indeed associated with increased mortality and are correlated with PM levels, then the PM effects estimated from this single pollutant model approach can be biased upwards.” EPA disagrees with this recommendation. The Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009), which was twice reviewed by the Science Advisory Board, concluded that there is a causal relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and premature morta lity after reviewing the entire body of scientific evidence. In addition, the ISA also concluded that the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. This means that while some PM mixtures may b e more toxic than other mixtures, the scientific literature does not support the commenter’s assertion that some particles are not toxic. Although we note this uncertainty in the RIA, we assume that all particles are equally toxic for the purpose of calcul ating benefits. This assumption was supported by the National Academies of Science and the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis. Additionally, why does the study focus on the mortality estimates of fine particulate matter from two studies? Given that there are a number of studies available, these studies should be used to develop the estimates for the RIA. An EPRI study (Issue Brief 1018632, “PM2.5 Reductions and Impact on Premature Death: An EPRI Persp ective”) includes the following statements. “Since some models in some studies do not find a statistically significant effect of PM2.5 on mortality, the effects range could even include zero...” “The EPRI
- Washington University Veterans study did not find a ny statistically significant mortality associations with PM2.5, but found some PM components that were significantly associated with mortality.” “Of great significance for CAIR, this study did not find a significant association between sulfate component PM and mortality ... if this study were used to derive estimates of health benefits attributable to reductions in SO2 emissions, the numbers would differ from those derived from the Pope, et al study.” “Some studies have shown that estimated impacts of PM dimi nish when other co
- pollutants are considered in the analyses. If the co
- pollutants are indeed associated with increased mortality and are correlated with PM levels, then the PM effects estimated from this single pollutant model approach can be biased upwa rds.” As described in the RIA, EPA estimates avoided PM
- related premature mortality based on risk estimates from the American Cancer Society cohort (Pope et al., 2002) and the Harvard Six Cities cohort (Laden et al., 2006) as well as providing mortalities estimates based on the results of an expert elicitation (Roman et al,2008) as a characterization of uncertainty. The choice of these studies was supported by the Health Effects Subcommittee of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis. In add ition, when EPA conducted an expert elicitation on the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and premature mortality in 2006, the experts placed most weight on the results of these two studies.

## Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Page 8 of 8 **Section 7.3, Page 7 -**  **22, Table 7 -** **4:** It would be useful to indicat e the average (or a range) number of years for avoided premature mortality (i.e., on average, those with who would otherwise experience premature mortality, would be expected to live X number of years longer.) EPA does not have the necessary data to estima te avoided life years lost for this rule. However, in the 2006 PM NAAQS RIA, EPA estimated that the discounted average gain in life years is 10 years. In Hubbell (2006), the estimate of average undiscounted life years gained was 15.26 years. Hubbell, Bryan J. 2006. “Implementing QALYs in the Analysis of Air Pollution Regulations,” Environmental and Resource Economics 34:365–384. The following comments refer to the preamble for the major sources rule, but are also applicable to the area sources rule.

- On page 122, the preamble addresses the US trade deficit. For clarity, we recommend revising the sentence that reads, “The change in US surplus is now
- 1.93 billion dollars (2006$)” with the following sentence, “The increase in US trade deficit is now 1.9 3 billion dollars (2006$).” Done.

- In the discussion of economic impacts on page 124, over what time frame do the estimated employment changes occur and what is the primary driver for the estimated change in benefits?

- We are adding a sentence to page 124 ab out the time frame for employment.

- We will clarify in the preamble that the SO2 emission reductions increased because there are more units affected and the HCl limit was revised.

- On page 125, the preamble states, “These monetized benefits are approximately 23 percent higher than the final rule benefits due to the increase in SO 2 emission reductions.” Are these net of the increased SO2 secondary emissions mentioned in the following section on secondary benefits? The increase in SO2 emission reductions from industrial boilers are separate from any secondary air impacts due to changes in electricity demand.

- How does EPA define the term “secondary air impacts” on page 127? Secondary air impacts are increases in emissions that result from the requirements of the rule from sources not regulated by the rule. Typically, these impacts are the expected air emissions from sources that provide energy to facilities that have increased energy demands that result from the rule (e.g., energy to power air pollution controls) .

- Additionally, EPA notes on page 127 that it does not estimate an “increase in secondary air impacts for this final rule from additional electricity demand.” Does the RIA count the benefits from reduced emissions of these pollutants? The RIA for the f inal rule calculated energy disbenefits associated with the increase in CO2 emissions, not benefits, because the controls would slightly increase electricity use. These disbenefits did not affect the rounded total benefits. We added a statement to the pre amble and RIA memo to clarify that the energy disbenefits do not affect the rounded benefits for this proposal as well.

- Should this sentence refer to “proposed” rule, rather than “final” rule? OK.