Representing
the
Interests
of
America's
Industrial
Energy
Users
Since
1978
April
20,
2004
Mr.
Jim
Eddinger
Combustion
Group
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C439­
01)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711
Request
for
Clarification
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
Dear
Jim,

CIBO
appreciates
your
attendance
at
our
recent
Environmental
Committee
meeting
to
present
an
overview
of
the
final
NESHAP
rulemaking.
As
we
discussed,
there
are
a
few
areas
where
our
review
of
the
final
rule
and
preamble
have
raised
questions
regarding
the
requirements.
We
have
also
reviewed
the
Response
to
Comments
draft
document
obtained
through
our
efforts
with
the
ICIB/
Process
Heater
Tool
Development
Partnership
Group.
The
following
are
questions
and
comments
identifying
those
specific
areas
where
we
would
appreciate
your
guidance
and
clarification.
These
are
not
listed
in
any
particular
order.

1.
Effective
Date
of
the
Rulemaking
The
preamble
states
that
the
rule
will
be
effective
60
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register
(
Page
191
).
However,
several
sections
of
the
final
rule
appear
to
contradict
this
statement.
Specifically,
the
following
sections
reference
the
compliance
date
as
the
"
date
of
publication"
as
opposed
to
60
days
after
publication
(
effective
date):

 
§
63.7495(
a)
and
(
b)
 
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

 
§
63.7510
(
f)
 
What
are
my
initial
compliance
requirements
and
by
what
date
must
I
conduct
them?

 
§
63.7545(
b)
 
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?

Council
Of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
6035
Burke
Centre
Parkway,
Suite
360,
Burke,
VA
22015­
3757°
Phone:
703­
250­
9042
Fax:
703­
239­
9042
E­
Mail:
cibo@
cibo.
org

Page
2
August
13,
2004
In
addition,
§
63.7545(
b)
is
in
direct
conflict
with
Table
10.
§
63.7545(
b)
states
that
the
initial
notification
requirements
of
§
63.9(
b)(
1)­(
5)
apply
120
days
after
the
date
of
publication,
whereas
Table
10
and
§
63.9(
b)(
2)
indicate
that
the
notification
is
due
120
days
after
the
effective
date,
which
is
180
days
after
publication.

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
harmonize
these
sections
to
ensure
that
the
compliance
dates
are
internally
consistent
with
the
effective
date
and
with
the
referenced
General
Provisions.

2.
Immediate
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
(
SSM)
Reporting
Table
9,
paragraph
2,
indicates
that
an
immediate
"
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report"
must
be
submitted
when
a
source
has
"
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
that
is
not
consistent
with"
the
SSM
plan.
This
requirement
is
not
in
agreement
with
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
at
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii)
that
requires
an
immediate
report
only
if
the
action
taken
is
not
consistent
with
the
source's
SSM
plan,
"
and
the
source
exceeds
any
applicable
emission
limitation
in
the
relevant
emission
standard."
(
emphasis
added).

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
review
this
requirement
to
determine
whether
"
immediate"
notifications
are
necessary
for
SSM
events
that
do
not
result
in
an
exceedance
of
any
applicable
emissions
limitation.
CIBO
believes
that
such
reporting
is
more
properly
included
in
the
semi­
annual
compliance
report
as
provided
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions.

3.
Establishing
Operating
Limits
for
Dry
ESP
Control
Systems
Tables
2
and
3
contain
requirements
for
ESP
systems
and
indicate
that:
a)
a
dry
system
with
an
ESP
must
monitor
opacity
as
the
operating
limit;
while
b)
a
wet
system
with
an
ESP
must
monitor
voltage
and
secondary
current
or
total
power
input.
Although
these
monitoring
requirements
are
clearly
indicated
in
Tables
2
and
3,
they
are
less
clearly
designated
in
§
63.7530(
c)(
4)(
ii)
and
Table
8,
paragraph
6,
which
do
not
differentiate
between
ESPs
operating
with
dry
versus
wet
control
systems.

