Comment: We take this opportunity to strongly urge the EPA to take immediate action to stay or defer the March 21, 2012 deadline for conducting tune-ups under the Area Source Boiler Rule work practice provisions for existing boilers. Unfortunately, for the biomass-fired boiler described above we have not been able to complete a determination of the status of the purchased NHSM as a fuel due to ongoing uncertainties with the concurrently re-proposed NHSM Rule and this continues to cause delay of the required tune-up of the boiler that has a rapidly approaching deadline in March. Because of the NHSM uncertainties, the time between the May 2011 effective date of both the final NHSM Rule and the final Area Source Boiler Rule has been too short to complete the NHSM determination needed to clear the way to conduct the required tune-up work practice. And because the NHSM Rule provisions of interest will not be settled until that re-proposed rule is finalized later this Spring, our facility is caught in an impossible situation resulting from what clearly are some imperfectly designed links among this complex set of rulemakings. We are certain there are many facilities facing similar or other difficulties with the timing of the tune-up requirement. Consequently, we must strongly urge the EPA to provide a stay of the current rule's initial tune-up deadline of March 21, 2012 as soon as possible.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment:  THE MARCH 21, 2012 COMPLIANCE DEADLINE SHOULD BE STAYED
Under the final rule now in effect, existing area sources must complete their initial tune-up by March 21, 2012 in order to comply with the rule. (76 FR 15564.) The EPA anticipates staying the effective date of the rule now in effect, so that the initial tune-up will not be required by March 21, 2012. (76 FR 80535.) The EPA will accomplish this through a separate notice in the Federal Register .CIBO strongly supports staying the effect of the rule as early as possible and eliminating the March 21, 2012 tune-up requirement. The Final Area Source rule was published on March 21, 2011 and required compliance one year later, on March 21, 2012. Beginning in 2011, many sources sought from regulators a case-by-case extension of that deadline to avoid noncompliance. Although to our knowledge EPA has not granted case-by-case extensions, EPA has given its assurance that it will address the matter globally so that sources will not risk noncompliance. CIBO supports the stay of that deadline as soon as possible.
CIBO strongly supports staying the effect of the rule as early as possible and eliminating the March 21, 2012 tune-up requirement. The final Area Source Boiler Rule was published on March 21, 2011 and required compliance 1 year later, on March 21, 2012. Beginning in 2011, many sources sought from regulators a case-by-case extension of that deadline to avoid noncompliance. Although to our knowledge the EPA has not granted case-by-case extensions, the EPA has given its assurance that it will address the matter globally so that sources will not risk noncompliance. CIBO supports the stay of that deadline as soon as possible.[4]
[4] CIBO members have heard that the EPA is considering issuing a non-enforcement assurance letter rather than issuing a stay of the tune-up deadline. CIBO strongly urges the EPA to instead issue the stay of the tune-up deadline as soon as possible. Many companies have environmental compliance policies that will not allow a generally issued non-enforcement assurance letter to relieve a duty to comply with valid, in effect regulatory provision. An enforcement discretion letter from the EPA does not relieve facilities from citizen suits or non-compliance actions by permitting agencies. These facilities may have to shut down if conducting a tune-up by the deadline is not possible for reasons explained elsewhere in these comments.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Paul Noe
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The EPA needs to provide a stay of the current rule's initial tune-up deadline of March 21, 2012 as soon as possible. Many area sources are on the verge of not being able to meet that deadline for scheduling or fuel versus waste reasons identified below and will either shut down or face non-compliance actions despite the fact the EPA has proposed moving the deadline for valid reasons.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Michael J. Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2448-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The EPA proposes that all existing boilers would have 2 years (by March 21, 2013) to demonstrate initial compliance However, we do not expect the majority of sources to be able to take advantage of this proposed flexibility due to the timing of the proposal. The final rule requires area sources to complete this requirement by March 21, 2012, which is just 1 month after comments for these proposals close. As we do not expect the EPA to complete review of comments and finalize the rule in 1 month, if the EPA intends to finalize this change, the Agency should immediately issue a 90-day stay notice under CAA §307(d)(7)(B).[2] Alternatively, we understand the EPA is considering issuing a NAA letter, stating that the Agency would not enforce this provision. Either way, we expect this change will not provide the intended flexibility for the vast majority of sources that seek to ensure compliance with the final rule.
 [2] The preamble to the proposed reconsideration states that if "the Agency has not taken final action on the initial compliance date for tune-ups prior to the date (March 21, 2012) for initial compliance, we could stay the effectiveness of the rule for 90 days, as allowed under CAA §307(d)(7)(B), so that the Agency could complete reconsideration" (76 FR 80535, emphasis added).
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2424-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Given the rapid approach of the current March 21, 2012 completion deadline, the EPA should expeditiously proceed with its proposal to issue a 90-day stay of this requirement while it completes this rulemaking. In addition, the EPA should clarify in the final reconsideration rule that tune-ups performed in advance of this rulemaking in anticipation of the March 21, 2012 compliance deadline will satisfy compliance requirements of the final reconsideration rule.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Renee Lesjak Bashel
Commenter Affiliation: National Steering Committee, Small Business Ombudsman and Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBO/SBEAP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2459-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: We recommend that the EPA provide a short term extension to the March 2012 deadline, to allow the Agency sufficient time to issue a final amended rule with the extended timeline. Otherwise, businesses are taking chances with their compliance status by not completing the tune up requirements currently in effect.
Response: See the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 11, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Barry Christensen
Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2435-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: OCC supports the proposed extension of time, until March 31, 2014, for facilities to complete the initial tune-ups. Facilities need additional time to complete the initial tune-ups because detailed requirements of this rule will not be finalized until mid-to-late 2012. A very large number of units subject to this rule will be scrambling to finalize tune-up plans, compete for contractors and schedule the tune-ups. The best way to ensure that operators can achieve reliable and timely tune-ups is to postpone the compliance deadline to March 21, 2014.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Arthur Marin
Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2454-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: In its Area Source Boiler Rule reconsideration, the EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.11196 to specify that all existing boilers subject to the tune-up requirement would have 2 years (by March 21, 2013) in which to demonstrate initial compliance, instead of 1 year to demonstrate initial compliance. In addition, the EPA requested comment on whether the initial compliance period for the tune-up requirement should be extended to 3 years (i.e., until March 21, 2014) (76 FR 80535).
Compliance with the March 21, 2012 deadline is logistically challenging for area sources and tune-up technicians given the short timeline, large universe of sources, and unfamiliarity with requirements under this rule. Therefore, NESCAUM supports extending the compliance period for the initial tune-up requirement to 3 years, until March 21, 2014.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Although most facilities are unable to meet the March 2012 tune-up deadline under the March 2011 final rule, any facility which does in fact meet the deadline should be considered to have met the first tune-up requirement under the reconsidered rule, and subsequent tune-ups should be deferred to align with the frequency established by the new rule.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that any facility that completed their initial tune-up by March 21, 2012 should be considered to have met their initial tune-up requirement. We disagree with the commenter, however, that subsequent tune-ups for those facilities should be deferred to align with the frequency established by the amended final rule (i.e., basing subsequent tune-ups on March 21, 2014). It would be unreasonable to allow a facility that met their initial tune-up requirement in March 2012 until March 2016 or March 2019, depending on whether they are subject to biennial or 5-year tune-ups, to conduct their first subsequent tune-up. That would not be representative of the biennial or 5-year tune-up requirements that we determined to be GACT. Although an additional "initial tune-up" is not required for facilities that completed their initial tune-ups by March 21, 2012, their subsequent tune-ups dates must be based on that initial tune-up (e.g., 2 years or 5 years from the initial tune-up date).
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Because resolving the fuel versus waste issue will effectively amend the work practice standard by revising the scope of its applicability, the EPA would have authority to set the compliance deadline at 3 years after the effective date of the final reconsideration rule. Because of the substantial number of affected units and in light of the ongoing uncertainty on the waste/fuel issue, there is ample justification for setting the deadline at this point. Therefore, we request that the EPA set the compliance deadline for completing the work practice requirements on the date 3 years after the effective date of the final reconsideration rule.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the initial compliance date for completing the work practice/management practice requirements should be re-set based on promulgation of the final reconsideration rule. We also disagree that sources have endured such uncertainty with regard to the NHSM regulatory action that there is ample justification for extending the compliance date. Only a relatively small subset of the covered boilers are affected by the NHSM reconsideration. With the exception of the initial compliance date for existing boilers subject to the tune-up requirement, the initial compliance date for regulatory requirements has been March 21, 2014 since the June 2010 proposal. The EPA is now revising the initial compliance date for existing boilers subject to the work practice or management standard of a tune-up and is allowing additional time to complete the initial tune-up by establishing a date of March 21, 2014 as the initial compliance deadline.
Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock
Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2452-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We believe the EPA should reset the initial tune-up deadline to 3 years from the date of promulgation of the revisions to the March 2011 final rule, expected later this Spring. This will allow companies with multiple boilers subject to tune-ups under either or both the Area Source Boiler Rule and the Major Source Boiler MACT adequate time to efficiently schedule and complete the initial tune-ups. The EPA should recognize that like many other companies, we largely operate our own tune-up program and therefore resources are limited within short time frames across many sites subject to tune-ups under one or the other of these new standards. The 3-year compliance time allowed under the CAA is necessary to meet the tune-up obligations without undue burden.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Initial compliance should run from promulgation of the final reconsideration rule, not from the March 21, 2011 promulgation date of the initial final rule. Issuance of the final reconsideration rule will end a period of intense uncertainty for sources regarding what would be their final regulatory requirements. Particularly for facilities with multiple major and area sources, the potential impact of multiple iterations of the four interrelated boiler MACT rules as initially proposed, then finalized, then proposed as reconsidered, has changed over 2 years since the EPA's initial proposals. These facilities should be guaranteed enough time to meet the final regulatory requirements and should not suffer any risk of noncompliance.
