Comment: The EPA also proposes to reduce the frequency of tune-ups for a new subcategory of "seasonally operated boilers." This is not a lawful subcategory, because a boiler that is operated seasonally is not of a different class, type, or size from boilers operated more frequently. (42 U.S.C. §7412(d)(1).) Moreover, it is arbitrary and unlawful to fail to require these boilers to undergo tune-ups every 2 years. The EPA has not determined that the environmental benefits of tune-ups every 2 years do not also apply to seasonally operated boilers. Instead, the EPA bases its decision with respect to these boilers on an assertion by industry that tune-ups are more burdensome for seasonally operated boilers. Even if true, this is not a relevant criterion in the decision whether tune-ups every 2 years are a generally available control technology.
If the EPA persists in this special accommodation for seasonally operated boilers, it should at least revise the definition to limit it to boilers that undergo a 7-month shutdown each year. To classify boilers as seasonal when they are sometimes put to more regular use was presumably not the EPA's intent. Doing so would be arbitrary.
Response: A tune-up frequency every 2 years is more burdensome on industries with short seasonal operations than non-seasonal industries. The EPA considers an adjustment in the frequency of tune-ups for seasonally operated boilers to every 5 years to be appropriate because the boiler will undergo a tune-up after a similar period of actual operation (i.e., not more than 25 months). In the final rule's definition of seasonal boiler, we have clarified that a seasonal boiler is a boiler that undergoes a shutdown for a period of at least 7 consecutive months (or 210 consecutive days) each 12-month period.
Commenter Name: Derek Grasso
Commenter Affiliation: Covanta Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2430-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The infrequent and short operation of the Covanta boiler (in Jonesboro, ME) appears to be consistent with the EPA's intent regarding its proposal for seasonal boilers in the agriculture industry. In fact, the boiler will probably be operated for significantly less total time than other seasonal boilers that could run for 5 months. The boiler will run continuously for only a period of at most a few weeks. However, the proposed definition of "seasonal boiler" requires that a boiler be shut down for 7 consecutive months (210 consecutive days) to qualify for the less-frequent tune up schedule. The short periods (1 to 3 days) of capacity testing for the Jonesboro facility twice per year would occur within 7 months of each other.
Response: The final rule includes an allowance for testing during the seasonal boiler's shutdown period. Specifically, the final rule includes an amended definition of seasonal boiler that allows for periodic testing not to exceed a combined total of 15 days of use during the shutdown period.
Commenter Name: W. Allan Cagnoli
Commenter Affiliation: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2438-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: HPBA proposes the following specific changes to the amendments the EPA proposed at 76 FR 80544-52 to the Area Source Boiler Rule:
Add the following sentence to proposed §63.11223(c) (76 FR at 80545 col.2): "As an exception to the preceding sentences in this subsection, seasonal biomass boilers with heat input capacity less than 3.0 MMBtu/hr instead shall adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations for good combustion as those recommendations appear in the manufacturer's applicable operation and maintenance manual for the boiler in question."
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's input but is not providing separate requirements for seasonal biomass-fired boilers with heat input capacity less than 3 MMBtu/hr. We continue to believe that a 5-year tune-up requirement is appropriate for all boilers meeting the definition of seasonal boiler and are retaining that requirement as proposed in December 2011.
Commenter Name: W. Allan Cagnoli
Commenter Affiliation: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2438-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: HPBA proposes the following specific changes to the amendments the EPA proposed at 76 FR 80544-52 to the Area Source Boiler Rule:
Add the following clause before the period at the end of the proposed definition of "seasonal boiler" in §63.11237 (76 FR at 80548 col.2): "or that undergoes a shutdown during the warmest months of the year due to seasonal climatic conditions."
Response: In the final rule, "seasonal boiler" is defined as a boiler that undergoes a shutdown for a period of at least 7 consecutive months (or 210 consecutive days) each 12-month period due to seasonal conditions, except for periodic testing. Periodic testing shall not exceed a combined total of 15 days during the 7-month shutdown. This definition only applies to boilers that would otherwise be included in the biomass subcategory or the oil subcategory. The boiler described by the commenter would be considered a seasonal boiler as long as the boiler is biomass-fired or oil-fired and undergoes a shutdown for a period of at least 7 consecutive months each 12-month period. The EPA does not find it appropriate to expand the seasonal boiler subcategory to allow for longer periods of operation each 12-month period or to include coal-fired boilers. The EPA's intent in creating a seasonal boiler subcategory is to reduce the requirements on biomass-fired and oil-fired boilers that operate for a short duration (i.e., 5 or fewer consecutive months) each 12-month period. Units that operate for the majority of the year do not meet that intent and are, therefore, excluded from the seasonal boiler subcategory. Coal-fired boilers, which are regulated to meet the requirements of CAA §112(c)(6), require controls that meet CAA §112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), or 112(h). The best performing coal sources have more stringent requirements than a tune-up every 5 years.
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: 39
Comment: The EPA should also include a limited-use subcategory in the Area Source Boiler Rule for the same reasons they determined a seasonal boiler subcategory was appropriate. The EPA should establish work practices as the appropriate compliance approach for a limited use subcategory, and establish the following definition for limited use unit:
      Limited-use boiler means any boiler that burns any amount of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels, has a rated capacity of greater than 10 MMBtu per hour heat input, and has a federally enforceable limit of no more than 876 hours per year of operation or 10% capacity factor.
A capacity utilization factor of 10% was chosen for the 2004 final Boiler MACT Rule as the best means of defining a limited use unit.[11] The 2011 Boiler MACT Rule also includes a subcategory for limited-use units that is currently based on operation at less than 10% of the potential annual operating hours.[12] The EPA has taken a capacity factor approach in the recently finalized MATS Rule, establishing a subcategory for limited use liquid-fired units with an 8% capacity factor (limited-use liquid oil-fired subcategory means an oil-fired electric utility steam generating unit with an annual capacity factor of less than 8% of its maximum or nameplate heat input, whichever is greater, averaged over a 24-month block contiguous period).[13]
[11] See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Final Rule, 69 FR at 55223.
[12] See 40 CFR 63.7500(c).
[13] See 40 CFR 63.10000 and 63.10042.
Response: The EPA has determined that a limited-use boiler subcategory is appropriate and is including a limited-use subcategory in the final Area Source Boiler Rule. We believe that establishing a limited-use subcategory is consistent with our logic in establishing a seasonal boiler subcategory in that, due to both boiler types' annual operating schedule, they do not need tune-ups on as frequent of a basis as other boilers. The seasonal boiler provision allows no more than 5 months of annual operation. On a 5-year tune-up cycle that means a seasonal boiler would operate for no more than 25 months in between tune-ups which is approximately the same number of months full-time boilers operate in between biennial tune-ups. Boilers that operate at no more than 10% load (i.e., a limited-use boiler) would operate for no more than the equivalent of 6 months full load in between tune-ups on a 5-year tune-up cycle. We believe that establishing a limited-use subcategory is reasonable.
Specifically, a limited-use boiler is defined in the final rule to mean any boiler that burns any amount of solid or liquid fuels and has a federally enforceable average annual capacity factor of no more than 10%. We are using a capacity-factor approach for the same reasons that the approach is being used in the major source boiler rule. A capacity-factor approach allows operational flexibility for units that operate on standby mode or low loads for periods longer than would be allowed under an approach that limited hours of operation (e.g., the 876 hours per year included in the proposed limited-use definition for major source boilers). The operational flexibility associated with a capacity-factor approach can be achieved without increasing emissions or harm to human health and the environment. Units operating at 10% load for 8,760 hours per year would emit the same amount of emissions as units operating at full load for 876 hours per year. Further, it is technically infeasible to test these limited-use boilers since these units serve as back up energy sources and their operating schedules can be intermittent and unpredictable.
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2424-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The EPA should apply the same 5-year tune-up cycle for limited-use oil units such as auxiliary boilers that it is proposing in this rule for seasonally operated units and small units. In the electric utility industry, these auxiliary boilers are typically used to generate the steam necessary to bring a main EGU on line (during startup). Since auxiliary boilers are primarily operated during unit startup, operation for many of these boilers is typically very limited and sporadic. Therefore, the EPA should modify the frequency of required tune-ups for oil-fired auxiliary boilers from biennial to every 5 years. In the alternative, or at a minimum, the EPA should apply the same triennial cycle (tune-ups every 3 years) that is established for limited-use oil units in the final Utility MATS rule for oil-fired auxiliary boilers.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1 excerpt 39.
Commenter Name: Heather Parent
Commenter Affiliation: State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2470-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The EPA proposed a definition for seasonal boilers with a less rigorous tune up schedule for these boilers. The EPA should instead provide an exemption for "limited-use" boilers in the Area Source Boiler Rule, consistent with the Major Source Boiler MACT.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 39.