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
confirm
that
the
requirement
to
monitor
the
electrical
parameters
(
i.
e.,
voltage,
current,
and
power)
of
an
ESP,
as
found
in
§
63.7530(
c)(
4)(
ii)
and
Table
8,
paragraph
6,
apply
only
to
wet
control
systems
with
ESPs.

4.
Health­
Based
Compliance
Alternative
Appendix
A
provides
a
health­
based
compliance
alternative
for
large,
solid
fuel
boilers
subject
to
either
the
HCl
or
the
total
select
metals
emission
limitations.
CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
clarify
the
following
requirements
of
this
provision:

 
Paragraph
4(
a)
requires
that
an
emissions
test
be
conducted
"
for
every
emission
point
covered
under
subpart
DDDDD
within
the
affected
source
facility."
The
emission
rates
for
all
of
these
units
are
then
to
be
utilized
in
determining
the
maximum
Hazard
Index
for
the
specified
pollutant.

That
wording
appears
to
require
emissions
testing
of
all
gaseous,
liquid,
and
solid
fuel
fired
units
at
the
facility,
regardless
of
subcategory.
CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
reconsider
whether
it
is
necessary
to
conduct
emissions
tests
at
those
units
that
are
not
anticipated
to

Page
3
August
13,
2004
emit
the
subject
pollutant.
Since
the
risk­
based
approach
only
applies
to
solid
fuel
boilers,
only
solid
fuel
boilers
should
be
required
to
be
tested.
The
Response
to
Comments
document
(
p.
185)
uses
the
term
"
affected
source"
when
discussing
the
health
based
alternative,
so
it
should
follow
that
the
only
units
to
be
tested
are
those
in
the
affected
source,
which
is
defined
as
a
subcategory
(
in
this
case
large
solid
fuel
fired
boilers).
For
those
units
that
are
not
anticipated
to
emit
the
subject
pollutant,
the
requirement
to
test
for
these
pollutants
is
an
unnecessary
and
costly
burden.

CIBO
also
requests
that
the
Agency
allow
the
permit
authority
to
accept
alternative
measures
of
the
emissions
from
these
units.
Specifically,
CIBO
requests
the
Agency
consider
the
use
of:
a)
default
values;
b)
fuel
analysis
data;
c)
historical
or
published
emissions
data;
or
d)
representative
testing
of
a
subset
of
the
affected
units
with
the
results
considered
representative
of
other
similar
units.

Paragraph
4(
b)(
2)
requires
that
the
emission
tests
be
conducted
under
"
worst­
case"
operating
conditions.
For
many
sources,
the
composition
of
the
fuel
mixture
will
determine
the
worst­
case
conditions
(
e.
g.,
50
percent
bituminous
coal
and
50
percent
tire
derived
fuel).

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
provide
guidance
regarding
the
mechanism
for
including
a
"
worstcase
fuel
mixture
parameter
into
the
Title
V
permit.
Specifically,
CIBO
seeks
confirmation
that
the
composition
of
the
"
worst­
case"
fuel
mixture
must
be
maintained
on
a
monthly
basis.
We
believe
the
rule
indicates
that
"
monthly
records
of
fuel
mix"
be
kept
which
is
consistent
with
a
monthly
averaging
time.

 
Equation
2
indicates
that
the
reference
concentrations
of
HCl
and
Cl2
can
be
found
at
an
internet
website.
Because
this
website
includes
both
long­
term
(
chronic)
and
short­
term
(
acute)
dose­
response
values,
CIBO
recommends
that
the
Agency
specifically
cite
the
Table
1
"
long­
term
(
chronic)
inhalation
factors"
in
Equation
2.