Response: The EPA disagrees that initial compliance should be from promulgation of the final reconsideration rule. We also disagree that sources have had intense uncertainty regarding what their final regulatory requirements would be. With the exception of the initial compliance date for existing boilers subject to the tune-up requirement, the initial compliance date for regulatory requirements has been March 21, 2014 since the June 2010 proposal. The EPA is now revising the initial compliance date for existing boilers subject to the work practice or management standard of a tune-up and is allowing additional time to complete the initial tune-up by establishing a date of March 21, 2014 as the initial compliance deadline.
Commenter Name: Robert R. Perry
Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FGCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: FGCO supports the EPA's proposal to extend the deadline for initial compliance tune-ups. This will allow existing boilers additional time to conduct these tune-ups particularly for sources that operate infrequently. It would be counter-productive to require a source to operate (and produce air emissions) solely for the purpose of complying with an initial tune-up. In the utility industry these existing boilers generally operate infrequently on an unscheduled basis to provide backup steam when the electric generating units are not operating and/or to provide steam during starting up.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Allison Watkins, Baker Botts
Commenter Affiliation: Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2458-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The Class of '85 supports the EPA's proposal to extend to 3 years the initial compliance period for the tune-up requirement. The current 2-year compliance period is overly burdensome and unrealistic. As the EPA has noted, many boilers are not equipped to measure CO and O2. These facilities must conduct stack testing to measure CO and O2 to comply with the tune-up requirement, and it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to schedule and complete this testing to be in compliance with the 2-year deadline.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
 Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Merck supports the EPA's proposal to delay the initial tune-up for boilers to March 21, 2013.
We agree with the industry members who have pointed out that for companies with many boilers subject to the tune-up requirements, the 1-year deadline for initial tune-ups can be difficult and in some cases impossible to meet. This extension will help provide additional time for the vendors of tune-ups services that must support the large numbers of boilers in the U.S. newly subject to this requirement, and therefore help ensure that all tune-ups can be performed by the deadline in a technically sound manner.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Under current NESHAP regulations applicable to area source boilers, all existing boilers subject to the tune-up requirements must demonstrate initial compliance within the next several weeks -- 1 year from the date the final rule was promulgated.  Some industry representatives have explained that they are notable to complete the testing needed to meet the 1-year compliance requirement for all of the boilers subject to the rule. Additional time is required.  Therefore, the EPA is proposing to extend the initial compliance period to 2 years and to allow the responsible parties the ability to stagger the tune-ups. Castle supports this extension of time. It is a reasonable approach that will minimize the financial burden on the small companies that own and operate the boilers.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Randal G. Oswald
Commenter Affiliation: Integrys Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2472-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Integrys supports the EPA's proposal to extend to 3 years the initial compliance period for the tune-up requirement. The current 2-year compliance period is overly burdensome and unrealistic. As the EPA has noted, many boilers are not equipped to measure CO and O2. These facilities must conduct stack testing to measure CO and O2 to comply with the tune-up requirement, and it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to schedule and complete this testing to be in compliance with the 2-year deadline.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Joseph Seymour
Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2475-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: BTEC 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. Therefore, BTEC supports the proposed biennial tune‐up of boilers to meet manufacturers' specifications.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Samuel Denisco
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2478-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The Pennsylvania Chamber urges the EPA to modify the date for determining new source status from June 4, 2010 (the date of the proposal), to December 23, 2011 (the date of the proposed reconsideration rule). This will allow more reasonable lead time for covered sources to factor changes reflecting the revisions related to the tune-up into construction plans.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the date that defines whether a source is existing versus new/reconstructed (i.e., June 4, 2010) should be reset to December 23, 2011. CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a new source is a stationary source if  "the construction or reconstruction of which is commenced after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source."  In this case, the first time the Agency proposed standards for this source category was on June 4, 2010. Today's action is a reconsideration action and is premised on the same general rulemaking record. It is thus reasonable to view the date EPA "first proposes" standards for the area source category to be the June 4, 2010 date.
The commenter also argues that the Agency should modify the trigger date for determining new source status. Nothing in the record supports this view and the commenter has utterly failed to explain why it would be reasonable to define the December 23, 2011 date as the date by which new source status is determined (i.e., the date the Agency "first proposes" standards). Furthermore, the basis of the commenters' issue is not at all clear, especially given that the requirements for new sources have not changed in any material respect.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: In many instances, the installation 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 applications, 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 impossible.
In light of the difficulty in meeting a 3-year compliance deadline, the EPA and authorized states should be prepared to readily grant 1-year extensions under CAA §112(i)(3)(B) to those units that have problems installing the necessary control equipment to comply with the Boiler Rule.
Response: Some commenters have argued that the 3-year compliance deadline of March 21, 2014, for existing sources to meet the standards does not provide them with sufficient time for sources to meet the standards in view of the number of sources subject to the rule and that these sources will be competing for the needed resources and materials from engineering consultants, permitting authorities, equipment vendors, construction contractors, financial institutions, and other critical suppliers.
As an initial matter, we note that many sources subject to the standards should be able to meet the standards within 3 years (i.e., by March 21, 2014), even those that need to install pollution control technologies to do so. In addition, many sources subject to the standards are existing biomass- or oil-fired boilers or small coal-fired boilers (less than 10 MMBtu/hr) and will not need to install controls in order to demonstrate compliance, as these sources are subject only to work practices or management practices.
At the same time, as commenters have noted correctly, the CAA allows Title V permitting authorities to grant sources, on a case-by-case basis, extensions to the compliance time of up to 1 year if such time is needed for the installation of controls. See CAA §112(i)(3)(B)). Permitting authorities are already familiar with, and in many cases have experience with, applying the 1-year extension authority under §112(i)(3)(B) since the provision applies to all NESHAP. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(A). We believe that should the range of circumstances that commenters have cited as impeding sources' ability to install controls within 3 years materialize, then permitting authorities can take those circumstances into consideration when evaluating an existing source's request for a 1-year extension, and where such applications prove to be well-founded, permitting authorities can make the 1-year extension available to applicants.
In making a determination as to whether an extension is appropriate, we believe it is reasonable for permitting authorities to consider the large number of pollution control retrofit projects being undertaken for purposes of complying either with the standards in this rule or with those of other rules such as the Major Source Boilers Standards and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for the power sector that may be competing for similar resources.
Further, commenters have pointed out that in some cases operators of existing sources that are subject to these standards and that generate energy may opt to meet the standards by terminating operations at these sources and building new sources to replace the energy generation at the shut-down sources. While the ultimate discretion to provide a 1-year extension lies with the permitting authority, the EPA believes that it may be reasonable for permitting authorities to allow the fourth year extension for the installation of replacement sources of energy generation at the site of a facility applying for an extension for that purpose. Specifically, the EPA believes where an applicant demonstrates that it is building replacement sources of energy generation for purposes of meeting the requirements of these standards, such a replacement project could be deemed to constitute the ``installation of controls" under section 112(i)(3)(B).
In sum, the EPA believes that although most, if not all, units will be able to fully comply with the standards within 3 years, the fourth year that permitting authorities are allowed to grant for installation of controls is an important flexibility that will address situations where an extra year is necessary.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: 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. Based on a discussions with a number of potentially affected companies, 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 3-year period without substantial business interruption.
Response:  See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 9.
Commenter Name: Bart Sponsellar
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2453-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: We believe that compliance dates for all requirements, including tune-ups, should be no sooner than March 21, 2014  --  the maximum time allowed under the CAA. The EPA needs to consider that sources will be planning and applying resources to fulfill multiple requirements. Under these circumstances sources need flexibility to determine where best to apply resources, whether for emission limitations, tune-ups, or energy assessments. The rule should not mandate the priority or approach in reducing emissions. The EPA must also realize that the same equipment providers and vendors will be needed by sources affected by either the Major or Area Source Boiler Rules as well as the EGU boiler MACT. We also believe the EPA has flexibility to provide an additional year for performing energy assessments because implementation is voluntary. If it aids in compliance, a source will pursue energy improvement measures prior to March 21, 2014.
Response:  See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 11, regarding the initial compliance date for existing boilers. See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 9, regarding sufficient time to meet the standards in view of competing resources.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: It will be extraordinarily difficult  -  if not impossible  -  for all of the entities with existing boilers to make the changes necessary to comply with this rule in the 3-year timeframe that the EPA proposes. Put simply, the task of performing a boiler retrofit in 3 years will be made nearly impossible by the competition for critical 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 retrofit their units within 3 years.
Even under the best of circumstances, a major retrofit of a boiler takes years from project start to finish. The EPA has estimated that the installation of an activated carbon injection control system on one combustion unit  -  a comparatively simple installation  -  takes about 15 months.[3] However, the 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.[4]
[3] EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies (2002).
[4] EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis: National Emission 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 and organic HAP control, and carbon injection for dioxin/furan control.")
Response: We note that less than 1% of all covered existing sources (approximately 600 of the 183,000 area source boilers subject to the rule) will be subject to numeric emission limitations. Therefore, the assertion that "all of the entities with existing boilers" will need to make changes and perform boiler retrofits is not credible as a basis for an extension of the compliance deadlines beyond March 21, 2014. See also the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 9, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 11.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The sheer number of boilers impacted by the rule will make finding  -  and then scheduling  -  the design and construction resources almost impossible. The EPA estimates that approximately 5,500 boilers would need to meet emission limits under the rules.[5] Many, if not all, of these boilers would need to be retrofitted. Boiler owners will need to hire engineers to assist them in designing and performing the retrofit. Thus, across the various industry sectors impacted by this rule, boiler owners will be competing for qualified engineers to design, permit and perform the retrofits necessary to make boilers compliant with this stringent rule. 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 secure the basic building materials and control equipment (e.g., baghouses and scrubbers).