Rationale for Subcategories: Out of Scope
Commenter Name: Jason A Schwartz
Commenter Affiliation: Institute for Policy Integrity
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2419-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The proposed source subcategorizations may not represent the groupings that would lead to the most efficient regulatory program. Subcategorizations should be made to the extent that they increase the rule's net benefits. Setting separate standards for multiple different subcategories incurs administrative costs: collecting separate information, setting the different standards, and monitoring and enforcing different standards. Such costs are only warranted if different sources face sufficiently different costs or could generate sufficiently different benefits such that setting a unique standard would increase overall net benefits.
The EPA should justify any subcategorizations it makes along these grounds. Its current explanation for the subcategories begins to address the differing costs and benefits of regulating different existing sources. Retrofitting existing plants with control devices or process changes can be costly, and plants designed for different fuel types may face different retrofit costs and may be able to achieve different levels of emissions reductions. But the EPA should be more explicit about the costs and benefits it is weighing in making these determinations, should try to quantify the costs and benefits to the extent possible, and should only propose subcategories for existing sources to the extent that different standards will enhance net benefits.
The EPA should explore the justifications for subcategorization for new sources separately. Compared to existing sources, new sources do not face the same limitations on their design options. The EPA must explain why for new, still‐unconstructed sources, it would not be more efficient to set a single standard and let all new sources choose any fuel type and design option capable of meeting that standard.
Response: The comment presents a generalized approach to developing subcategories but does not specifically link the suggestions to rule provisions.  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.
Commenter Name: David L. Meeker
Commenter Affiliation: National Renderers Association (NRA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2427-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Since the processed fats samples metal HAP emissions are drastically different in type and quantities than the petroleum-based liquid fuels, the boilers burning these two types of fuels are not similar sources. Due to the fuels not being identified as similar sources, the NRA requests that processed fats fired boilers be defined separately from oil subcategory.
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. The EPA solicited comments for the Area Source Boiler Rule on the proposed subcategory for seasonally operated boilers. During the time for requesting reconsideration, the parties petitioning for the seasonal boiler subcategory provided a basis for establishing the subcategory. We note the proposal for a subcategory for processed fats fired boilers is incomplete in many respects. The commenter does not provide a basis for distinguishing a boiler capable of burning processed fat-derived fuel from a boiler that otherwise burns petroleum-based liquid fuels. The contemplated subcategory would only be distinguishable based on what fuel is sold to the liquid-fueled boiler. Sources would be capable of switching between subcategories with relative ease, thereby posing compliance assurance difficulties. The EPA is not in a position to adopt the suggested subcategorization as a logical outgrowth of the proposed reconsideration.
Commenter Name: Chelly Reesman
Commenter Affiliation: J.R. Simplot Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2431-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Because NESHAP regulations apply to existing sources, unlike NSPS regulations, the EPA should allow facilities to accept a production limit to de-rate a boiler. This would allow facilities to match actual historical use with the appropriate level of environmental requirements and environmental protection.
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: Chelly Reesman
Commenter Affiliation: J.R. Simplot Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2431-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA should make clear in the preamble that plugging boiler tubes is a sufficient means to de-rate a boiler when it would be otherwise subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJJJ.
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: 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: 3
Comment: NESCAUM urges the EPA to create a new subcategory for biomass EGUs of 25 MW or greater and establish emissions standards for these units at a MACT level of control consistent with how EGUs powered by other fuels are regulated. Though most types of EGUs have a separate MACT rule regulating them, EGUs that burn biomass fuel do not. Therefore, biomass EGUs with emissions below the major source threshold will be regulated as area source boilers, which is an inappropriate classification. There are many such sources that fall into this subcategory; in the NESCAUM region alone, at least a dozen facilities fall into this category and are subject only to area source requirements.
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: 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: 4
Comment: The Area Source Boiler Rule has created categories that are too large, and include a broad variety of boiler types that are not comparable. The current and proposed requirements for existing and new biomass boilers with heat input higher than 30 MMBtu/hr do not adequately address the potential impacts and reductions that could be achieved by these very large units captured under the Area Source Boiler Rule. Therefore, the NESCAUM states urge that the EPA develop a subcategory for biomass EGUs of 25 MW or greater that include appropriate emission limits and testing requirements as required for similar sized units firing liquid fuels and 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: David L. Meeker
Commenter Affiliation: National Renderers Association (NRA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2427-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment:  Each year NRA members test several thousand samples of processed fats for the presence of the chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as a good manufacturing practice (GMP) to assure compliance with tolerances established by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) or EPA.  Three of the aforementioned processed fats samples (Yellow Grease No. 1, Poultry Grease, and Tallow No. 1) were also analyzed using ASTM D 4327 and indicated no detected chloride content. The methods used for chlorinated pesticide testing are also recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an approved method for the screening of dioxins and dioxin like substances and therefore the referenced test results also indicate these compounds are not typically present in processed fats...The NRA considers these GMP practices and results of monitoring processed fats for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs as demonstrating that total chloride and PCB content is insignificant...Due to insignificant content of the urban HAP (based on separate FDA requirements for the industry) in the processed fats prior to combustion, the NRA believes the correlation to insignificant emissions from boilers located at area sources burning processed fats is direct. Any PCB emissions result from the actual PCB content in the fuel source combusted and are not produced by combustion due to insignificant levels of chlorinated compounds in the fuel source.  Without high content of PCBs in processed fats due to industry quality requirements, area source boilers burning processed fats do not fit the group of emission sources representing 90% of the total urban HAP emissions of PCBs.
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: Michael G. Dowd
Commenter Affiliation: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2434-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: VADEQ suggests that the EPA further divide the oil-fired subcategory for new units into distillate and residual oil-fired subcategories and establish particulate limits for only residual oil-fired units. Because particulate emissions are typically low for new distillate oil-fired units, VADEQ recommends the units in this subcategory should only be required to meet work practice standards.
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. The 2010 proposed rule proposed to cover all oil-fired boilers within one category. The EPA responded to similar comments at the time of the 2011 final rule. Nevertheless, the final rule includes revised provisions that regard oil-fired boilers and particulate emissions. Specifically, in the final rule, 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. Also, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2459-A2, excerpt 10.
Commenter Name: Michael G. Dowd
Commenter Affiliation: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2434-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: If the EPA subdivides the oil-fired subcategory into distillate and residual oil-fired subcategories, VADEQ recommends that the EPA exclude existing gas-fired units with distillate oil-fired back-up capability that make the fuel switch to distillate oil after June 4, 2010 from being classified as a new affected source as currently required by §63.11194(d).
Response: See the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2434-A1, excerpt 1, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2474-A2, excerpt 8.
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: 10
Comment: We believe that it would be good practice for the EPA to incentivize pollution prevention. One way this could be accomplished is to treat distillate oil and ultra-low sulfur diesel differently than residual oils. The AP-42 emission factor for filterable particulate from these boilers is 2 lb/1,000 gallons or 0.0143 lb/MMBtu heat input, which is less than half of the Subpart JJJJJJ standard of 0.03 lb/MMBtu. Splitting up the category of oil-fired boilers to simplify the requirements for cleaner oils, by requiring work practice standards on a longer time frame (5 years instead of 2 years) for larger units (up to 10 MMBtu/hr from the proposed 5 MMBtu/hr), would provide an incentive to use the cleaner fuels.
Response: All existing oil-fired boilers and new oil-fired boilers with heat input capacity of less than 10 MMBtu/hr are subject to tune-up requirements under the final rule. The EPA 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.
Work Practices/Management Practices: Initial tune-ups at new sources
Commenter Name: Jessica Bridges
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Clean Heat & Power Association (USCHPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2451-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We agree with the EPA that decreased frequency of tune-ups is appropriate. For new sources we believe that is correct to remove the requirement for the initial tune-up. Representing original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) we agree that new units will be typically tuned during the startup process. If the applicable biennial (> 5MMBtu/h) or 5-year (<= 5MMBtut/h) tune-up schedule is set it is acceptable that it should occur no later than 25 months or 61 months respectively after the initial startup.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The EPA has properly recognized that new units will typically be tuned during the startup process when they are installed. They should therefore not need an initial tune- up. Accordingly, Castle supports the EPA's proposal to eliminate the requirement for initial tune-ups for new units.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Heather Parent
Commenter Affiliation: State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2470-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Maine DEP disagrees with the removal of the tune-up requirement for new boilers. The EPA should require a modified tune-up for new sources that focuses on the optimization of boiler efficiency. The EPA should also allow for sources to request approval for modified tune-up procedures from the delegated authority, similar to mechanisms provided in the EPA's rules regarding stack testing and monitoring.
Response: We are not requiring an initial tune-up on startup because new boilers should be installed optimized for efficiency, i.e., "in tune". It is reasonable to assume that new boilers will be optimized for efficiency and installed consistent with manufacturers' performance specifications. However, over time, boiler efficiency can diminish. Periodic tune-ups after startup restore the boiler to an efficient state given its age and other parameters. As we discuss elsewhere, emission reductions occur by maintaining efficient combustion through periodic tune-ups.

The requirements of the tune-up have been specified in the rule "as applicable" to the unit, therefore a request for a modified tune-up procedure is unnecessary. Although new and reconstructed boilers are not required to complete an initial tune-up, they are required to complete a tune-up every 2 or 5 years after the initial startup of the new or reconstructed boiler, as applicable.