 
Referring
affected
sources
to
the
EPA
website
for
retrieval
of
the
reference
concentrations,
raises
the
question
of
future
changes
to
those
values
and
how
that
would
need
to
be
handled
by
affected
sources
using
the
Health­
Based
Compliance
Alternative.
Would
those
using
that
alternative
need
to
revise
their
compliance
demonstration
upon
future
changes
to
IRIS?
This
appears
to
be
a
cumbersome
approach.
CIBO
believes
this
potential
confusion
could
be
eliminated
by
incorporating
the
reference
concentrations
from
the
referenced
website,
Table
1,
for
HCl
and
Cl2
into
the
text
of
the
final
rule.
Should
IRIS
be
changed
in
the
future,
those
changes
could
be
incorporated
in
a
future
revision
of
the
rulemaking.
CIBO
requests
EPA's
consideration
of
this
approach.

5.
Fuel
Sampling
Procedures
The
fuel
sampling
requirements
cited
in
the
text
of
the
rule
are
not
consistent
with
the
requirements
provided
in
Table
6.
Section
63.7521(
c)
provides
specific
procedures
for
obtaining
fuel
samples
for
analysis.
However,
Table
6,
paragraphs
(
1)(
a),
(
2)(
a),
and
(
3)(
a)
allow
for
the
use
of
either
the
procedure
described
at
§
63.7521(
c)
or
the
ASTM
methods.

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
clarify
the
regulatory
text,
at
§
63.7521(
c),
to
state
that
the
ASTM
standard
methods
are
acceptable
for
obtaining
fuel
samples
as
indicated
in
Table
6.

Page
4
August
13,
2004
6.
Compliance
Demonstrations
Section
63.7530(
a)
states
that
a
source
may
demonstrate
initial
compliance
by
conducting
performance
tests
and
establishing
operating
limits
"
according
to
§
63.7520,
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
subsection,
and
Tables
5,
7
and
8..."

CIBO
believes
that
this
statement
regarding
'
initial'
compliance
is
in
conflict
with
the
purpose
of
Table
8,
which
summarizes
the
requirements
for
`
continuous'
compliance.
CIBO
recommends
that
the
statement
at
§
63.7530(
a)
be
modified
to
cite
"
Tables
5
and
7"
and
omit
the
reference
to
Table
8.

7.
Performance
Evaluations
of
COMS
Section
63.7525(
b)
states:
"
each
COMS
must
be
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
according
to
PS
1
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B."
The
section
further
states
that
the
source
"
must
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.8
and
according
to
PS
1."

CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
clarify
the
applicability
of
these
requirements
for
affected
sources
that
have
previously
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
COMS
according
to
PS
1.
Specifically,
we
request
that
the
Agency
clarify:
a)
whether
existing
sources
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
their
systems
if
they
have
previously
been
evaluated
according
to
PS
1;
and
b)
the
applicability
of
this
requirement
to
COMS
that
have
been
installed,
operated,
maintained,
and
evaluated
under
previous
editions
of
PS
1
(
i.
e.,
prior
to
August
2000).

8.
Availability
of
Alternative
Opacity
Limits
When
Utilizing
Emissions
Averaging
Section
63.7570(
b)(
2)
and
Table
7,
paragraph
(
1)(
c),
provide
for
the
establishment
of
an
alternative
opacity
limitation.
CIBO
requests
the
Agency's
concurrence
regarding
the
following
two
items
with
respect
to
this
provision:

 
Table
7,
paragraphs
(
1)(
c)
and
(
1)(
c)(
i)
cite
§
63.7530(
c)(
6)(
i)
for
establishing
an
alternative
opacity
limitation
for
an
affected
source.
CIBO
believes
that
these
cites
are
in
conflict
with
the
regulation
since
§
63.7530(
c)(
6)(
i)
is
not
present
within
the
regulation.
CIBO
recommends
that
the
Agency
amend
Table
7
to
cite
§
63.6(
h)(
9).

 
CIBO
seeks
clarification
of
the
applicability
of
the
alternate
opacity
limitation
for
those
affected
sources
that
utilize
the
emissions
averaging
provisions
of
§
63.7522.
Specifically,
CIBO
seeks
to
clarify
whether
an
affected
unit
with
an
emission
rate
that
exceeds
the
individual
source
PM
limitation,
but
complies
with
the
NESHAP
as
part
of
an
emissions
averaging
group,
is
eligible
to
obtain
an
alternative
opacity
limitation.
We
believe
this
should
be
the
case
to
improve
compliance
flexibility
with
no
loss
in
effectiveness.