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 significant time. In addition, the owner will need to go through the relevant permitting process(es), which will take a number of months. 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 shakedown of a retrofit project (e.g., installing a scrubber on a large boiler) can easily take multiple years.
[5] http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/docs/20111202presentation.pdf.
Response: We note that the 5,500 boilers cited by the commenter as needing to meet emission limits includes boilers in the Major Source Boiler Rule as well as the Area Source Boiler Rule. The EPA estimates that 600 area source boilers (less than 1% of the 183,000 area source boilers subject to the rule) will be subject to emission limits. The remaining 182,400 area source boilers (over 99% of the 183,000 area source boilers subject to the rule) will be subject to work/management practices (i.e., tune-up requirements). As an initial matter, we note that many sources subject to the standards should be able to meet the standards within 3 years (i.e., March 21, 2014), even those that need to install pollution control technologies to do so. See also the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt number 9, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt 11.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: The 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.[6] If a facility decides to switch to a cleaner fuel, the replacement or retrofit work required to make that switch will potentially take 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 3-year compliance deadline  -  likely eliminating the possibility that the facility would switch to a cleaner fuel source  -  the EPA should allow 5 years total for facilities to change their boilers and meet the MACT requirements for the cleaner fuel source. This 5-year period would occur in two steps; a no-backsliding provision would apply for 2 years from publication of the rule in the Federal Register, and then the facility would have 3 years to comply with MACT standard for the subcategory for the cleaner fuel subcategory. The EPA promulgated exactly this type of extended MACT compliance deadline 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 FR 18503, 18,508 (Apr. 15, 1998).[7] In addition to providing an incentive for facilities to switch to cleaner fuel sources, this approach would reduce some of the competition for resources discussed above by extending the deadline to complete the work to replace or retrofit certain boilers.
[6] EPA recognizes the MACT rule should be crafted to encourage the use of cleaner fuels, such as natural gas. 75 FR 32025.
[7] 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 the 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 3 years, a no-backsliding MACT standard would be applicable, then the 3-year deadline to implement the MACT standard for the applicable "cleaner" source would begin to run.
Response: The EPA is not establishing an extended two-step 5-year compliance period as suggested by the commenter. See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1, excerpt number 9.
Compliance: Tune-up schedule for small oil-fired units
Commenter Name: Paul Noe
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The EPA has proposed to change the frequency for tune-ups (following the initial tune-up) for oil-fired boilers that are equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr to a tune-up once every 5 years (76 FR 80536, Dec. 23, 2011). For new units, the EPA has proposed to remove the requirement for the initial tune-up, considering that new units will likely be tuned during the initial startup process as part of commissioning. For facilities with a large number of small oil-fired units, completion of tune-ups on a biennial basis can quickly become a logistics issue, due to the need to schedule periods where the boilers can be shutdown and tuned without undue disruption to the operation of the facility. For area source boilers, we believe that a tune-up every 5 years is appropriate, as emissions from these boilers are small, and allowing a reduced tuning frequency will reduce the cost of the rule. Therefore, we support these changes, as they minimize burden on small sources with minimal emissions impact.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Grif Bond
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental, Health & Safety Communications Panel (EHSCP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2432-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The EPA has added a subcategory of small units that are equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr. The reconsideration proposes an initial tune-up date of March 21, 2014 and requires a subsequent tune-up for these units only once every 5 years. The EHSCP supports the EPA's efforts to reduce the burden on these smaller units. The creation of a subcategory for smaller units and the reduction of subsequent tune-ups are appropriate for these units.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Barbara Patton
Commenter Affiliation: AT&T Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2436-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The EPA has added a subcategory of small units that are equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr. The reconsideration proposes an initial tune-up date of March 21, 2014 and requires a subsequent tune-up for these units only once every 5 years. The EHSCP supports the EPA's efforts to reduce the burden on these smaller units. The creation of a subcategory for smaller units and the reduction of subsequent tune-ups are appropriate for these units.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 35
Comment: The EPA rejected a request to exempt very small (between 2 and 10 MMBtu/hr) oil-fired units.
However, the EPA has proposed to change the frequency for tune-ups (following the initial tune-up) for oil-fired boilers that are equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr to a tune-up once every 5 years (76 FR 80536, Dec. 23, 2011). For new units, the EPA has proposed to remove the requirement for the initial tune-up, considering that new units will likely be tuned during the initial startup process as part of commissioning. For facilities with a large number of small oil-fired units, completion of tune-ups on a biennial basis can quickly become a logistics issue, due to the need to schedule periods where the boilers can be shutdown and tuned without undue disruption to the operation of the facility. For area source boilers, we believe that a tune-up every 5 years is appropriate, as emissions from these boilers are small, and allowing a reduced tuning frequency will reduce the cost of the rule. Therefore, we support these changes, as they minimize burden on small sources with minimal emissions impact.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Comment: The EPA has proposed to change the frequency for tune-ups (following the initial tune-up) for oil-fired boilers that are equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr to once every 5 years. (76 FR 80536.) For new units, the EPA has proposed to remove the requirement for the initial tune-up, since new units will likely be tuned during the initial startup process as part of commissioning. For facilities with a large number of small oil-fired units, completion of tune-ups on a biennial basis can quickly become a significant logistical challenge, since periods of shut down for tune-ups would have to be scheduled without undue disruption to the operation of the facility. For area source boilers, we believe that a tune-up every 5 years is appropriate, as emissions from these boilers are relatively small, and allowing a reduced tuning frequency will reduce the cost of the rule. Therefore, ACC supports these changes, as they minimize the regulatory burden on small sources with minimal emissions impact.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
 Commenter Name: Michael J. Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2448-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: We support the EPA's proposed revisions to compliance monitoring, including . . . decreasing the tune-up requirement for small (<5 MMBtu/hr) units to every 5 years, with the initial tune-up by the compliance date.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Michael L. Krancer
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2449-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: PA DEP agrees with the EPA's proposed approach to provide some relief to owners and operators of smaller oil-fired boilers (equal to/less than 5 MMBtu/hr) by extending the subsequent tune-up date to 5 years after the initial tune-up, instead of the biennial basis found in the final rule. The PA DEP also agrees that the initial tune-up requirement for new units should be eliminated because the sources would be tuned-up during the installation process.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: In the current rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to create a new subcategory for the smallest units oil-fired boilers with a capacity equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr.  This group of oil-fired boilers would have additional time in which to demonstrate initial compliance - March 21, 2014 - and would be subject to the requirement for subsequent tune-ups only once every 5 years. Castle supports this action. A decrease in frequency of tune-ups is appropriate. It will ease the financial burden associated with this type of maintenance, particularly for small business owners.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Barry Christensen
Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2435-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: OCC supports longer times between tune-ups for the small and liquid fired units, as well as postponement of tune-ups for valid reasons. This includes extending the tune-up frequency from the proposed annual requirement to a maximum of 5 years for these boilers. In addition, if a burner inspection cannot be accomplished until the next scheduled maintenance outage, a site should be able to delay that tune-up activity up to a maximum of 5 years.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. We would like to confirm that the final rule requires existing oil-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr to conduct a tune-up every 5 years. In addition, the final rule specifies that existing boilers subject to the tune-up requirements may delay inspection of the burners and inspection of the systems controlling the air-to-fuel ratio until the next scheduled unit shutdown.
Commenter Name: Robert R. Perry
Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FGCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: If the EPA still finds it necessary to impose this burden on the regulated community we support allowing tune-ups once every 5 years. There is no evidence that frequent tune ups will have any impact on emissions.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Based on the foregoing, Castle Oil Corporation urges the EPA to adopt the following provisions:
Allow less frequent tune-ups for those oil-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of 5MMBtu/hr. or less;
Response: The final rule requires oil-fired boilers with a heat input capacity of equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr to conduct a tune-up every 5 years.
Commenter Name: S. William Becker
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2455-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 37
Comment: NACAA recommends that the frequency of mandated tune ups be based on objective data concerning decay of performance after a tune-up.
Response: The EPA received comments regarding the frequency of tune-ups that varied from suggesting a one-time tune-up to a semiannual tune-up. We do not have information regarding the rate of decay of performance after a tune-up such that we could consider basing the frequency of tune-ups on decay of performance after a tune-up as the commenter suggests. Further, the commenter has not provided such information, nor does the commenter identify sources of such information.
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2424-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Improvements to Work Practice Requirements: We support the more flexible work practice provisions in the revised proposal that would change the cycle of required unit tune-ups from every 2 years to every 5 years for small boilers and process heaters. However, the EPA proposes to apply this more flexible provision only for units under 5 MMBtu/hr. Since a 10 MMBtu/hr threshold has been used throughout this rule (as well as the companion rule applicable to units located at major sources of HAPs) to distinguish between small and large sources and define certain subcategories, the EPA should extend these provisions to all units below 10MMBtu/hr so that all units within a defined subcategory at a given facility are subject to the same work practice standards and subject to the same frequency/cycle of scheduled tune-up requirements.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 5-year tune-up frequency should be extended to all units below 10 MMBtu/hr. As explained in the proposed action on reconsideration of the final rule, we believe that the large number of very small oil-fired units that can be located at an individual facility provides logistical issues with completing tune-ups on a biennial basis and agree that for those small units, a decreased tune-up frequency is appropriate (76 FR 80536, December 21, 2011). We continue to believe that for oil-fired boilers equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr, requiring a tune-up every 5 years is appropriate and, thus, the requirement is included in the final rule. We do not believe that defining rule requirements for the sole purpose of subjecting all units within a defined subcategory (e.g., boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 MMBtu/hr) at a given facility to the same work practice requirements is an appropriate basis for defining rule requirements. For example, the 10 MMBtu/hr threshold was designed to distinguish sources with stacks capable of being monitored for limits. It would not be reasonable to adopt that threshold here for another purpose when that rationale has nothing to do with the rationale for the 5-year cycle (i.e., logistical problems completing timely tune-ups at facilities with numerous small units).