Commenter Name: W. Allan Cagnoli
Commenter Affiliation: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2438-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The rule's tune-up program currently requires the owner/operator of a new outdoor hydronic heater (OHH) unit to complete a full tune-up within a relatively short time after installation. Even putting aside the requirement to measure before-and-after CO/O2 levels, this is plainly governmental overkill. The owner/operator and the installer have strong and adequate incentives independently of the Area Source Boiler Rule to ensure that the unit is configured to combust cordwood with maximum efficiency. The current initial tune-up requirement, as it relates to OHH units, is inappropriate and irrational.
Response: The requirement to perform an initial tune-up on new sources does not appear in the December 2011 proposal nor is it included in this final rule. New sources are not required to conduct initial tune-ups.
Commenter Name: Andrea Grant
Commenter Affiliation: Castle Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2462-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Based on the foregoing, Castle Oil Corporation urges the EPA to adopt the following provision:
Eliminate the requirement for tune-ups for new units
Response: New and reconstructed boilers are not required to complete an initial tune-up, but are required to complete a tune-up every 2 or 5 years after the initial startup of the new or reconstructed boiler, as applicable.
Work Practices/Management Practices: Tune-up schedule for seasonal boilers
Commenter Name: W. Allan Cagnoli
Commenter Affiliation: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2438-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The rule's tune-up program currently requires the owner/operator of a new OHH unit to complete a full tune-up within a relatively short time after installation. The best solution to the problems described above is to re-define the rule's tune- up requirements, as they apply to the special case of ICI OHH units, solely in terms of adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations for optimum combustion as they appear in the applicable operation and maintenance manual. Such a substitution of mandates would eliminate the requirements for CO/O2 measurement, biennial tune-ups during operation, and initial tune-ups for new OHH units. They would put in place for OHH units precisely the well-tailored tune-up regime that long practical experience in the OHH industry has produced over the years. That regime is "appropriate" and rational. The EPA has full authority to substitute it for the current tune-up program in the case of OHH units. Indeed, a failure to substitute it would be indefensible before the D.C. Circuit.
Response: New and reconstructed boilers are not required to complete an initial tune-up, but are required to complete a tune-up every 2 or 5 years after the initial startup of the new or reconstructed boiler, as applicable. We consider subsequent tune-ups every 2 or 5 years, as applicable, to be appropriate and are retaining the requirement in the final rule.
Commenter Name: W. Allan Cagnoli
Commenter Affiliation: Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2438-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The current tune-up regime still suffers by comparison with OHH manufacturers' recommendations on optimizing combustion efficiency as they appear in the applicable operation and maintenance manual. Within the OHH industry, those recommendations embody decades of practical experience with optimizing the combustion of cordwood in OHH units. As Exhibits A and B exemplify, those recommendations reflect a "systems" approach to such optimization, addressing first the continuous operational adjustment of airflow and other factors to account for the different types and moisture levels of the cordwood and then calling for maintenance and repair at the end of every season of operation. In other words, as typically recommended, the owner/operator starts each season with a fully refurbished unit, operates it daily in a manner that makes best use of the cordwood according to its varying characteristics, and ends the season with refurbishment.
By comparison with that pattern as recommended by the manufacturer, the rule's current tune-up program is unnecessary and burdensome. It forces the owner/operator every 2 years to conduct entirely artificial procedures that interfere with daily operation and can result in premature maintenance and repair. The rule's program assumes continuous year-round operation, when in fact OHH units operate seasonally and are therefore best managed on that basis. Also, the program assumes a rate of significant degradation in the functionality of a given biomass boiler - every 2 years - that has no basis in the reality of OHH units. OHH units are relatively simple in design and, while structurally durable, nonetheless generate large amounts of byproducts, such as ash, from the combustion of cordwood as fuel. As the recommendations of OHH manufacturers attest, the most efficient way to assure maximum combustion efficiency in the case of an OHH unit is to perform post-season maintenance and repair and then operate the unit in season with a careful eye to the type and moisture content of the cordwood in use. There is no good reason to break into that seasonal operation with any sort of tune-up procedure. To the contrary, such interference only compromises the steady operation that produces best results and it imposes costs that have no corresponding benefit. It is not "appropriate" within the GACT concept, nor rational.
Response: The final rule requirements for seasonal boilers are an initial tune-up for existing boilers followed by tune-ups every 5 years. The definition of seasonal boiler is also being altered to allow for up to 15 days of testing during the shutdown period to avoid interference with seasonal use.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The EPA is proposing to create a new subcategory for seasonally operated boilers. For these seasonally operated boilers, the EPA is proposing to require a tune-up every 5 years (following the initial tune-up). Seasonally operated boilers would be defined as follows:
     Seasonal boiler means a boiler that undergoes a shutdown for a period of at least 7 consecutive months (or 210 consecutive days) due to seasonal market conditions. This definition only applies to boilers that would otherwise be included in the biomass subcategory or the oil subcategory. (76 FR 80535.)
ACC supports the addition of a seasonal boiler subcategory. These boilers are used in seasonal agricultural operations or for occasional indoor heat. They typically operate only about 100 days per year, so the number of hours operated over a 5-year period is much less than that for a boiler in normal operation. However, requiring the same tune-up frequency, every 5 years, for these units as that required for units that operate continuously is not appropriate. In addition, an allowance should be made for those seasonal units to conduct maintenance and test firing during the 7 month period to ensure the unit is in good operating condition for the upcoming seasonal operations.

Response: The EPA considers the tune-up requirement for seasonal boilers to be appropriate and is retaining it in the final rule. Non-seasonal boilers do not necessarily operate continuously (24/7/365), so we disagree that the comparison of some (not all) seasonal boilers to the hours of operation of a hypothetical full-time boiler is not an accurate one. The definition for seasonal boiler is being altered to allow facilities to perform up to a combined total of 15 days of testing during the shutdown period.
Commenter Name: Michael J. Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2448-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: There are many instances where boiler operation may be too irregular to qualify as seasonal use, but run infrequently enough that a tune-up would be due while the unit is not operational, including at nuclear facilities. The final Area Source Boiler Rule states that boilers due for a tune-up while they are not operating are not required to run the boiler only for the tune-up. Boilers in these situations would be required to conduct the tune-up within 1 week of startup. It does not appear that the proposed reconsideration seeks to alter this provision; however, the Clean Energy Group expresses support for and encourages the EPA not to alter this common-sense provision that eliminates unnecessary boiler operation and associated emissions. One week in which to complete the tune-up is reasonable and in line with state requirements (see, for example, New Jersey's code at 7:27-19.4(c), which allows seven days from initial operation for boilers not running when combustion adjustments are due).
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. We would like to point out that the final rule specifies that if a boiler is not operating on the required date for a tune-up, the tune-up must be conducted within 30 days of startup. A comment on the major source boiler tune-up requirements pointed out that CO levels are not stable initially after startup and suggested that additional time be allowed for CO optimization prior to the tune-up. We agree with the comment and determined that revisions to the Area Source Boiler Rule are appropriate.
In addition, the EPA has determined that a limited-use boiler subcategory is appropriate and is including a limited-use subcategory in the final Area Source Boiler Rule. Specifically, a limited-use boiler is defined in the final rule to mean any boiler that burns any amount of solid or liquid fuels and has a federally enforceable average annual capacity factor of no more than 10%. We believe that establishing a limited-use subcategory is consistent with our logic in establishing a seasonal boiler subcategory in that, due to both boiler types' annual operating schedule, they do not need tune-ups on as frequent of a basis as other boilers. Boilers that operate on an irregular and infrequent basis, such as boilers at nuclear facilities described by the commenter, are anticipated to meet the final rule's definition of a limited-use boiler and, thus, would be subject to a tune-up every 5 years. Also, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 39.
Work Practices/Management Practices: General
Commenter Name: Barbara Patton
Commenter Affiliation: AT&T Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2436-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The EPA received comments from the agriculture industry, specifically from the sugar industry that indicated some boilers are not equipped to measure CO and O2 and would be required to conduct stack testing in order to meet tune-up requirement  in 40 CFR 63.11223(b)(5):
       "Measure the concentrations in the effluent stream of carbon monoxide in parts per million, by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, before and after the adjustments are made..."
For most boilers subject to tune-up requirements, a portable combustion gas analyzer is utilized to measure CO and O2 in flue gases before and after the boiler adjustments are made. For these units, performance stack testing is not necessary to measure these gases in the effluent stream. The EHSCP requests that care be taken to ensure that the final rule and its associated preamble do not contain statements that could be interpreted to require performance stack testing to comply with the tune-up requirements.
Response: We agree with the commenter and the final rule specifies that measurements may be taken using a portable CO analyzer.
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: 2
Comment: PA DEP supports the proposed requirement of stack testing for both CO and O2 during the tune-up as required by 40 CFR 63. 11223(b)(5).
Response: In the final rule, we are clarifying that CO measurements may be taken with a portable CO analyzer. Stack testing before and after a tune-up is not required.