9.
Multiple
Sources
Utilizing
a
Common
Emission
System
Section
63.7520(
d)
specifies
that
performance
testing
be
conducted
at
the
"
maximum
normal
operating
load"
while
burning
the
fuel
mixture
that
has
"
the
highest
content"
of
the
regulated
pollutants.
As
discussed
in
our
comments
on
the
proposed
rule,
(
See,
Section
O,
page
83.
03­
14­

Page
5
August
13,
2004
03),
many
facilities
have
complex
configurations
of
equipment
where
multiple
affected
sources
(
i.
e.,
boilers
and
process
heaters)
and,
possibly,
non­
affected
sources,
are
served
by
a
common
emission
control
system
and/
or
a
common
exhaust
stack.
Under
these
circumstances
it
may
not
be
possible
to:
a)
segregate
and
test
emissions
from
individual
units;
and
b)
readily
identify
for
the
system
the
"
maximum
normal
operating
load"
while
burning
the
fuel
mixture
that
has
"
the
highest
content"
of
the
regulated
contaminants.

Due
to
the
multiple
possible
combinations
and
configurations,
CIBO
believes
that
the
appropriate
testing
protocol
for
a
complex
system
is
best
addressed
in
the
site­
specific
test
plan
developed
for
the
affected
source.
However,
CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
provide
some
general
guidance
that
can
be
relied
upon
since
the
test
plan
will
be
reviewed
and
subject
to
the
approval
of
various
enforcement
authorities.
Specifically,
we
request
that
the
Agency
address
the
following
circumstances:

 
In
situations
where
it
is
not
possible
to
segregate
and
test
individual
units
it
will
be
necessary
for
the
source
to
demonstrate
compliance
for
the
entire
combined
system.
Under
these
circumstances,
CIBO
seeks
guidance
regarding:

­
Determining
the
mixture
of
units
to
be
tested.
For
example,
if
three
units
are
present,
but
only
two
units
can
operate
simultaneously,
is
it
necessary
to
test
all
three
possible
configurations?
If
two
of
the
units
are
identical
(
or
similar),
can
the
results
of
one
test
configuration
be
considered
representative
of
both
units?
CIBO's
recommendation
is
to
test
a
configuration
representative
of
both
units.

­
Accounting
for
the
presence
of
exhaust
gases
from
gaseous
or
liquid
fuel
affected
units,
or
non­
subpart
DDDDD
emission
units,
in
the
combined
exhaust
gas
stream.
We
recommend
the
ability
to
net
out
these
exhaust
gases
based
on
actual
operations
at
the
time
of
the
testing.

 
In
general,
Tables
2,
3,
and
8
contain
provisions
requiring
existing
sources
to
operate
at
no
more
than
20
percent
opacity
and
new
sources
to
operate
at
no
more
than
10
percent
opacity.
CIBO
requests
the
Agency's
guidance
regarding
the
determination
of
compliance
with
this
requirement
when
the
emissions
from
an
affected
unit
are
discharged
through
a
common
stack
with
other
units,
which
may
include
other
solid,
liquid,
or
gaseous
fuel
affected
units,
or
non­
subpart
DDDDD
units.
We
believe
that
as
long
as
other
PM
requirements
are
met
the
10
and
20
percent
opacity
requirements
can
be
applicable
for
the
common
stack.