Commenter Name: Neil Gormley
Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2473-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The EPA has determined only that regular tune-ups every 2 years are GACT. Now the EPA proposes to water down even this inadequate standard by reducing the frequency of required tune-ups of small (capacity < 5 MMBtu/hr) oil-fired boilers to every 5 years. In light of the previous determination that tune-ups every 2 years were GACT, the EPA's proposal not to require them is unlawful and arbitrary. In the proposed reconsidered rule, the EPA suggests that owners and operators of many boilers at a single location will encounter "logistical problems" in conducting tune-ups every 2 years. The EPA says nothing about what these logistical problems would be, or whether they could be overcome. The EPA never explains why the presence of multiple boilers is a single location would not make it easier, rather than harder, to arrange tune-ups. And the EPA never actually determines that small boilers are more likely to be found in great numbers at a single location than larger boilers. It is not clear whether the EPA has examined any data on this point. For all of these reasons, the EPA's special allowance for small boilers is arbitrary. Because tune-ups every 2 years are a generally available control technology for oil-fired boilers, regardless of capacity, the CAA requires the EPA to impose that standard.
Response: The EPA determined that tune-ups every 2 years would be GACT prior to obtaining information from the petitions for reconsideration and from comments that demonstrate this conclusion was not appropriate in all situations. To determine GACT, we review available methods for limiting pollution and examine whether adopting such methods would be feasible for sources in the category given the level of technical sophistication, cost and resources in the industry, potential for emissions reductions, as well as other factors. There appeared to be impediments to tune ups every 2 years for certain specific types of boilers (i.e., seasonal boilers and very small oil-fired boilers). Therefore, we proposed and adjusted the tune-up schedule to reflect this information.
In their Petition for Reconsideration, The American Sugar Cane League of the USA, Inc. (ASCL) stated that Louisiana's eleven sugar mills operate 71 boilers. They further stated that each of those mills operate between five and eight boilers which is in contrast to the EPA's assumption of one large boiler per facility. They explained that most of the mills are not equipped to measure CO and O2 and, thus, a third-party contractor must be hired to perform that component of the tune-up. The sugar mills typically operate no longer than 100 days per year. Due to the seasonal nature of the sugar cane boilers, a biennial tune-up requirement means that each boiler would be required to conduct a tune-up approximately every 6 to 8 months of operation. This is not the EPA's intent in requiring biennial tune-ups and is not representative of our GACT determination. Assuming 120 days (4 months) of operation each year, a 5-year tune-up requirement means that each boiler would be required to conduct a tune-up every 20 months of operation. The EPA considers this more appropriate.
An examination of our data for oil-fired boilers 5 MMBtu/hr or smaller at area source facilities identifies several types of facilities containing multiple boilers. Facility type and number of boilers range from institutions with 6 and 23 boilers to commercial facilities with 9 and 116 boilers. Although our data with complete information regarding type of facility and size and number of boilers is minimal, it does clearly indicate the existence of area source facilities with multiple oil-fired boilers 5 MMBtu/hr or smaller. In those instances, we continue to believe that a 5-year tune-up requirement is appropriate.
Commenter Name: Matthew Todd
Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) and the American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2482-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment:  Under this proposal, liquid-fired boilers of <5MMBtu/hr duty require tune-ups every 5 years. As discussed in Comment II.3.B, relative to gas and light liquid-fired boilers and process heaters at major sources, even an every 5-year tune-up is not justified and we recommend a design practice or Operations and Maintenance Plan work practice instead.
Instead of the proposed 5-year tune-up, a design practice requiring the boiler to be designed to fire liquids or an Operations and Maintenance Plan work practice, such as incorporated into the RICE NESHAP should be required. Item 9 of Table 6 of Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ addresses the parallel situation for small and limited use engines. It requires that the owner/operator follow a work practice and demonstrate continuous compliance by "(i) operating and maintaining the stationary RICE according to the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions; or (ii) develop and follow your own maintenance plan which must provide to the extent practicable for the maintenance and operation of the engine in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practice for minimizing emissions."
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the EPA should only impose a design requirement, instead of the work practice of a tune-up, for oil-fired units with heat input capacity of equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr. The commenter suggests the design requirement should be similar to item 9 of table 6 of Subpart ZZZZ. The requirements in item 9 of table 6 of Subpart ZZZZ are to operate and maintain the engine according to the manufacturer's emission-related operation and maintenance instructions. We question how that requirement is different from Subpart JJJJJJ's requirement to tune/optimize the boiler emissions to manufacturer's specifications. Also, Subpart ZZZZ requires inspection of certain engine equipment, which is similar to what is required under the boiler tune-up, but with requirements on a more frequent basis than every 5 years.
Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Merck supports the EPA's proposal to allow small boilers to perform tune-ups once every 4 years.
Merck agrees with the EPA that completing tune-ups on a biennial basis can be challenging for facilities and institutions with a large number of small boilers. However, we believe the EPA should extend this relief to all boilers 10 MMBtu/hr or smaller. This approach would be consistent with the applicability limit of 40 CFR 60 Subpart Dc and therefore minimize regulatory confusion.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that reduced tune-up frequency should be extended to all boilers 10 MMBtu/hr or smaller. We do not consider maintaining consistency with the applicability limit of Subpart Dc to be an appropriate basis for providing reduced tune-up frequency. The final rule requires that tune-ups be conducted every 5 years for certain subsets of boilers where we have determined it to be appropriate (i.e., new and existing oil-fired boilers with heat input capacity of equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr; new and existing seasonal boilers as defined in Subpart JJJJJJ; new and existing limited-use boilers as defined in Subpart JJJJJJ; and new and existing coal-fired, biomass-fired, or oil-fired boilers with an O2 trim system that maintains an optimum air-to-fuel ratio that would otherwise be subject to a biennial tune-up).
Compliance: Out of Scope
Commenter Name: John V. Corra
Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2420-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Some examples below illustrate areas of compliance confusion. These examples are not inclusive of all problem areas within the rule.  -   The general provisions for the notification of compliance status in §63.9(g)(2)(ii) states: "The notification must be sent before the close of business on the 60[th] day following the completion of the relevant compliance demonstration activity specified in the relevant standard".
In regard to the boiler rules, it is unclear what qualifies as a "relevant compliance demonstration activity." It is also unclear whether or not the activities are to be reported through both the notification of compliance status and the compliance reports described in §63.7550.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration.
Commenter Name: Derek Grasso
Commenter Affiliation: Covanta Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2430-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Because it is likely that final action on this amendment will not be taken by March 21, 2012, Covanta also supports the EPA's intention to stay the effectiveness of the final rule for 90 days to ensure compliance. If the proposed change to March 21, 2013 is eventually not implemented during the reconsideration, Covanta requests that the EPA provide a "No Action Assurance" similar to the one recently issued for certain aspects of the Major Source Boiler Rule and CISWI Rule.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: John V. Corra
Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Wyoming DEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2420-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Industries in Wyoming have expressed concerns regarding the inability to maintain long-term PM, CO and Hg compliance in coal-fired units. These concerns arise due to variable coal qualities in each load, and uncertainty in the Hg concentrations in the supplied coal.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration.
Commenter Name: Alicia Meads
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: These proposed rules do not provide enough time for capital planning and compliance, given the complexity of the rules and competition for a limited pool of qualified domestic vendors and installers for emission controls and boilers. Additional time is needed to allow businesses to synch up compliance with these rules with compliance on upcoming NAAQS rules.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Also see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2446, excerpt 7.
Impacts Analysis: Proposed Amendments
Commenter Name: John V. Corra
Commenter Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (Wyoming DEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2420-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Wyoming DEQ recommends that the EPA estimate and report the additional burden that the reconsidered rules place on state and local governments. The evaluation should consider the development of staff expertise necessary to evaluate energy assessments, as well as the addition of staff resources needed to effectively review industry's annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Wyoming believes that the EPA should also evaluate the permitting burden placed on states, as companies may need to make process modifications to be more energy efficient. Permitting entities with minor source authority, such as Wyoming, may be faced with additional permit applications to address equipment changes associated with improving energy efficiency, especially if the equipment modifications are beyond insignificant or like-kind replacement. Energy efficiency could also bring into question the applicability of PSD review for increased capacity, process optimization, or increased reliability that may not result in a permit but will require the facility, and possibly the permitting authority, to evaluate.
Response: The amendments contained in this action are corrections that are intended to clarify, but not change, the coverage of the final rule. The clarifications and corrections should make it easier for owners and operators and for local and state authorities to understand and implement the requirements. The amendments will not increase the costs for the final rule but will result in a decrease in the burden on small facilities as a result of the reduction in the frequency of conducting tune-ups for seasonal boilers, small (equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr) oil-fired boilers, limited-use boilers, and boilers using an O2 trim system that maintain an optimum air-to-fuel ratio. Further, certain units that meet the definition of seasonal boiler or limited-use boiler and would otherwise be subject to emission limits will instead be subject to tune-up requirements. Additionally, the burden will be reduced on facilities that currently operate under an energy management program compatible with ISO 50001 that includes the affected boilers because a one-time energy assessment will not be required. Burden will also be reduced on facilities with affected boilers that burn low-sulfur oil because those boilers will not be subject to the PM emission limit. Combustion of low-sulfur fuels under the conditions in the rule would be GACT for PM. Further reduction in burden will occur in instances where initial compliance demonstrations with the Hg emission limit via fuel sampling or with the PM emission limit via performance stack testing show that the emissions are equal to or less than half the respective emission limit because no further sampling or testing of those boilers will be required. Accordingly, the amendments will not increase the burden on state and local governments but will result in a decrease in their burden.