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: 8
Comment: The EPA received comments from the agriculture industry, specifically from the sugar industry that indicated some boilers are not equipped to measure CO and O2 and would be required to conduct stack testing[2] in order to meet tune-up requirement in 40 CFR 63.11223(b)(5):
     "Measure the concentrations in the effluent stream of carbon monoxide in parts per million, by volume, and oxygen in volume percent, before and after the adjustments are made . .."[3]
For most boilers subject to tune-up requirements, a portable combustion gas analyzer is utilized to measure CO and O2 in flue gases before and after the boiler adjustments are made. For these units, performance stack testing is not necessary to measure these gases in the effluent stream. The EHSCP requests that care be taken to ensure that the final rule and its associated preamble do not contain statements that could be interpreted to require performance stack testing to comply with the tune-up requirements.
[2] 76 FR 80535
[3] 76 FR 80545
Response: In the final rule, we are clarifying that CO measurements may be taken with a portable CO analyzer. Specifically, 40 CFR 63.11223(b)(5) specifies that "Measurements may be taken using a portable CO analyzer."
Commenter Name: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The Lung Association recommends that the records and reports of monitoring and compliance measures for emissions limits be made easily and readily accessible to the public. The public has an established right to know about the emissions of toxic substances. For 25 years, the EPA has required companies to make public information on toxic chemicals released into the community through the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). We support a system similar to TRI, where facilities are required to report toxic emissions to the database and make data relating to those emissions available online.
The EPA should require boiler operators to publicly disclose and report all monitoring data and compliance documentation -- including with required work practices standards -- and submit those data reports to the EPA for public access online. These would include data and results from performance tests of facilities and emissions that occur during malfunctions of boiler equipment. Communities have a right to know what toxic air pollutants are emitted by boilers and incinerators, the quantities of each type of pollutant being emitted, when those emissions are occurring, particularly when the emissions exceed limits set by the EPA.
The EPA's proposed use of the WebFIRE database to store performance test data for use in developing emissions factors and submission of emissions test data through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) are good first steps in facilitating the organization and analysis of emissions data (EPA, 2011d). Furthermore, this should also include measureable steps under the work practice standards as well, since so many facilities will be permitted to use that compliance method. These data must then be made public online in the form of annual reports, similar to the TRI data reports. Along with other measures to enforce emissions limits, we believe this offers a community or "Wiki" enforcement approach to assist in reducing toxic air emissions from boilers and incinerators.
Response: The EPA plans to have many of the required reports be submitted to the EPA directly where they will be available on a public database for access and review by all users, including the public. Although the EPA will require the electronic submission of some compliance reports, the EPA does not plan to require electronic submission of all reports and, in some cases, these reports would include the work practice standards compliance status.  Again, all reports that are electronically submitted to the EPA will be made available to all users on the WebFIRE database.
Commenter Name: Neil Gormley
Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2473-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: The EPA proposes not to require reporting of fuel use as part of its work practice standard unless the unit was "physically and legally capable" of using more than one type of fuel over the preceding twelve months. (76 FR 80532, 80545/2.) The EPA should reconsider this exclusion from the reporting requirements. First of all, that a unit is capable of using only one type of fuel tells the EPA and the public nothing about the amount of fuel used. It is therefore arbitrary to eliminate the requirement that a unit report the amount of fuel burned based on whether or not it is capable of burning more than one type. Second, requiring that a unit capable of burning only one type of fuel include the type of fuel it burned over the previous twelve months in its tune-up report imposes virtually no regulatory burden. In those cases, the owner or operator can easily identify the type of fuel. Third, the EPA should not simply assume compliance with regulatory requirements, such as those limiting a unit to use of a particular type of fuel. Recordkeeping and reporting will spur owners and operators to comply with requirements like the requirement to use only certain fuels, and will enable the EPA oversight of such compliance. To assume compliance defeats the purpose of oversight. Finally, the exact limits of the exemption from reporting for units not "legally capable" of burning more than one type of fuel are unclear. The exemption may be confusing to operators. It would be easier and more effective simply to require reporting of fuel use for all units subject to the tune-up requirement.
Response: We are not requiring reporting on the amount of fuel burned by single-fuel boilers subject to work practice requirements because it is not relevant to compliance with the energy assessment or the tune-up. Reporting of the type and amount of fuel used by each affected boiler subject to an emission limit is required by the final rule. Elimination of the requirement for single-fuel boilers subject to tune-up requirements to report the type and amount of fuel used during the 12 months prior to their tune-up reduces the burden on boilers that are clearly in a certain subcategory based on their use of a single fuel. Even this minimal burden is unjustified if it does not relate to compliance with a requirement of the rule. The type and amount of fuel used by multi-fuel boilers are used to determine under which subcategory those boilers belong; thus, the distinction between requirements. We also note that the final rule requires notification if a boiler has switched fuels and the fuel switch resulted in the applicability of a different subcategory within Subpart JJJJJJ or the applicability of Subpart JJJJJJ, or a switch out of Subpart JJJJJJ due to a switch to 100% natural gas. We believe that elimination of the requirement that single-fuel boilers subject to tune-up requirements report the type and amount of fuel used during the 12 months prior to their tune-up is appropriate.
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: 7
Comment: NESCAUM recommends that sources be required to maintain records of fuel use for each unit.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2473-A2, excerpt 18.
Work Practices/Management Practices: Out of Scope
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: 16
Comment:  In its reconsideration of the final Area Source Boiler Rule (76 FR 80540), the EPA is proposing to require that boiler tune-ups use the same type of fuel that provided the majority of the heat input to the boiler over the previous year. This closes a potential loophole for boilers that have the capability of burning multiple types of fuel to circumvent emissions limits by burning cleaner fuel for the compliance demonstration but burning dirtier fuel under typical operation. NESCAUM supports this change because it will create clearer tune-up protocols for regulators and regulated entities and reduce emissions.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
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: 3
Comment: 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, we support the EPA's decision to establish work practice standards for these smaller sources.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Robert E Hunzinger, General Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2425-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: GRU supports the use of a work practice/management practice approach for compliance of smaller sources and those powered by natural gas.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: William O'Sullivan
Commenter Affiliation: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2479-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: We support the proposed tune up work practice standard for ICI boilers. New Jersey has similar requirement already in place.
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: 15
Comment: The EPA also relied on its authority under CAA §112(h), and established work practice standards in lieu of numeric emission limits for those sources with heat input capacities less than 10 MMBtu/hr. (76 FR 80537.) As discussed in the "Work Practice Standards" section below, the EPA has authority to prescribe work practice standards in lieu of emission limitations in circumstances where it is not feasible to enforce such a standard. The EPA's decision to establish work practice standards here is appropriate because compliance with numerical emission limits is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock
Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2452-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: We support the EPA's decision to replace its 2010 proposed MACT standards for existing biomass- and oil-fired boilers with tune-up work practices in the March 2011 final rule.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Robert E Hunzinger, General Manager
Commenter Affiliation: Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2425-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: GRU supports this approach for periods of startup and shutdown. It is not technically feasible to conduct stack testing during periods of startup and shutdown because of physical limitations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. The EPA correctly concluded that operating in startup and shutdown mode for sufficient time to conduct test runs to demonstrate compliance with a stack testing requirement could result in higher emissions than would otherwise occur and therefore a work practice standard was appropriate.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
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: 1
Comment: The Class of `85 supports the work practice/management practice approach for startup and shutdown. It is not technically feasible to conduct stack testing during periods of startup and shutdown because of physical limitations and the short duration of startup and shutdown periods. The EPA is correct that operating in startup and shutdown mode for sufficient time to conduct test runs to demonstrate compliance with a stack testing requirement could result in higher emissions than would otherwise occur.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Kate Williams
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2466-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: AOGA supports the EPA's proposal to decrease the work practice standard tune-up frequency requirements for the smallest units. However, we still strongly believe that a simpler work practice standard based on good air pollution control practices ("GAPCP") and ensured by a requirement to maintain boiler tuning according to the manufacturer's specifications or an appropriate operator's maintenance plan is a much more reasonable approach for small boilers due to their very low inherent emissions rates, the associated very small emissions reductions related to the rule's work practices (regardless of their exact requirements) and the reduced compliance cost for GAPCP.
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: Robert R. Perry
Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FGCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The EPA should exempt small units (e.g. units less than 2 MMBtu/hr) from tune-up work practice requirements under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart JJJJJJ for at least two reasons. First, the emissions from these units are insignificant.
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. The commenter had an opportunity to raise the issue of an exemption for small units during the 2010 comment period.
Commenter Name: Robert R. Perry
Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Generation Corp. (FGCO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA should exempt small units (e.g. units less than 2 MMBtu/hr) from tune-up work practice requirements under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart JJJJJJ for at least two reasons. The emissions are comparable to residential heating units of similar size which are exempt. The impact of these units on the environment is negligible while further regulation places additional burdens on the regulated community as well as governmental agencies that will need to administer permits for these insignificant sources.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2445-A1, excerpt 4.