10.
Emissions
Averaging
Relative
to
Multiple
Boilers
Using
a
Common
Control
Device
and
Stack
The
final
rule
(
§
63.7522)
specifies
the
procedures
for
complying
with
the
emission
standards
using
the
emission
averaging
option.
However,
this
does
not
seem
to
address
the
case
where
several
boilers
breech
into
a
common
control
device
and
stack.
For
example,
at
one
large
facility,
five
coalfired
boilers
with
different
heat
input
ratings
share
a
common
fabric
filter
control
device.
Another
facility
has
two
coal­
fired
boilers
having
the
same
heat
input
that
have
individual
fabric
filter
control
devices
but
share
a
common
stack,
the
outlet
of
which
complies
with
all
the
MACT
emission
limitations.
Due
to
the
configuration
of
the
ductwork,
it
is
not
possible
to
perform
a
valid
stack
test
at
the
outlet
of
individual
boilers
at
either
facility
because
the
criteria
outlined
in
EPA
methods
1­
5
cannot
be
satisfied
(
i.
e.,
the
port
locations
and
flow
do
not
satisfy
the
requirements
necessary
to
conduct
isokinetic
sampling).
Can
we
interpret
the
requirement
in
§
63.7500(
a)(
1)
to
control
"
your
boiler
or
process
heater"
to
meet
the
emission
limit
and
work
practices
standards
to
apply
to
the

Page
6
August
13,
2004
control
device
or
stack
rather
than
to
each
individual
boiler?
If
so,
how
would
the
fuel
testing
requirements
be
addressed
if
different
fuel
mixes
were
fired
in
various
boilers?
Could
the
facility
apportion
the
fuel
mix
for
each
boiler
based
on
the
heat
input,
or
preferably,
could
the
fuel
mix
be
based
on
all
units
serving
the
common
control
device
and/
or
stack
as
a
single
entity?
Since
this
is
a
fairly
common
configuration
at
industrial
boiler
locations,
CIBO
requests
that
the
Agency
insert
a
paragraph
in
the
preamble
addressing
this
concern.

11.
Appendix
A,
Equation
1
Correction
The
text
under
Equation
1
of
Appendix
A
indicates
that
the
equation
is
intended
to
determine
the
total
maximum
hourly
emissions
in
lb/
hr
for
multiple
units.
However,
the
left
side
of
the
equation
indicates
"
AveWeightedEmissions"
and
the
equation
divides
by
total
heat
input
(
MMBtu/
hr),
so
that
the
equation
is
determining
an
average
emission
rate
in
lb/
MMBtu.
This
appears
to
be
an
error.
For
the
equation
to
appropriately
feed
into
Equation
2,
it
should
just
multiply
the
emission
rate
by
heat
input
and
not
divide
by
heat
input.

CIBO
requests
that
EPA
review
these
equations
and
provide
a
corrected
equation
in
the
published
rule.

12.
Research
and
Development
Boiler
Exclusion
§
63.7491(
g)
states
the
following:
"(
g)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
that
is
used
specifically
for
research
and
development.
This
does
not
include
units
that
only
provide
heat
or
steam
to
a
process
at
a
research
and
development
facility."
On
the
surface,
these
sentences
appear
contradictory
unless
the
exclusion
is
intended
to
only
apply
to
those
boilers
or
process
heaters
that
are
themselves
being
evaluated
as
R&
D
units.
In
that
case,
any
boilers
and
process
heaters
associated
with
nonboiler
process
heater
R&
D
would
not
meet
this
exclusion.
Please
clarify
the
intention
of
this
exclusion.

13.
Compliance
Schedule
Irrespective
of
the
comment
above
regarding
compliance
dates,
the
compliance
date
indicated
in
the
final
rule
is
noted
as
three
years
following
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.
However,
the
Response
to
Comments
document
indicates
on
pages
56
and
135
that
the
compliance
schedule
is
extended
from
three
to
four
years.
Please
address
this
inconsistency.
As
stated
in
our
comments,
we
believe
4
years
to
comply
is
the
minimum
necessary
to
comply
given
the
number
of
sources
affected
and
competition
for
qualified
construction
firms
and
materials
with
other
industry
such
as
the
utilities.

14.
Fuel
Switching
Relative
to
Emissions
Averaging
In
the
Response
to
Comments
document,
pages
60­
61,
the
topic
of
allowing
a
solid
fuel
fired
unit
that
switches
fuel
to
meet
the
solid
fuel
limitations
and
be
included
in
the
emissions
average
is
discussed.
If
this
is
totally
deleted
from
the
final
rule
as
you
indicated
it
is,
then
this
discussion
in
the
Response
to
Comments
document
needs
to
also
be
changed
to
prevent
confusion.