The amendments will result in no significant changes to the information collection requirements of the promulgated rule and will have no increased impact on the information collection estimate of projected cost and hour burden made and approved by OMB. In fact, the reduction in tune-up frequency for some boilers will result in less information collection burden. The amendments contain no new federal mandates for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector and impose no new enforceable duties on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In addition, the amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, nor will they impose new direct compliance costs on State or local governments or preempt State law.
When we promulgated the rule in March 2011, we determined that the rule contained a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. We also concluded that the rule may have federalism implications, because it may impose substantial direct compliance costs on state or local governments, and the federal government will not provide the funds necessary to pay those costs. Accordingly, we met all requirements associated with these determinations (see 76 FR 15585-15588, March 21, 2011).
Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee, Chief Engineer
Commenter Affiliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2421-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: One of our main product lines is biomass‐fired boilers. Our company is the manufacturer of more of these between 10 and 100 MMBtu/hr than anyone in the U.S. We have seen our production of these collapse since the EPA has taken its recent actions. This is in spite of the claims that the government wants to encourage "green energy" and "lower carbon foot‐prints". There are two principle reasons that I can see that have caused this. There is no confidence in the "stability" of the rules. As with most documents of this type, they are impossible for a "lay‐person" to interpret. Usually, when there is a change, within a few days, we are able to decipher the regulation and determine the impact of the new rules. This time, after some months, with large, sweeping changes and then retreats, a climate of confusion has been created that precludes major investment. No one is certain that the emission‐control equipment they would believe they need today will be adequate, or even necessary, in the future.
Response: This action finalizes the amendments to the Area Source Boiler Rule. The EPA does not anticipate any additional changes in these rule requirements.
Commenter Name: Bruce Coffee, Chief Engineer
Commenter Affiliation: Hurst Boiler and Welding Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2421-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: One of our main product lines is biomass‐fired boilers. Our company is the manufacturer of more of these between 10 and 100 MMBtu/hr than anyone in the USA. We have seen our production of these collapse since the EPA has taken its recent actions. This is in spite of the claims that the government wants to encourage "green energy" and "lower carbon foot‐prints".  The rules have become so strict that the cost of control is prohibitive. From what we understand, boilers for biomass between 10 and 30 MMBtu/hr, now have an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. But unfortunately, there is no affordable way to do this. The equipment that can improve upon the normal mechanical dust collectors are the same ones that are used to reduce the emissions to 0.025 lb/MMBtu. These are now required on boilers above 30 MMBtu/hr. Although expensive, the cost can be justified on boilers of this size and larger, but smaller boilers cannot bear the cost, as the savings are more modest but the costs for the equipment are about the same.
Response: Numerical emission limits, based on GACT, are established for PM as a surrogate for other urban HAP for new biomass-fired boilers with a design heat input capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr or greater. The numerical emission limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu for PM for biomass-fired units greater than 30 MMBtu/hr is considered GACT because those units will be subject to that emission limit for PM under the NSPS. For units between 10 and 30 MMBtu/hr, the limits were established to reflect the performance of GACT which are multiclones. The PM GACT limit is based on data from biomass-fired units using GACT technology. The EPA has determined that the promulgated numerical emission limits for PM are appropriate GACT standards for new area source biomass-fired boilers with a heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Section 112(h) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate "a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof" that is consistent with the provisions of CAA §112(d) or (f) of the CAA, where in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible "to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants." 42 USC § 7412(h). Section 112(h)(2)(B) defines "not feasible" as "the application of measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations." 42 USC § 7412(h). The costs associated with testing and monitoring certain boilers would be excessive. The costs would be excessive due to the fact that (1) standard reference methods are not applicable for sampling certain small diameter stacks, and (2) the installation of sampling ports on certain small boilers would interfere with the functionality of exhaust systems.[9]
[9] See EPA's discussion in the 2011 Final Rule, 76 FR 15568.
Response: The EPA did consider the CAA §112(h) authorities and, based on that authority, the final rule does not include numerical emission limits or testing requirements for existing or new coal-fired boilers with heat input capacity less than 10 MMBtu/hr.
Commenter Name: Bart Sponsellar
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2453-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are very concerned that these rules will have significant and as yet unknown implications for biomass-fired boilers and processes. This is very important to Wisconsin, where a significant number of our small businesses, as well as the paper industry, depend on biomass-fired power. Wisconsin also feels that biomass is one vital key to growing renewable energy supplies, reducing pollutant emissions from fossil fuels, and growing our local economies.
We believe that with further work on the rule, costs can be significantly reduced while achieving the same or better environmental improvement.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2420-A1, excerpt 5.
The EPA has made many adjustments to the rule that reduce the burden on industry since the June 2010 proposal. The following are some of those adjustments. Numerical emission limits and stack testing requirements are no longer applicable to many of the area source boilers. Specifically, CO limits and stack testing have been eliminated for existing biomass- and oil-fired boilers with a design heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr. For boilers that must conduct stack tests, the stack test frequency has been decreased from once per year to once every 3 years. Certain units that meet the definition of seasonal boiler or limited-use boiler and would otherwise be subject to emission limits will instead be subject to tune-up requirements. Tune-up frequency has been decreased for biomass- and oil-fired boilers that meet the definition of a seasonal boiler. Facilities that operate under an energy management program compatible with ISO 50001 that includes the affected boilers satisfies the energy assessment requirement.
Commenter Name: Marilyn Crocket
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2466-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Based on the EPA's published emission factors (AP-42), total potential HAP emissions from distillate boilers are 0.01 tpy per MMBtu/hr of input capacity. What reduction in HAP does the EPA reasonably expect from the tune up procedure? Assuming a 10% reduction, HAP emissions would be reduced by 0.001 tpy per MMBtu/hr. In the public record AOGA cannot find where the EPA has evaluated the owner/operator cost, HAP emission reductions, and associated cost effectiveness that can be expected by conducting these specific tune-up requirements on very small boilers.
Response: Boiler tune-ups have been shown to improve the efficiency of a boiler between 1 and 5%, depending on the age of the unit and the time lapse since the previous tune-up. An emission reduction of 1% of total HAP emissions was used in this analysis for units that are required to perform a routine tune-up. The cost for tune-ups was based on quotes obtained from the Industrial Extension Service USI Boiler Efficiency Program and the annual average cost of a tune-up for large and small boilers was estimated at $2,228. The cost for tune-ups is discussed in the memorandum "Methodology for Estimating Control Costs for Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers for the NESHAP- Area Source", and the emissions reduction estimates are discussed in the memorandum "Methodology for Estimating Impacts from Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Boilers at Area Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions." Both memorandums are in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006- 0790).
Commenter Name: Sheila C. Holman
Commenter Affiliation: NC Division of Air Quality (NC DAQ), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2474-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: It is burdensome on small businesses to conduct initial and periodic stack testing on these small boilers 10-30 MMBtu/hr burning a relatively clean fuel.
Response: The EPA has made many adjustments to the rule to reduce the burden on industry. Numerical limits and stack testing were removed from many of the area source boiler categories since the proposal of the rule in June of 2010. Specifically, CO limits and stack testing have been eliminated for existing biomass- and oil-fired boilers with a design heat input capacity greater than 10 MMBtu/hr. Also, the stack test frequency has been decreased from once per year to once every 3 years. Additionally, an owner or operator of an affected boiler does not need to conduct further PM emissions testing if, when demonstrating initial compliance with the PM emission limit, the performance test results show that the PM emissions are equal to or less than half of the PM emission limit.  Burden will also be reduced on facilities with affected boilers that burn low-sulfur oil because those boilers will not be subject to the PM emission limit. Instead, combustion of low-sulfur fuels under the conditions in the rule would be GACT for PM.
Commenter Name: Marilyn Crocket
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2466-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: AOGA is very concerned about the overall ongoing cost and associated control cost effectiveness of GACT biennial tune-up requirements under §63.11223 for existing boilers less than 10 MMBtu/hr.
Response: The EPA has determined that GACT is appropriate for these small boilers and tune-ups were determined to be the industry standard practice to optimize a boiler's performance. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule published in March 2011, boilers may be at best 85% efficient, and un-tuned boilers may have combustion efficiencies of 60% or lower. A tune-up performed to the manufacturer's specifications would ensure the highest energy efficiency and reduce fuel usage, which will ultimately reduce HAP emissions. We also note that several subcategories (seasonal boilers, limited-use boilers, oil-fired boilers with heat input capacity equal to or less than 5 MMBtu/hr, boilers with O2 trim systems that maintain an optimum air-to-fuel ratio) that would otherwise be subject to a biennial tune-up requirement or, in some instances a stack testing requirement, will instead be subject to a tune-up once every 5 years. This should help diminish the impacts that the commenter addresses.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Comment: The EPA acknowledges that the cost of testing small boilers and process heaters is prohibitive.
While the cost of emissions testing larger units is less prohibitive, the EPA must consider these costs when establishing the frequency of testing.
The benefits of testing more frequently than every 5 years do not justify the costs. HAP emissions change only when operating parameters change (e.g., firing rate, maximum contaminant input limits for chloride and Hg, type of fuel, combustion efficiency, O2 content, etc.) or when design changes occur. Absent these changes to an affected source, operating parameters established by implementation of Area Source Boiler Rule are more than sufficient to ensure that emissions will not significantly change over time.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that testing more frequently than once every 5 years is not cost effective. The operating parameter changes described in the comment such as combustion efficiency, O2 content and source of fuel are parameters that may change over time. The routine tune-ups that must be conducted on a periodic basis (biennially or every 5 years) and the stack tests required by this final rule (every 3 years) provide assurance that emissions will not increase over time.
Impacts Analysis: Out of Scope
Commenter Name: Dan Bosch
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2428-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are greatly concerned that even though many emissions limits have been lowered and other improvements in flexibility have been made, these rules are simply too costly and complex for affected small businesses to comply without serious economic harm.