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: 10
Comment: As these comments demonstrate, it is appropriate for the EPA to either add boilers at sugarbeet processing facilities to the seasonal subcategory or create a separate area source subcategory for those boilers. Because of the agricultural-based locations and consequent lower emissions impacts of such boilers, as well as the challenging economic circumstances surrounding many such agriculture processing facilities, USBSA requests that the EPA create a management practices standard for such sources. The EPA has the discretion to create management practices standards under CAA §112(d)(5) for area sources to reduce HAP emissions.
As currently written, the reconsidered rule would require that sugarbeet processing facilities undergo significant physical modification in order to comply with the emission limits. These facilities would have a very difficult time meeting the standards especially considering that appropriate technology may not be readily available, is extremely costly, and has unknown reliability, and there is limited time for implementation. Therefore, there is a strong rationale for adopting management practices for a seasonal subcategory of boilers located away from concentrated urban centers. Management practices would provide for environmental protection while avoiding burdensome regulations that negatively impact the United States' agricultural industry and do not provide meaningful environmental and public health benefits.
USBSA suggests that the EPA adopt management practices for agriculturally-based seasonal boilers that include actions such as employing good combustion practices on a boiler-specific basis, creating and carrying out operations and maintenance plans for individual boilers, periodic tune- ups of the boilers, and a periodic maintenance inspection. There also may be other suitable management practices, and USBSA looks forward to working with the Agency to determine appropriate work practices for agricultural, seasonal boilers.

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, except for boilers that are greater than 10 MMBtu/hr and which are coal-fired, no existing area source boiler will have to meet a numeric limit. For coal-fired sources sized greater than 10 MMBtu/hr, numeric limits are required to meet minimal floor MACT requirements. Coal-fired area source boilers are subject to CAA §112(c)(6), which, as more fully explained in the record for the final rule, does not allow for the use of CAA §112(d)(5) authority.
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: 4
Comment: AOGA encourages the EPA to consider replacing the proposed biennial tune-up requirements with a simpler work practice standard where good combustion practice is ensured by a requirement to maintain boiler tuning according to the manufacturer's specifications or an appropriate operator's maintenance plan. Such an approach for GACT has already been utilized by the EPA (e.g., Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) MACT), and importantly, would eliminate the problematic units the EPA is addressing via the current GACT, i.e., boilers that have not been properly maintained/tuned.
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: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Although §112(h) of the CAA permits the EPA to establish work practice standards as an option for reducing emissions, the CAA intentionally limits their use, with explicit instructions that these are to be used only if it is infeasible to prescribe or enforce emission standards and further requires that any work practice standards be consistent with actual emission standards that the EPA would set under §112(d) if it were feasible to do so. Here, the EPA has not shown and cannot show that it is infeasible to set emission standards for boilers, and the work practice standards it issued are not consistent with §112(d). Rather, the EPA has merely used work practice standards as an excuse to rationalize allowing industry to keep doing the same thing they currently do as being consistent with setting emissions standards on 195,000 boilers.
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 we have exercised authority under CAA §112(d)(5) with regard to over 95% of this source category, and only relied upon CAA §112(h) for small coal-fired boilers.
Commenter Name: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: In the prior final rule issued March 21, 2011, and in this proposed rule, the EPA argues against measuring emissions in these boilers from the stacks and justifies the use of work practice standards as the only remaining option. Even if the EPA could demonstrate that the Agency could not set emission standards for boilers, the Agency misses the opportunity to take one of the other options available under CAA §112(h): that is, to "promulgate a design, equipment," or "operational standard" that might ensure that these toxic emissions are reduced. Requiring the adoption of equipment that is in use in the lowest emitting facilities would be much more likely to reduce exposure than just ordering a periodic "tune up."
Instead, the EPA argues that "tuned up" boilers will suffice to address toxic emissions from 195,000 boilers (EPA, 2011d). We support fully encouraging plants to follow the manufacturer's instructions for preventing emissions from getting worse, but that is not the same as reducing already harmful emissions. Unfortunately, the proposed rule does not seek to improve work practice standards or to assess whether they effectively reduce toxic air emissions from those facilities. It is hard to imagine that emissions standards cannot be successfully incorporated that would actually reduce emissions from one in eight boilers.
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: Janice Nolen
Commenter Affiliation: American Lung Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2471-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: We support steps to improve work practices to ensure emissions do not increase. However, that is not enough. Work practice standards do not reflect measures that yield the maximum achievable degree of reduction in these pollutants nor, at a minimum, reflect the measures adopted by facilities with the lowest emission levels. If the EPA were to set work practice standards, it would have to require the use of these technologies at a minimum.
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 explained in the 2010 proposed rule and the 2011 final rule, the provisions requiring MACT and CAA §112(d)(10) do not apply to the non-coal portions of the areas source boiler source category.
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: 3
Comment: The AP-42 emission factor for uncontrolled filterable PM from these boilers is 0.014 lb/MMBtu (2 lb/1000 gallons) which is well less than the GACT Subpart JJJJJJ PM standard of 0.03 lb per MMBtu heat input. This indicates a No. 2 oil-fired boiler with mandated biennial tune-ups would meet the PM standard.
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: Sheila C. Holman
Commenter Affiliation: NC Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2474-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: While most newer boilers can perform the required tune-up as specified in Subpart JJJJJJ, some of the older existing boilers may not be able to complete all the elements of the tune-up procedure. This is true particularly for those units burning solid biomass (wood) fuels that may have variable fuel quality such as moisture content. The existing 5-step procedure in the §63.11223(b) tune-up requirements does not directly apply to many wood-fired boilers because most units are mass burn designs without distinct burners to be adjusted. Newer, larger and more modern boilers may be equipped with both under fire and over fire airflow dampers, fuel feed controls, and gas-property monitors for both combustion gases and combustion air suitable for some form of feedback and adjustment. Older wood-fired boilers such as Dutch Oven designs or Stoker boilers are less likely to be equipped with most or all of these features.
NCDAQ suggests that the EPA provide supplemental guidance on tune-up procedures for older wood-fired boilers and how it views optimized conditions for these circumstances.
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, the tune-up requirements in §63.11223(b) of the final rule have been specified as "as applicable" to the unit and, therefore, only the applicable elements of the tune-up requirements must be completed.
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: 17
Comment: NESCAUM urges the EPA to require tune-ups for wood-fired boilers. As currently proposed by the EPA, the tune-up requirements for other boiler types are not appropriate for wood-fired boilers. As an alternative, NESCAUM is currently working with EPA Region 1 to develop regional guidance for what would constitute appropriate requirements for tuning a biomass boiler. NESCAUM recommends that the EPA adopt this regional guidance as national guidance for biomass boiler tune-ups.
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-2006-0790-2474-A2, excerpt 7.
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: 5
Comment: While most boilers can perform the required tune-up as written, some cannot. To eliminate gray areas, it may help facilities to not have to rely on the often repeated phrases "as applicable" and "as necessary" found in the tune-up requirements of §63.11223 (b). Perhaps more complete procedures could be added for outliers, particularly small, hand-fed, biomass fuel-fired boilers. A costly portion of the tune-up, measuring CO and O2 both before and after the tune-up, seems pointless if there are no adjustments that can be made that would affect those levels.
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: Dan Bosch
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2428-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
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:
   * Allowing facilities to use work practice standards rather than emission limits for additional pollutants.
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 we have acted consistently with the SBAR recommendation for the vast majority of sources subject to the Area Source Boiler Rule (the management practice of a tune-up is identical to the work practice referred to by the commenter).
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: 6
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:
   * Requiring annual boiler tune-ups as a way to improve boiler efficiency instead of emissions standards.
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: Joseph Seymour
Commenter Affiliation: Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2475-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: BTEC is confident that its proposed alternative standards and requirements move towards a common‐sense balance between significantly reducing emissions from new biomass boilers as well as fostering a strong renewable biomass thermal sector. Based on this approach, the initial and interim recommended limits and practices include: Initial emissions testing at the factory and work practice standards for maintenance of systems in the field will ensure that clean‐burning boilers are installed and that they consistently achieve high emission standards.
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.
Other Comments on Data: Out of Scope
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: 5
Comment: NESCAUM is providing numerical emissions limits typical of individual permitted biomass EGU sources in New Hampshire (specifically, for PSNH Schiller and Pinetree Power, Tamworth) and Massachusetts (based on the Renewable Portfolio Standard) as a possible basis for emission limits for national implementation. NESCAUM suggests the limit of 0.1 lb/MMBtu for CO and 0.012 lb/MMBtu for PM. NESCAUM notes that these limits are contingent on the biomass being clean and uncontaminated (rather than wood waste fuel).
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. The issue for comment in reconsideration was whether standards should be based on GACT. This comment is not on an issue reopened by the December 23, 2011 FR notice and is outside the scope of the current reconsideration.
Rule Language Corrections: Definition of Natural gas curtailment
Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak
Commenter Affiliation: Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The EPA should further clarify the definition of "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption. The definition of "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption" should be revised to also incorporate scenarios that are beyond the control of the facility that "restrict" the supply of gas fuels to a site in such a manner that the type of fuel used by some on-site boilers would need to be changed for a short period of time. The proposed definition could be interpreted to mean that the only conditions that would meet this definition are those where the gas supply to the site is completely stopped or halted.