Page
7
August
13,
2004
15.
Opacity
Limit
for
New
Units
Tables
2
and
3
of
the
Final
Rule
indicate
that
the
opacity
limit
for
new
boilers
and
process
heaters
is
10%
on
a
1­
hour
block
average
basis.
The
Response
to
Comments
document,
pages
117,
126,
and
128,
refers
to
a
three­
hour
block
average
for
new
units.
It
is
assumed
that
the
signed
rule
included
EPA's
final
intentions,
but
we
are
not
certain.
Please
address
this
conflict.

16.
Coal
Chlorine
Test
Methods
Table
6
provides
fuel
analysis
requirements
and
test
methods
to
be
used
for
compliance
purposes.
Table
6,
paragraph
3.
f,
lists
only
two
test
methods
for
chlorine,
SW­
846­
9250
and
ASTM
E776­
87.
SW­
846­
9250
is
applicable
to
ground
water,
drinking,
surface,
and
saline
waters,
and
domestic
and
industrial
waste.
ASTM
E776­
87
is
the
Test
Method
for
Forms
of
Chlorine
in
Refuse­
Derived
Fuel.
Therefore,
no
test
method
for
coal
chlorine
is
provided.
Both
ASTM
D2361­
02
(
Standard
Test
Method
for
Chlorine
in
Coal)
and
ASTM
D4208­
02
(
Standard
Test
Method
for
Total
Chlorine
in
Coal
by
the
Oxygen
Bomb,
Combustion/
Ion
Selective
Electrode
Method)
are
accepted
test
methods
for
determining
total
chlorine
content
in
a
coal
sample.

CIBO
requests
that
you
please
provide
these
two
ASTM
test
methods
for
coal
chlorine
in
Table
6,
paragraph
3.
f.
We
recognize
that
the
Administrator
may
be
petitioned
for
approval
of
other
test
methods,
as
indicated
in
the
Response
to
Comments
on
p.
122;
however,
requiring
all
coal
firing
facilities
to
file
petitions
for
approval
of
these
two
ASTM
methods
would
be
an
unjustified
burden
on
all
parties.

17.
HCl
Emission
Reference
Methods
Table
5,
paragraph
3(
e),
indicates
that
either
Method
26
or
Method
26A
can
be
used
to
determine
hydrogen
chloride
emission
concentration.
This
is
consistent
with
the
Response
to
Comments,
page138.
However,
the
preamble
on
page
34
states:
"(
4)
Conduct
initial
and
annual
stack
tests
to
determine
compliance
with
the
HCl
emission
limits
using
EPA
Method
26
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter
(
for
boilers
without
wet
scrubbers)
or
EPA
Method
26A
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter
(
for
boilers
with
wet
scrubbers)."
The
Response
to
Comments
indicates
that
EPA
recognizes
the
advantages
of
being
able
to
use
Method
26A
for
units
other
than
those
with
wet
scrubbers,
and
included
that
option
in
Table
5.
However,
the
preamble
does
not
provide
that
flexibility.
CIBO
requests
that
the
preamble
be
modified
to
allow
the
option
of
using
either
Reference
Method
26
or
26A
for
units
without
wet
scrubbers.

For
years
we
have
been
working
closely
with
the
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association.
They
have
developed
additional
Boiler
MACT
questions.
We
believe
our
comments
and
their
questions
and
suggested
answers
could
help
strengthen
the
cost
effectiveness
of
the
rule
without
loss
of
environmental
benefit.

We
appreciate
the
Agency's
consideration
of
these
questions
and
comments,
and
CIBO
offers
its
assistance
in
addressing
these
issues.
If
you
should
require
any
further
information,
or
if
you
wish
to
discuss
these
items,
please
contact
me
at
(
703)
250­
9042.

Page
8
August
13,
2004
Best
regards,

Robert
D.
Bessette
President