Regulation affects small businesses in a substantially different way than it does large businesses. When a large business needs to comply with a new regulation, 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.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Nevertheless, we also note that the primary and sole continuing requirement of the Area Source Boiler Rule affecting more than 98% of the regulated area source boilers is a tune-up. A tune-up can be performed by numerous service providers and does not require ongoing specialized staff for most small entities.
Commenter Name: Dan Bosch
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2428-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: For the small-business owner, there is no regulatory compliance 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, comprehending 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 cost of regulation is significantly greater for small businesses. The U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy released a study in 2010 that showed the smallest businesses  -  those with fewer than 20 employees  -  spend 36% more per employee per year complying with federal regulations.[1] Alarmingly, that disproportionality increases to 364% when it comes to environmental regulation. These findings do not suggest that all regulation is bad or unnecessary, but rather clearly demonstrate that agencies need to take extra care to make sure their regulations are well-reasoned and flexible. Without such flexibility, the ability of small businesses to grow and create jobs is severely inhibited.
This regulatory scheme is among the most complex in recent memory and as such, the compliance burdens presented by these rules are vast. Small-business owners will need to spend significant time to attempt 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. The result will have serious and harmful consequences for the small businesses forced to comply with these rules.
[1] http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Nevertheless, as described in the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2420-A1, excerpt 5, the EPA has made many adjustments to the rule that reduce the burden on industry, including small business owners, since the June 2010 proposal.
Commenter Name: James Johnson
Commenter Affiliation: United States Beet Sugar Association (USBSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2450-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Sugarbeet processing requires large amounts of energy, which is supplied by industrial boilers that will be subject to the requirements in the boiler rules. Such boilers are fired by a combination of coal, #6 fuel oil, and natural gas.[3]
[3] Due to economic constraints, it is not possible for coal-fired boilers used in the production of beet sugar to switch fuels to natural gas. The capital cost of conversion at the 19 affected facilities is about $200 million and the annual fuel costs to the industry would nearly double (fuel prices from EIA AEO 2012). In addition, burning the leaves and stalk (biomass) of the sugarbeet plant as a fuel along with coal is not a practical option. Due to the biology of the sugarbeet plant, this resource is difficult to capture in a quantity sufficient to significantly reduce fossil fuel use. Perhaps most significantly, a non-fossil fuel energy source would need to be found to dry the beet tops, which have 85 percent water content and are harvested in October when air drying options are severely limited.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration.
Commenter Name: Tangela Niemann
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2464-A3
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The EPA's claim that the costs associated with the energy assessments are "minimal, in most cases," and implementation of any cost-effective conservation measures would be partially offset by fuel savings as part of its "beyond the floor" determination (75 FR 31907) is speculative and not valid. The technical support documents for the rule indicate the cost of an energy assessment ranges from $2,000 - $5,000 for a commercial or institutional facility and up to $75,000 for an industrial facility. Total annualized costs for the facility energy assessments are estimated to be $52 million nationwide for 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ and while the energy assessment may lead to emission reductions, in and of itself, the assessment does not reduce emissions.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration.
Commenter Name: Tangela Niemann
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2464-A3
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Efficiency improvements are not always possible. A company could spend up to $75,000 for an energy assessment only to learn that no additional improvements in efficiency at the facility are possible. As a result, companies that are already efficient in their operations are more likely to incur the costs of the required energy assessment with little or no benefit in terms of cost savings and little or no potential emissions reductions.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Nonetheless, we would like to point out that the final rule specifies that facilities that currently operate under an energy management program compatible with ISO 50001 that includes the affected boilers satisfies the energy assessment requirement.
Commenter Name: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Many face greater risk because of their age, health conditions, or rate of exposure to the pollutants. They include: infants, children and teenagers; older adults; pregnant women; people with asthma and other lung diseases; people with cardiovascular diseases; diabetics; people with low incomes; and people who work or exercise outdoors. The discussion below highlights special concerns for several of these groups.
Children face quite different risks from air pollutants than adults. The lungs and their alveoli are not fully grown until children become adults. Biological defenses that help adults fight off infections are still developing in young bodies. Furthermore, children don't behave like adults, and their behavior also affects their vulnerability. They are outside for longer periods and are usually more active when outdoors. Consequently, they inhale more polluted outdoor air than adults typically do. Toxic substances may put children more at risk than adults. For example, the California Environmental Protection Agency explored improved methodologies to determine susceptibility to carcinogens in utero and childhood after finding in 2001 that the existing approaches did not adequately reflect the risks to children. Their subsequent research found that the children generally display greater sensitivity to environmental carcinogens than did adults.
People with chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes, face higher risk regardless of age. Their diseases make them at much higher risk for harm. Current estimates include these groups:
 Asthma - 24.6 million people, including 7.0 million under age 18
 Cardiovascular diseases  -  82.6 million people
 Diabetes  -  25.8 million people
As adults age, their body's physiological process declines naturally, placing even healthy older adults at risk from airborne pollutants. In addition, many older adults also have one or more chronic diseases that increase their susceptibility.
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Nevertheless, we note that, to the extent that this comment focuses on risk-based standard setting, such considerations under the statutory scheme are not appropriate in a technology-based rulemaking under CAA §112.
Commenter Name: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Communities of color and poorer people also appear to face higher risk, underscoring the need to properly assess this margin of safety. Research indicates that minorities live in greater concentrations both in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards and in areas with above average numbers of air-polluting facilities (NAS, 1999). Both African Americans and Hispanics have been found to be more likely than Caucasians to live in areas with high levels of air toxics (Morello-Frosch and Lopez, 2006).
      A study in Maryland found that the risk of cancer related to air toxics was greatest in areas with the largest African American population proportions and lowest among those with the smallest African American population proportions. In addition, the estimated cancer risk decreased for every 10 percent increase in the percentage of Caucasians living in an area. Having a low income also increased the risk among African Americans more so than among Caucasians (Apelberg BJ et al., 2005).
      In Houston, Houston is home to one of the world's largest petrochemical complexes, researchers found that the risk of cancer in an area increased along with the proportion of the population that was Hispanic and as measures of social disadvantage increased (Linder et al., 2008).
Socioeconomic position has been more consistently associated with greater harm from air pollution. Recent studies show evidence of that link. Low socioeconomic status consistently increased the risk of premature death from fine particle pollution among 13.2 million Medicare recipients studied in the largest examination of mortality associated with particulate matter levels nationwide (Zeger et al., 2008).
Response: As stated in the preamble for the proposed reconsideration of final rule, dated December 23, 2011, we are not obligated to respond on the merits to any comments addressing aspects of the final rule beyond the topics for which comments were requested. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration. Nevertheless, we note that, to the extent that this comment focuses on risk-based standard setting, such considerations under the statutory scheme are not appropriate in a technology-based rulemaking under CAA §112.
Title V Rationale: Exemption for all area sources
Commenter Name: Paul Noe
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: We support the EPA's rationale expressed in the March 21, 2011 final rule (76 FR 15578):
"...we lack sufficient information at this juncture to distinguish the sources which have applied controls to boilers in order to become area sources from other synthetic and natural area sources. As a result, the rationale for exempting most area sources subject to this rule as explained in the proposal preamble (see pages 31910 to 31913) is also now relevant for sources which we proposed to permit. Thus, no area sources subject to this subpart are required to obtain a title V permit as a result of being subject to this subpart."
Synthetic minor sources must have a federally enforceable permit to assure emissions remain below the major source threshold. The federally enforceable permit serves to ensure, through monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the source's compliance. An additional Title V requirement would not provide any further compliance assurance and no emission reductions. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to impose Title V permitting burdens on the sources or the permitting authorities for synthetic minor sources.
Response: For the reasons stated in our March 21, 2011, final rule (76 FR 15554) as well as our reconsideration proposal (76 FR 80532, December 23, 2011), the EPA is not making any changes to the Title V exemption for area sources. Thus, no area sources subject to Subpart JJJJJJ are required to obtain a Title V permit as a result of being subject to Subpart JJJJJJ. The EPA is not responding to individual points raised by the commenter in support of the Title V exemption for area source boilers.
Commenter Name: Michael J. Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2448-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The final rule exempts all area sources from Title V permitting as a result of this rule. In other words, this rule alone would not trigger Title V requirements for an area source. The proposed rule required Title V permits for major sources of HAPs that became area sources by installing controls after 1990. However, the EPA determined in its review of the record that it lacked sufficient information to distinguish these sources from other area sources. Thus, in the final rule, the EPA is no longer requiring any units to obtain Title V permits as a result of this rule. Sources would need a Title V permit if they are subject to Title V for another reason. The Clean Energy Group supports this decision, which will allow both permitting authorities and covered sources to focus on the larger emitters, allowing for more efficient and effective emissions reductions.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Timothy Serie
Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2437-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: ACA generally supports the following proposed changes in the Area Source Boiler Rule: The EPA's decision not to require Title V permits for area source boilers
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Arthur Marin
Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2454-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: The existing language of 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ clearly states that an area source is exempt from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit irrespective of how or when the source became an area source subject to the subpart. We agree with the proposal to maintain this exclusion from Title V permitting. Facilities subject to Title V permitting requirements have additional administrative and financial burdens, and subjecting facilities to Title V permitting requirements solely because of previous source emissions will not result in further air quality benefits so long as clear and enforceable area source permits or regulatory limits are in place.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Under current law, all area sources are excluded from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit. The EPA has asked should this exemption be maintained or limited solely to those facilities that are "natural," not synthetic area sources. Castle supports the exemption as promulgated in the March 2011 final rule. Title V permitting is tremendously time-consuming and very costly. It is an enormous burden for small businesses and non-profits to comply with such obligations. On balance, the need for an exemption outweighs any small environmental benefit that might be derived from permitting. Finally, the Agency points out in the preamble to the proposed rule that synthetic area sources represent less than 1% of area sources. Thus, the exemption, as currently crafted, should be maintained.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Based on the foregoing, Castle Oil Corporation urges the EPA to adopt the following provision:
Retain the exemption for all area source boilers from the Title V permitting requirement
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Barry Christensen
Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2435-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Title V permits should not be required for boilers and process heaters at area source facilities. Simply because an area source with low HAP emissions and has process equipment that controls emissions does not justify a requirement to obtain a Title V permit. The Title V program was designed for major sources of air pollutants, not minor sources, and the CAA does not expressly specify that small sources beneficially operating with control equipment must or ought to be subject to a Title V permit that would disproportionately impose heavy administrative burdens on small sources. Furthermore, most boilers at area sources are regulated by one of the boiler NSPS standards, as well as other State requirements. In summary, no environmental benefit will result from the added burden of requiring boiler operators at area sources to obtain Title V permits.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 34
Comment:  In the 2010 proposed Area Source Boiler Rule, the EPA proposed to exempt from Title V permitting, certain area source categories except for those "synthetic area sources" that "became area sources by virtue of installing add-on controls." (75 FR 31913.) (2010 Proposed Rule). The EPA included in the 2010 proposed Area Source Boiler Rule a thorough discussion of the justification for exempting certain area sources from Title V permitting. See 75 FR 31910-913. (2010 Proposed Rule). While many area sources subject to the proposed rule were exempted from Title V permitting, the EPA concluded that the synthetic sources that are large facilities should have to comply with Title V "because their uncontrolled emissions would far exceed the major source threshold." (75 FR 31913.) (2010 Proposed Rule).