Therefore, the EPA should consider adding "or restricted" to the first sentence in the definition as follows:
      means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted or restricted for reasons beyond the control of the facility.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and is altering the definition accordingly.
Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak
Commenter Affiliation: Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Many contractual agreements are possible for supplying gas fuel to a site and the EPA should clarify that the use of back-up fuel is allowed under certain situations where the supply of gas fuel is restricted to a site under a purchase contract agreement to the extent that a very high cost or penalty would be involved for continued gas use under certain situations. Thus, the first sentence of the definition could be further amended as follows:
      means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted or restricted for reasons beyond the control of the facility or due to the terms of a contractual agreement with a supplier of gas fuel that allows gas curtailment or supply interruption.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has altered the definition accordingly.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Comment: The definition of natural gas curtailment should be modified to indicate that the period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected facility is halted, restricted, or penalized for reasons beyond the control of the facility
Response: The EPA has altered the first sentence of the definition to read "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected boiler is restricted or halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility."
Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak
Commenter Affiliation: Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA should make the last sentence of the natural gas curtailment definition consistent with the Boiler/Process Heater MACT Regulation definition by removing the word "may" from the last sentence. The last sentence would then read as follows:
      On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures may qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency of failure is beyond the control of the facility.
Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and has altered the definition accordingly.
Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus
Commenter Affiliation: Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Clean Air Act Services Steering Committee, Department of Defense (DOD)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2418
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: The following definition in the Area Source Boiler Rule could be changed as shown to match the Major Source Boiler Rule.
      Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. The act of entering into a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a reason that is under the control of a facility for the purposes of this definition. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations not during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures may qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423, excerpt 5.
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: 5
Comment: PA DEP supports the EPA's effort to clarify the definition of "period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption." While the proposed definition specifies that certain factors including "an increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations ... does not constitute periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption," it is not clear whether periods of natural gas curtailment or supply beyond the control of the facility would be limited to certain onsite fuel system emergencies or equipment failures. The reconsidered rule should allow permitting authorities to determine "reasons beyond the control of the facility" on a case-by-case basis.
Response: The definition does not specify that only on-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility. This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA or an administrator such as your state, local, or tribal agency. If the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and enforce the subpart. Agencies implementing and enforcing rule requirements can, and do, consider each situation on a case-by-case basis as necessary.
Commenter Name: Pamela Lacey
Commenter Affiliation: American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2468-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: We very much appreciate the proposed definition of "period of gas curtailment or supply interruption" stating that this is a "period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility" and not because (1) the facility owner chooses to enter into a contract with the utility to purchase natural gas at a lower price in exchange for a contractual provision saying the operator would accept switching from natural gas during periods of high peak demand, or (2) the facility owner chooses to switch fuels in order to obtain a lower price "due to normal market fluctuations not during periods of supplier delivery restriction."
Response: The definition of "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption" does include supply interruptions due to contractual obligations, as mentioned in the sentence, "The act of entering into a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a reason that is under the control of a facility for the purposes of this definition."
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Comment: The EPA did not address the issue of on-site natural gas system emergencies that might occur and restrict the ability to burn natural gas in boilers and process heaters. Similar to natural gas supplier emergency conditions such as equipment or piping failures, similar failures can occur within the affected facility fence line. If and when such failures occur, it is necessary for operators to cease firing of natural gas in certain affected units to maintain safety of personnel and effect repairs. Where backup fuel is available, use of that fuel could allow facilities to remain in operation and prevent facility shutdowns, severe equipment problems and unsafe conditions due to loss of steam or process heat. The EPA should allow use of backup liquid fuel under similar conditions as supply curtailments or interruptions for emergencies within the plant site that necessitate ceasing use of natural gas on specific affected units.
Response: The EPA agrees and in response to this possibility includes the following language in the definition of "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption": "On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility."
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Comment: The EPA should clarify that on-site natural gas system emergencies or equipment failures can be similarly treated as periods of supply interruption.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2, excerpt 26.
Commenter Name: Timothy Serie
Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2437-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: ACA generally supports the following proposed changes in the Area Source Boiler Rule:
Revised definition of natural gas curtailment to clarify that a curtailment does not include normal market fluctuations in the price of gas that are not associated with periods of supplier delivery restrictions; however, the term "halted" may be interpreted to interfere with existing contractual obligations and therefore is too restrictive. ACA recommends that the EPA incorporate the language changes suggested by the ACC.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support and notes that the definition has been changed to address "restricted" gas supply as suggested.
Commenter Name: Barbara Schulze
Commenter Affiliation: Merck & Co., Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2460-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Merck supports the EPA's proposed changes to the definition of "Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption."
Merck supports the EPA's change which clarifies that entering into a contract for natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a circumstance that is under the control of the facility for purposes of this rule. The economics of facility operations can be significantly impacted by fuel prices. A key way to manage these costs is by entering into a contract for natural gas that is subject to curtailment. By recognizing this reality the EPA has correctly distinguished between burning oil because of price changes and burning oil because of natural gas supplies being shifted to higher priority users.
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: 6
Comment: There is a lack of consistency in the definition of "natural gas curtailment" in the reconsidered proposed boiler major source rule[7] and in this rule. Specifically, the last sentence of the definition differs in the two rules.
We recommend that the EPA adopt the following revisions to the definition of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption:
     Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted or restricted for reasons beyond the control of the facility or due to the terms of a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas that allows gas curtailment or supply interruption. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations that does not occur during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. Restriction of supply by a natural gas supplier under a contractual order (e.g., operational flow order under a user's interruptible supply contract) does constitute a period of natural gas curtailment. On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures may qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility.
[7] 76 FR 80598, 80653
Response: See the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423-A1, excerpt 5, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
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: 56
Comment: If the definition of curtailment is not revised to include contractual orders whose supply is halted or restricted due to an Operational Flow Order (OFO), interruptible supply users have but no option other than to cease operations during periods of gas curtailment and suffer the economic has not been assessed. Such a cost impact would have severe effects on the U.S. economy, with its harshest effects falling on smaller manufacturers. We request that the EPA clarify that the Agency does not intend to restrict the ability of natural gas consumers to obtain the most appropriate gas purchasing arrangement for their purposes, while at the same time complying with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or state regulations. In addition, the EPA should clarify that EPA will allow use of backup liquid fuel firing under those situations where the supply of natural gas is restricted to affected facilities under a purchase contract arrangement. The revised text does not account for the many contractual arrangements possible, and the definition should be amended so that it does not restrict the ability of natural gas-fired units to obtain the most appropriate gas purchasing contract arrangement for their purposes. In addition, the EPA should revise the text to allow use of backup liquid fuel firing under situations where the supply of natural gas is restricted to affected facilities under a purchase contract arrangement to the extent that a very high cost or penalty would be involved for continued natural gas use at pre-restriction levels.
We suggest the following revisions to the definition in the Proposed Reconsideration Rule:
"Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted or restricted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. The act of entering into or due to the terms of a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a reason that is under the control of a facility for the purposes of this definition that allows gas curtailment or supply interruption or due to the terms and conditions of a tariff or supply rate offered by the local utility provider that allows curtailment or supply interruption. Restriction of supply by a natural gas supplier under a contractual order (e.g., operational flow order under an interruptible supply contract) does constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations notthat does not occur during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures may also qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility."
Response: The definition of "Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption" does take contractual orders into consideration when it says, "The act of entering into a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a reason that is under the control of a facility for the purposes of this definition."  In other words, restricted gaseous fuel supply during periods of supplier delivery restriction and a contractual agreement covering these periods is considered to be beyond the control of the facility.  However, if a facility chooses to switch to a different fuel due to "normal market fluctuation" at a time when their supply of natural gas is not restricted, such a change does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Comment: The intention of the new sentence added to the definition of "period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption" in  the final rule per the comment and the EPA response to that comment noted above appears to be to clarify that the act of establishing a natural gas purchase contract itself is not the action being used to trigger the curtailment or interruption, but that only the action of the supplying entity to restrict gas consumption under any available contract arrangement is the triggering event relative to gas supply to the facility.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Comment: The EPA should modify the wording of the final rule to clarify that nothing in the final rule impacts the ability of natural gas consumers to utilize any available natural gas purchase contract arrangement and that the curtailment or supply interruption provision applies similarly to any purchase contract arrangement.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2444-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA has proposed to amend the definition of "period of gas curtailment or supply interruption" to clarify that it does not include normal market fluctuations in the price of gas that are not associated with periods of supplier delivery restrictions. The revised definition would also clarify that supply interruption can include on-site natural gas system emergencies and equipment failures. ACC supports both of these clarifications. The proposed definition is as follows:
     Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. The act of entering into a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas established for curtailment purposes does not constitute a reason that is under the control of a facility for the purposes of this definition. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations not during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures may qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility. (76 FR 80536.)
This definition nevertheless presents a major concern for industry because the term "halted" may be interpreted to interfere with existing contractual obligations and therefore would be too restrictive.
Many ACC member companies that use natural gas fired boilers operate under contract supply agreements with local utilities, often at reduced cost to the company in exchange for either the utility's ability to curtail the supply or a facility's commitment to switch fuels when regional demand by residential or other critical users (e.g., hospitals) is high. Critical regional demand is frequently a function of inclement weather when residential and medical facilities require more gas than normal, thus limiting the amount of gas available to industrial customers. However, most gas suppliers do not have automatic shutoff capability so they rely on industrial customers to reduce gas use when needed.
Given the many possible contractual arrangements, ACC recommends that the EPA modify the definition in the final reconsidered rule so that it does not restrict the ability of natural gas consumers to obtain the most appropriate gas purchasing contract arrangement for their purposes. Specifically, the EPA should indicate that it will allow the use of backup liquid fuel firing when the supply of natural gas to affected facilities is restricted due to a purchase contract arrangement. Otherwise natural gas suppliers would impose a significant cost or penalty on such facilities for having to maintain natural gas supplies at non-restriction levels.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Comment: The EPA should not restrict the ability of natural gas consumers to obtain the most appropriate available gas purchasing contract arrangement for their purposes.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment: The EPA should allow use of backup liquid fuel firing under those situations where the supply of natural gas is restricted to the boiler/process heater operator under any purchase contract arrangement to the extent that either a very high cost or a penalty would be involved for continued natural gas use at pre-restriction levels. Note that gas suppliers do not have automatic shutoff capability, but rather they rely on customers taking appropriate action to reduce gas use when needed.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Comment: The last sentence should be deleted or modified to indicate that an increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations not during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment.
Response: The EPA agrees, and believes the sentence mentioned properly reflects that. It states: "An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations not during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption."
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Comment: The EPA should clarify that financial penalties for exceeding curtailment events (such as "Operational Flow Orders", etc.) described in tariff agreements regulated by FERC are considered to be supply interruptions beyond the control of a facility.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
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: 55
Comment: The EPA's revisions to the definition of natural gas curtailment on reconsideration do not address the significant concerns raised by sources. This definition continues to present a major compliance concern for industry because the term "halted" is too restrictive and may be interpreted to interfere with existing contractual obligations. The bottom line for sources is that under this narrow definition of curtailment, ordinary gas supply circumstances will result in Gas 1 sources being re-defined out of the Gas 1 category, if they make sensible market-based decisions regarding fuel availability and pricing impacts.
This definition is apparently written to protect firms whose supply is downstream of a Local Distribution Company (LDC). Users downstream of a LDC can indeed have their supply restricted or halted when the needs of users exceed the LDC's available supply. In such a scenario, residential users, hospitals and others would be given priority and an industrial company would be shut off. In that simple case, the industrial source must burn its alternate fuel. However, most curtailments are not that simple, and instead reflect complex supply and demand circumstances that the EPA does not account for in its simplistic approach to curtailments. The proposed definition does not address the range of gas supply arrangements and would likely create confusion and eliminate routine cost-effective use of gas purchase contract arrangements. Such impacts would extend beyond EPA authority and implicate state and FERC regulatory authority. The range of gas supply arrangements can include purchase from an LDC under state jurisdiction or purchase from a gas supplier that transports the supply on an interstate/intrastate gas pipeline system under FERC jurisdiction. Purchased transportation can be firm (a consumer contracts for a specific amount of transport capacity) or interruptible (a consumer can be interrupted by the transporting entity at the transporting entity's will), or a combination of firm and interruptible. Because a site must pay a cost for firm transportation whether the gas is actually purchased or not, many large natural gas consumers utilize contracts that incorporate a combination of firm and interruptible supply contracts to optimize transportation costs in light of variation in natural gas demand.
Response: See the responses to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2423-A1, excerpt 3, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1 excerpt 56, for a full response to these comments as they pertain to the Area Source Boiler Rule. We note that the Gas 1 category referenced by the commenter only regards the Major Source Boiler Rule.
Commenter Name: Michael J. Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2448-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The EPA proposes to amend the natural gas curtailment definition to clarify that it does not include normal market price fluctuations but would include on-site emergencies and equipment failures and is applicable to all gaseous fuels. This seems to be a clarification of rather than a change to the final rule, which we support.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
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: 23
Comment: We appreciate the EPA's movement on this matter, but additional clarification is still needed. The current definition is unclear and problematic, particularly as it relates to typical requirements of interruptible gas supply contracts such as those often in place at industrial facilities. Many manufacturing companies that utilize natural gas-fired boilers and process heaters operate under contractual supply agreements with local utilities and natural gas suppliers. These entities often utilize FERC-regulated natural gas pipelines to transport natural gas supply from point of production to the consuming manufacturing facilities. Utilities and natural gas pipelines offer limited "firm supply" contracts and "interruptible supply" contracts, as appropriate, under FERC regulations to ensure the integrity of the natural gas pipeline transportation system and to maximize service according to defined user priorities for a given supply. Hospitals for example are critical users and are afforded high priority. Interrupting or "curtailing" service is required by FERC to ensure the integrity of the pipeline system. Contracts for supply define the terms of that curtailment. Interruptible service may involve lower gas prices than firm service prices because the higher priority commands a higher price. In many areas firm service is no longer available and interruptible service is the only option for manufacturing sites.  When disparity between overall supply and overall demand threatens the integrity of the pipeline transportation system, interruptible supply contracts are curtailed first generally by OFOs (or similar contractual requirements by another name) issued to users under their supply contract terms. These orders do not generally involve physically blocking the supply pipeline, but rather an evaluation after the fact of possible non-contractually compliant use during the curtailment period and the institution of a fine or penalty that can be assessed as high as 10 or so times the contract gas sales price. Payment of a penalty due to unauthorized natural gas usage during an OFO is regularly not considered an increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas or a surcharge due to market supply/demand fluctuations. The contracts and user requirements are to protect the integrity of the pipeline system and allow its operation in compliance with FERC requirements. The current definition could be interpreted to mean that if a company contracts for interruptible natural gas supply, where the interruption could either mean the supply is halted by the utility/FERC regulated pipeline or the facility must switch fuels to avoid contractual fines, the use of backup liquid fuel during periods of high residential/critical infrastructure demand would not constitute curtailment unless the utility/FERC-regulated pipeline actually physically halts the entire supply of gas to the facility. Most utilities/FERC regulated pipelines do not have automatic shutoff capability, but rather rely on customers taking appropriate action to reduce gas use when needed. Therefore, due to the inclusion of the word "halted" in the current definition, we are concerned that the only conditions that would meet the definition are those where the gas supply to the facility is completely stopped beyond the control of the facility.
Given the many contractual arrangements possible, we request that the EPA clarify that the Agency does not intend to restrict the ability of natural gas consumers to obtain the most appropriate gas purchasing contract arrangement for their purposes. In addition, please clarify that the EPA will allow use of backup liquid fuel firing under those situations where the supply of natural gas is restricted to affected facilities under a purchase contract arrangement. We suggest the following revision (see underlined text) to the definition:
"Period of gas curtailment or supply interruption means a period of time during which the supply of gaseous fuel to an affected facility is halted or restricted for reasons beyond the control of the facility or due to the terms of a contractual agreement with a supplier of natural gas that allows gas curtailment or supply interruption. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas due to normal market fluctuations that does not occur during periods of supplier delivery restriction does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption. Restriction of supply by a natural gas supplier under a contractual order (e.g., operational flow order under a user's interruptible supply contract) does constitute a period of natural gas curtailment.  On-site gaseous fuel system emergencies or equipment failures also qualify as periods of supply interruption when the emergency or failure is beyond the control of the facility."
The definitions in both the Boiler MACT and GACT rules should be consistent.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
Comment: However, the following EPA statement in the preamble creates confusion: "... the definition of ``Period of natural gas curtailment'' was revised to clarify that contractual agreements for curtailed gas usage or fluctuations in price do not constitute periods of gas curtailment under the scope of this regulation." This could be interpreted to mean that if an entity contracted for interruptible gas, that the use of backup liquid fuel during periods of supplier curtailment would actually not be allowed under this rule. It is hard to believe that the EPA would intentionally use this hammer to push boiler and process heater operators to higher priced contracts for firm gas, when such action would directly impede gas suppliers from being able to provide adequate gas supplies to other "critical" customers (e.g. residential consumers). CIBO assumes this was not the EPA's intent, but rather the EPA was trying to address "hedging" or other market transactions not associated with supply limitations. In any case, the EPA must provide further clarification so that owners/operators are not disadvantaged in the natural gas market simply by trying to maintain high facility uptime with use of backup fuels.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: The overall construct of the final rule definition of "Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption" presents problems that could be resolved through technical clarification or through further rulemaking action... This definition is apparently written to protect those firms whose supply is downstream of a LDC. Users downstream of a LDC can indeed have their supply halted when the needs of users exceed the LDC's available supply. In such a scenario, residential users (& hospitals, etc) would be given priority and an industrial firm would be shut off. This definition is a good and constructive thing for such users. However, the current definition does not address the range of gas supply arrangements and would likely create confusion and eliminate routine cost-effective use of gas purchase contract arrangements. Such impacts would extend beyond EPA authority and delve into state and FERC regulatory authority.  The range of gas supply arrangements can include purchase from a LDC under state jurisdiction or interstate gas purchase under FERC jurisdiction. Purchased transportation can be firm (a consumer contracts for a specific amount of transport capacity) or interruptible (a consumer can be interrupted by the transporting entity at the transporting entity's will), or a combination of firm and interruptible. Because a site must pay a cost for firm transportation whether the gas is actually purchased or not, many large natural gas consumers utilize contracts that incorporate a combination of firm and interruptible supply contracts to optimize transportation costs in light of variation in natural gas demand... For interruptible service, or for that portion of a supply contract that is interruptible, both interstate and local distribution would be "halted" or "restricted" under OFO conditions (or pre-OFO conditions). Because many large consumers of natural gas utilize contracts that combine firm and interruptible transportation, an OFO represents an unpredictable constraint on a firm's ability to operate their plant at optimal levels.  Those firms whose natural gas supply contracts consist entirely of firm delivery, this would an infrequent event.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2443-A1, excerpt 56.