In the final Area Source Boiler Rule, the EPA expanded the exemption from Title V permitting to all area sources subject to the rule. (76 FR 15578.) (2011 Final Rule). The EPA justified its decision because it determined that it lacked sufficient information to "distinguish the sources which have applied controls to boilers in order to become area sources from other synthetic and natural area sources." (76 FR 15578.) (2011 Final Rule). Therefore, the EPA determined its rationale in the 2010 proposed rule for exempting some sources from Title V permitting was relevant to all sources under the rule.
Sierra Club challenged this outcome in its Petition for Reconsideration. See Earthjustice Petition for Reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler Rule, dated (May 20, 2011). The EPA notes that petition "disputes [EPA's] conclusion that title V permitting is unnecessarily burdensome; discusses the benefits of permitting, including compliance benefits; contests [EPA's] estimation of the costs of permitting; and challenges [EPA's] determination to extend the proposed exemption from title V permitting to include synthetic area sources." (76 FR 80538.)
The Area Source Boiler Rule covers 187,000 boilers at 92,000 facilities, most of these are very small boilers at very diverse facilities. (76 FR 80538.) For the reasons set forth by the EPA, area sources should not be required to obtain Title V permits. That would not result in improvements to environmental protection proportionate to the significant burden on area source facilities. See 75 FR 31910-913.
The EPA's decision to expand the Title V exemption to synthetic minor sources is fully supported by the record. As the EPA concluded in the final Area Source Boiler Rule, it lacks sufficient information to differentially treat the sources which have applied controls to boilers in order to become area sources[10] from other synthetic and natural area sources.
[10] 76 FR 80538. "In the preamble to the proposed area source NESHAP, we estimated that at least 48 synthetic area sources reduced their emissions to below the major source threshold by installing air pollution control devices. (75 FR 31911, June 4, 2010.)"
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Michael L. Krancer
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2449-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: PA DEP supports the EPA's decision to retain the Title V permit exemption for area sources and synthetic area sources. The issuance of Title V permits for approximately 137,000 of area sources at facilities including apartment buildings, churches, hospitals and schools would be unduly burdensome-there is no environmental benefit to be gained from requiring the owners and operators of areas sources and synthetic minor sources to obtain Title V permits.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The Title V permit process can be burdensome for small facilities because they generally have the least resources. For smaller facilities, state operating permits are more than adequate for capturing all the air compliance requirements and documenting them in a transparent manner.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Robert R. Perry
Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FGCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: FGCO supports the EPA's exemption of natural as well as synthetic area sources. Both will be issued a local and/or state permit which spells out required terms and conditions. There is no need to expand Title V permitting requirements to these sources; this should be reserved for major sources. There is no evidence that requiring Title V permits for these area sources will increase the level of compliance, so the EPA correctly recognized the increased cost of permitting and further burden on local and state agencies cannot be justified.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Merck supports the EPA's decision to not require Title V permits for area source subject to Subpart JJJJJJ.
The EPA has correctly determined that Title V permitting should not be required for area sources. There are several reasons that this determination makes sense. Area sources are generally smaller facilities that have kept their emissions low or have added controls to keep emissions low. These controls must be federally enforceable and therefore the Title V permit provides no compliance benefit.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Allison Watkins, Baker Botts
Commenter Affiliation: Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2458-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The Class of '85 supports the EPA's decision to exempt all area sources from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit. We agree with the EPA's conclusion that application of the Title V permit requirement to area sources would be "unnecessarily burdensome." The Group also supports the EPA's determination that exemption of area sources from Title V requirements will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control remains the same regardless of whether the source is subject to a Title V permit or not. Title V does not impose new substantive requirements on sources and would not lead to improvements in compliance with the Area Source Boiler Rule.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Randal G. Oswald
Commenter Affiliation: Integrys Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2472-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Integrys supports the EPA's decision to exempt all area sources from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit. We agree with the EPA's conclusion that application of the Title V permit requirement to area sources would be "unnecessarily burdensome." We also support the EPA's determination that exemption of area sources from Title V requirements will not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the level of control remains the same regardless of whether the source is subject to a Title V permit or not. Title V does not impose new substantive requirements on sources and would not lead to improvements in compliance with the Area Source Boiler Rule.
Response:  See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 41
Comment: In the 2010 Proposed Rule, the EPA proposed to exempt area sources from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit, if they were not an area source as a result of installing a control device on a boiler after November 15, 1990. (75 FR 31896, at 31910-13, 31925.) This exemption would have only applied to "natural" area sources and would not have applied to "synthetic" area sources that would otherwise have been major sources but for the control device. ACC submitted comments urging the EPA to adopt the same Title V permitting exemption for all affected area sources, including synthetic minor area sources.[11]
In the final rule, the EPA extended the exemption to all area sources, including major sources that became synthetic area sources by voluntarily reducing their emissions to below major source thresholds through the installation of air pollution controls. After promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received a petition to reconsider the decision not to require Title V permits for area source boilers in the final rule, and to reconsider the decision to extend the exemption to include synthetic area sources. The petition was from the Sierra Club and is discussed in the preamble to the reconsideration proposal as follows:
     The petition disputes our conclusion that title V permitting is unnecessarily burdensome; discusses the benefits of permitting, including compliance benefits; contests our estimation of the costs of permitting; and challenges our determination to extend the proposed exemption from title V permitting to include synthetic area sources. (76 FR 80538.)
ACC supports the EPA's final determination exempting all affected area sources from Title V permitting, whether natural or synthetic. We believe that this exemption is consistent with the CAA, supported by the record and environmentally protective.  Section 502(a) of the CAA grants the EPA the authority to exempt §112 area sources from Title V permitting requirements if the EPA "finds that compliance with such requirements is impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such categories." The EPA has developed a four-factor test to assess whether Title V permitting would be unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. Initially, the EPA performed a detailed evaluation of these factors as applied to area source boilers and proposed to conclude that Title V permitting for natural areas sources would be unnecessarily burdensome. (75 F 31896, 31910-13.) However, after considering comments and other information, the EPA stated in the final rule that it could not find a reason to distinguish between natural and synthetic minor area sources for the boiler category, and therefore the detailed rationale for exempting natural area sources also supported exempting synthetic minor area source boilers. (76 F 15578.) In this proposed rule, the EPA noted that it made the above determination "... in response to comments and after a full review of the record..." (76 FR 80538.)
The EPA also states that even if synthetic area source boilers are not subject to Title V, they "would likely be subject to more stringent permitting and monitoring requirements than natural sources. In order for a facility to be treated as a synthetic area source due to the installation of controls, the facility still has a legal duty to use the control equipment because the control equipment must be federally enforceable. The use of the control is not optional and must be continued." Id. The EPA is clearly correct here, for the essence of what makes a source a "synthetic" minor source is a restriction on the potential to emit to area source levels that is "synthetically" taken  -  meaning a limit that is practically enforceable, and set forth in, for example, a state or local permit; a SIP approved state preconstruction or operating permit program, etc. Synthetic minor sources must have a federally enforceable permit to assure emissions remain below the major source thresholds. The federally enforceable permit serves to ensure, through monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, the source's compliance. An additional Title V requirement would not provide any further compliance assurance and no emission reductions. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to impose Title V permitting burdens on the sources or the permitting authorities for synthetic minor sources. Accordingly, there is no legitimate reason to treat synthetic area sources differently than natural area sources.
 [11] ACC Area Source Boiler Comments at 54 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-1925)
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1, excerpt 13.
Commenter Name: Dan Bosch
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2428-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: NFIB suggests that to improve these rules further, the EPA should adopt the suggestions the small-entity representatives provided the Agency during the SBAR panel held in 2009. These recommendations include:
   * Exempting area sources from Title V permitting requirements.
Response: The final reconsideration did not change the Title V provisions finalized on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15554). As provided for in 40 CFR 63.11194(f) of the final reconsideration rule (40 CFR 63.11194(e) of the March 2011 final rule), area sources subject to Subpart JJJJJJ are not subject to Title V as a result of Subpart JJJJJJ.
Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Equally important is the impact on state permitting programs of requiring potentially thousands of facilities across the U.S. to obtain Title V permits. State Title V permit programs have struggled to keep pace with all of the facilities that currently require the Title V permits and all the renewals that therefore must take place. Adding the burden of small facilities to these state efforts would result in diluting the program. Therefore, we urge the EPA to continue to exempt area source boiler facilities from the Title V permit program.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2428-A2, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Neil Gormley
Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2473-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Comment: The Area Source Boiler Rule's exemptions from Title V are unlawful and arbitrary. Those comments are incorporated fully by reference here. In the proposed reconsidered Area Source Boiler Rule, the EPA advances new reasons for exempting synthetic area source boilers equally with natural area source boilers. The EPA states that synthetic area sources may already have Title V permits under other air regulatory programs. Because this is true for many categories of sources, including major sources for which the EPA has not granted an exemption from Title V permitting, it cannot justify the exemption for area sources, whether synthetic or natural. If the EPA meant by this that synthetic area sources are larger and thus more likely than natural area sources to be subject to Title V permitting under other programs that might logically explain why an exemption is relatively more justified for synthetic than for natural area sources. But the EPA has granted an exemption for both natural and synthetic area boilers, so any such difference cannot furnish a rational basis for the EPA's Title V decision. In any event, the EPA goes on to say that natural and synthetic area sources are indistinguishable in most respects. The EPA points to no record support for these assertions, and they are counterintuitive: all else equal, it makes sense that a source which would be a major source but for emissions control technology should be a larger source in most senses than a source which is an area source before application of emissions control technology. But even if the EPA's unsupported and illogical assertion is accurate, the similarity of natural and synthetic area source boilers is not a special circumstance that could justify a Title V exemption for either or both groups of sources.
Response: In the proposed rule published on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31925), we proposed to exempt area sources from the requirement to obtain a Title V permit, if they were not an area source as a result of installing a control device on a boiler after November 15, 1990.  In other words, this exemption would have only applied to "natural" area sources and "synthetic" area sources that took operational limits, and would not have applied to "synthetic" area sources that would otherwise have been major sources but for the installation of a control device. In the March 21, 2011 final rule, in response to comments and after a full review of the record, we extended the exemption to all area sources, including major sources that became synthetic area sources by installing air pollution controls. We explained that we lacked sufficient information at that time to distinguish from other synthetic and natural area sources those sources which have applied controls to boilers in order to become area sources. As a result, the rationale for exempting most area sources subject to this rule as explained in the proposal preamble (see 75 FR 31910 to 31913, June 4, 2010) was also relevant for those sources which we proposed to require a title V permit. Thus, no area sources subject to Subpart JJJJJJ are required to obtain a Title V permit as a result of being subject to Subpart JJJJJJ.
GACT Analysis/Rationale: Results of PM standards for new oil-fired boilers
Commenter Name: Paul Noe
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2426-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: We agree with the EPA's rationale to base these limits on GACT versus MACT (please refer to comments in Section II above). We agree that PM GACT standards for new oil-fired units should consist of numeric emission limits based on the NSPS for larger units (>10 MMBtu/hr). Basing the limit on NSPS Subpart Dc is justified, as the EPA has recently reviewed the Small Industrial Boiler NSPS (changes were published in 2007 at 72 FR 32759 and in 2009 at 74 FR 5091) and determined that a PM limit of 0.030 lb/MMBtu (see 40 CFR 60.43c(c)) was appropriate for new small boilers.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: In the final Area Source Boiler Rule, the EPA promulgated a GACT-based PM emission limit for new oil-fired boilers. (76 FR 15574.) (2011 Final Rule) PM is used as a surrogate for individual urban metal HAP at oil-fired boilers. The EPA concluded in the 2012 reconsidered Area Source Boiler Rule that this approach is appropriate and proposed no amendments to the PM emission limits.
      For the purposes of regulating PM from new boilers, we concluded that the GACT standards should consist of numeric emission limits for units with heat input capacities greater than 10 million Btu per hour or greater because these new units will be subject to the new source performance standard (NSPS) emission limits for PM, and the NSPS will require PM emissions testing. For units with capacity less than 10 million Btu per hour, GACT does not include a numerical emission limit because of technical limitations of testing PM emissions from boilers with small diameter stacks. (76 FR 80537.)
Overall, the EPA's decision to set GACT emission limits instead of MACT is appropriate. The EPA set numeric emission limits for new oil-fired units with heat input capacities 10 MMBtu/hr or greater because those units will already have to comply with the NSPS emission limits for PM, which requires PM testing. (76 FR 80537.) The EPA's decision to set numeric GACT emission limits for larger new units that will already have to comply with NSPS is appropriate. This approach is justified as the EPA has as recently as 2009 reviewed and promulgated standards for the Small Industrial Boiler NSPS and determined that a PM limit of 0.030 lb/MMBtu is appropriate for new small boilers. See 74 FR 5091.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and additional justification.
Commenter Name: Michael L. Krancer
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2449-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: PA DEP agrees with the EPA's approach to establish the PM emission limits and work practice requirements for biomass- and oil-fired area source boilers under the GACT provisions of the CAA.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 40
Comment: Second, we support the decision to forego a numerical emission limit for smaller sources (<10MMBtu/hr). As the EPA has acknowledged, it is not appropriate to set a numerical emission limit for small units because of technical limitations of testing PM emissions from boilers with small diameter stacks. The installation of ports into small diameter vents may interfere with the functionality of exhaust systems for new and existing boilers. Many existing area source boilers with a capacity below 10 MMBtu/hr have stacks with diameters less than 12 inches, and many area source boilers do not currently have sampling ports or a platform for accessing the exhaust stack. Furthermore, very small boilers (less than 5 MMBtu/hr) typically exhaust through vents, and not stacks, which would cause further complications to meet testing requirements. See 75 FR 15568. The EPA determined that the testing and monitoring costs that area source boiler facilities would incur to demonstrate compliance with numerical emission limits would present an excessive burden for smaller sources. Thus, ACC supports the EPA's decision to establish work practice standards for these smaller sources.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Michael L. Krancer
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2449-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: PA DEP agrees with the limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu of heat input for new oil-fired boilers, as established in the final rule.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: The NSPS provides an exemption from the PM limit for units burning low-sulfur fuel at §60.43c (e)(4):
      "an owner or operator of an affected facility that commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 28, 2005, and that combusts only oil that contains no more than 0.50 weight percent sulfur or a mixture of 0.50 weight percent sulfur oil with other fuels not subject to a PM standard under §60.43c and not using a post-combustion technology (except a wet scrubber) to reduce PM or SO2 emissions is not subject to the PM limit in this section."
Therefore, the EPA should include an alternate compliance approach of using low-sulfur fuel for consistency with recently reviewed NSPS requirements for oil-fired units.
Response: In the final Subpart JJJJJJ rule, the EPA is providing an alternative GACT compliance option for PM from oil-fired boilers burning low-sulfur fuel. We received a number of comments urging that we provide an exemption from the PM limit for units burning low-sulfur liquid fuel as is provided in Subpart Dc of 40 CFR Part 60 (standards of performance for new small industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units). Commenters asserted that such an exemption is justified since the low sulfur content indicates low PM emissions and that boilers firing low-sulfur liquid fuel should only be subject to a requirement to maintain records documenting the liquid fuel fired. We agree with commenters that use of low sulfur liquid fuels results in much lower PM emissions. Use of low sulfur liquid fuels also results in much lower HAP metal emissions. Specifically, the HAP metal emission factors for distillate fuel oil are 7 to 10 orders of magnitude lower than the emission factors for number 6 fuel oil.
In the final rule, we are amending 40 CFR 63.11210 to specify that new or reconstructed oil-fired boilers that:
(1)  combust only oil that contains no more than 0.50 weight percent sulfur or a mixture of 0.50 weight percent sulfur oil with other fuels not subject to a PM emission limit under this subpart; and
(2) do not use a post-combustion technology (except a wet scrubber) to reduce PM or SO2 emissions
are not subject to the PM emission limit providing the type of fuel combusted is monitored and recorded on a monthly basis. Combustion of low-sulfur fuels under the conditions in the rule would be GACT for PM. In addition, the final rule specifies that the owner or operator of an affected boiler does not need to conduct further PM emission testing if, when demonstrating initial compliance with the PM emission limit, the performance test results show that the PM emissions are equal to or less than half of the PM emission limit.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 39
Comment: The EPA finalized a PM emission limit based on GACT for new oil-fired area source boilers and is soliciting comment on the level at which the limit was set. (76 FR 15574.) In the reconsideration proposal rule, the EPA states:
      For the purposes of regulating PM from new boilers, we concluded that the GACT standards should consist of numeric emission limits for units with heat input capacities greater than 10 million Btu per hour or greater because these new units will be subject to the new source performance standard (NSPS) emission limits for PM, and the NSPS will require PM emissions testing. For units with capacity less than 10 million Btu per hour, GACT does not include a numerical emission limit because of technical limitations of testing PM emissions from boilers with small diameter stacks. (76 FR 80537.)
First, we agree with the EPA's rationale to base these limits on GACT rather than MACT (please refer to comments in Section II above). We agree that PM GACT standards for new oil-fired units should consist of numeric emission limits based on the NSPS for larger units (>10 MMBtu/hr). Basing the limit on NSPS Subpart Dc is justified, as the EPA has recently reviewed the Small Industrial Boiler NSPS (changes were published in 2007 at 72 FR 32759 and in 2009 at 74 FR 5091) and determined that a PM limit of 0.030 lb/MMBtu (see 40 CFR 60.43c(c)) was appropriate for new small boilers. However, the NSPS provides an exemption from the PM limit for units burning low-sulfur fuel at §60.43c (e)(4):
     an owner or operator of an affected facility that commences construction, reconstruction, or modification after February 28, 2005, and that combusts only oil that contains no more than 0.50 weight percent sulfur or a mixture of 0.50 weight percent sulfur oil with other fuels not subject to a PM standard under §60.43c and not using a post-combustion technology (except a wet scrubber) to reduce PM or SO2emissions is not subject to the PM limit in this section.
Therefore, the EPA should include an alternate compliance approach of using low-sulfur fuel for consistency with recently reviewed NSPS requirements for oil-fired units.