Rule Language Corrections: Definition of Process heater
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: 57
Comment: As now indicated in proposed 40 CFR 63.11193, the final Area Source Boiler Rule applies only to boilers, not process heaters. For the reasons asserted in its Petition for Reconsideration, CIBO supports the EPA's decision to revise the "Boiler" definition and add a definition for "Process Heaters" to ensure that they are not included in the boiler source category. (76 FR 80540- 80541.)
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Timothy Serie
Commenter Affiliation: American Coatings Association (ACA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2437-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: ACA generally supports the following proposed changes in the Area Source Boiler Rule:
Proposal that process heaters are excluded from the definition of boilers;
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: WM requests that the Agency clarify within the Area Source Boiler Reconsideration Rule that autoclaves do not fall within the definition of "process heater", consistent with the definition of "process heater" adopted in the Major Source Boiler Rule, and that autoclaves are not otherwise covered by the Area Source Boiler Rule.
Response: The EPA agrees that it is not our intention to regulate autoclaves under the Area or Major Source Boiler Rules. We have reviewed all of the terms used in the Area Source and the Major Source Boiler Rules in order to harmonize definitions between the two rules as much as possible. In the case of "process heater", because process heaters are specifically included in the major source category and specifically excluded from the area source category, the definitions are not identical. In order to address the applicability of autoclaves, the definition of "boiler" in the Area Source Boiler Rule is being modified to exclude autoclaves.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The definition of "process heater" would include autoclaves. See 76 FR at 80541.  However, the definition of "process heater" in the text of the proposed rule does not include autoclaves. See 76 FR at 80548.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Inclusion of autoclaves within the definition of "process heater" would be inconsistent with the definition of "process heater" included in the Agency's NESHAP for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD (herein after referred to as the "Major Source Boiler Rule"). The definition of "process heater" within the Major Source Boiler Rule expressly excludes autoclaves. See 40 CFR §63.7575.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2, excerpt 6.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: WM supports the Agency's intention to exclude autoclaves from both the Major Source Boiler Rule and the Area Source Boiler Reconsideration Rule; however, we believe it is important to include a clear and consistent definition of "process heater" within these related rulemakings so that there is no confusion with respect to the scope of that term under each rule.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2, excerpt number 6.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: While WM supports the exclusion of autoclaves from the ambit of the Area Source Boiler Reconsideration Rule, WM does not agree that an autoclave falls within the category of sources commonly understood to constitute process heaters. As a general matter, process heaters are units that have the primary function of in direct heat transfer. An autoclave is not a director in direct heat generator. An autoclave receives steam from an external heat source for the purpose of sterilization, in a high pressure atmosphere. Autoclaves do not constitute boilers because they do not combust materials, but rather sterilize with steam and pressure. Autoclaves typically achieve temperatures of 250° F for the purpose of sterilization, so the autoclaved material is too wet and the temperature too low to achieve combustion.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2, excerpt 6.
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: 8
Comment: Whether equipment at an area source is a boiler or a process heater is critical in determining rule applicability. However, §63.11237 does not provide a definition of process heater. AOGA encourages the EPA to amend §63.11237 by including either the major source definition of process heater in §63.7575 or a similar definition.
We also suggest the EPA consider adding the following clarifying language to the definitions of boiler and process heater (underlined):
      Boiler means an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam or steam and hot water. Controlled flame combustion refers to a steady-state, or near steady-state, process wherein fuel and/or oxidizer feed rates are controlled. Waste heat boilers are excluded from this definition.
      Process heater means an enclosed device using controlled flame, and the unit's primary purpose is to transfer heat indirectly to a process material (liquid, gas, or solid; raw, intermediate or finished) or to a heat transfer material (e.g., glycol or a mixture of glycol and water) for use in a process unit (including process or storage tanks), instead of generating steam. Process heaters are devices in which the combustion gases do not come into direct contact with process materials. A device combusting solid waste, as defined in §241.3, is not a process heater unless the device is exempt from the definition of a solid waste incineration unit as provided in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Process heaters do not include units used for comfort heat or space heat, food preparation for on-site consumption, or autoclaves.
The proposed changes are intended to help differentiate between boilers and process heaters. Consider a piece of equipment used to heat a 50-50% mix of glycol and water. The glycol mixture (i.e., the heat transfer material) is routed via hard-piping to a process tank where it is circulated in heating loops contained in the tank, to maintain the temperature of the liquid in the tank (the process material) at a given set point.
Response: In the final rule, we have included definitions for "boiler" and "process heater" that we believe appropriately clarify the definitions as applicable to the area source boilers rule. Specifically, the definitions read as follows:
      Boiler means an enclosed device using controlled flame combustion in which water is heated to recover thermal energy in the form of steam and/or hot water. Controlled flame combustion refers to a steady-state, or near steady-state, process wherein fuel and/or oxidizer feed rates are controlled. A device combusting solid waste, as defined in §241.3, is not a boiler unless the device is exempt from the definition of a solid waste incineration unit as provided in section 129(g)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Waste heat boilers, process heaters, and autoclaves are excluded from this definition.
      Process heater means an enclosed device using controlled flame, and the unit's primary purpose is to transfer heat indirectly to a process material (liquid, gas, or solid) or to a heat transfer material (e.g., glycol or a mixture of glycol and water) for use in a process unit, instead of generating steam. Process heaters are devices in which the combustion gases do not come into direct contact with process materials. Process heaters include units that heat water/water mixtures for pool heating, sidewalk heating, cooling tower water heating, power washing, or oil heating.
Commenter Name: Kate Williams
Commenter Affiliation: Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2466-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We support the inclusion of the definition for "process heater" in §63.11237. As discussed in our Petition for Reconsideration, whether a unit qualifies as a boiler or process heater is critical in determining rule applicability. We also appreciate the EPA incorporating our suggested changes to the definition intended to aid in differentiating between boilers and process heaters. Similarly, we appreciate the EPA's proposed changes to the definition for "boiler" which clarify that boilers may heat steam, hot water, or both, and that process heaters are excluded from the definition of boilers.
Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: WM supports the Agency's effort on reconsideration to clarify that process heaters are not included within the category of boilers affected by the rulemaking. The Agency proposes to accomplish this clarification through an amendment to the definition of "boiler" and through the addition of a definition of "process heater." However, WM notes that the definition of "process heater" as proposed in the Area Source Boiler Reconsideration Rule is ambiguous in several respects.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2465-A2, excerpt 6.
Rule Language Corrections: Definition of Residential boiler
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: 10
Comment: There are many historically single unit residences that have been subdivided into several condominiums or apartments. The specification of a number of units as the threshold for exemption from the rule creates a situation where similar residences with similar boilers will be treated differently. In the extreme case, if an unusually large and heavily emitting unit were to reside in a 1-3 unit dwelling at an institution (e.g., a university), it would be appropriate to regulate that unit under this rule. That scenario is extremely unlikely given the proposed boiler definition in the reconsidered rule. The number of units a building is subdivided into does not have a bearing on the size or emissions of the boiler. Therefore, the exemption for ICI boilers at dwellings should be deleted from the final rule. NESCAUM suggests that the EPA abandon this approach for exempting residential units, and instead rely solely on the exemption for units below a unit-size threshold to exempt residential units.
Response: The EPA disagrees that the exclusion for residential boilers should be deleted. See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2454-A1, excerpt 9. The intent of Subpart JJJJJJ is to cover commercial facilities like apartment buildings and condominiums. However, we do recognize that a single family residence could be subdivided into more than 4 living units. The definition of "residential boiler" in the final rule has been revised to include single unit residence dwellings that have since been converted or subdivided into condominiums or apartments.
Commenter Name: Jessica Bridges
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Clean Heat & Power Association (USCHPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0790-2451-A1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The EPA has proposed that residential boilers not be subject to Subpart  JJJJJJ and is proposing to define residential boiler as follows: