Response:
We
have
worked
to
minimize
the
testing
and
monitoring
requirements
of
the
final
rule
while
retaining
the
ability
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
and
work
practice
requirements.
We
are
providing
an
option
for
sources
to
conduct
performance
testing
once
every
3
years
if
they
conduct
successful
performance
testing
for
3
consecutive
years.
We
are
also
allowing
sources
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
HCl,
mercury,
and
total
selected
metals
emission
limits
through
fuel
testing
if
they
do
not
need
emission
control
devices
to
achieve
the
standard.

I.
Emissions
Averaging
In
the
proposal
preamble,
we
solicited
comments
on
a
bubbling
compliance
alternative,
as
part
of
the
EPA's
general
policy
of
encouraging
the
use
of
flexible
compliance
approaches
where
they
can
be
properly
monitored
and
enforced,
and
whether
EPA
should
include
a
bubbling
compliance
alternative
in
the
final
rule.
Emissions
averaging
can
provide
sources
the
flexibility
to
comply
in
the
least
costly
manner
while
still
maintaining
regulation
that
is
workable
and
enforceable.
We
presented
for
consideration
a
bubbling
compliance
alternative
for
determining
compliance
with
the
non­
mercury
metallic
HAP,

HCl,
mercury,
and/
or
PM
standards
for
existing
sources.
We
indicated
that
the
bubbling
compliance
alternative
would
allow
owners
and
operators
to
submit
non­
mercury
metals,

mercury,
HCl,
and/
or
PM
emissions
limits
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
for
each
existing
boiler
in
the
averaging
group
such
that
if
these
emission
limits
are
met,

the
total
emissions
from
all
existing
boilers
in
the
averaging
group
are
less
than
or
equal
to
emission
limits
(
for
non­
mercury
metals,
mercury,
HCl,
or
PM)
applicable
to
units
in
the
particular
subcategory.
We
indicated
also
that
the
bubbling
compliance
alternative
would
not
be
applicable
to
new
sources
and
could
only
be
used
between
boilers
and
process
heaters
in
the
same
subcategory.
Also,
owners
or
owners
of
existing
sources
subject
to
the
Industrial
Boiler
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
(
40
CFR
60,
subparts
Db
and
Dc)
would
be
required
to
continue
to
meet
the
PM
emission
standard
of
that
NSPS
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they
are
complying
with
the
bubbling
alternative.

Emissions
averaging
has
been
incorporated
into
the
final
rule
as
a
means
of
complying
with
subpart
DDDDD.

Emissions
averaging
allows
an
individual
source
emitting
above
the
allowable
emission
limit
required
by
subpart
DDDDD
to
comply
with
that
emission
limit
by
averaging
its
emissions
with
a
second
source
at
the
same
facility
emitting
below
the
allowable
emission
limit
required
by
subpart
DDDDD.

Comment:
Many
commenters
supported
including
a
bubbling
compliance
alternative
in
the
final
rule.

Commenters
cited
numerous
reasons,
including
cost
effectiveness,
energy
efficiency,
greater
flexibility
in
compliance,
and
greater
environmental
benefit.
Commenters
also
cited
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
MM,
Pulping
Chemical
Recovery
Combustion
MACT
as
a
precedent
for
including
bubbling
in
MACT
standards.
Two
commenters
disagreed
with
the
bubbling
compliance
alternative,
stating
that
bubbling
would
complicate
compliance
determinations,
does
not
fit
within
the
CAA
mandate,
and
is
inconsistent
with
the
purpose
of
CAA
section
112.
Many
of
those
commenters
who
supported
bubbling
recommended
additional
flexibility,
such
as
including
new
units,
bubbling
across
subcategories,
and
employing
emissions
averaging.

Response:
The
final
rule
includes
an
emissions
averaging
compliance
option
because
we
believe
that
emissions
averaging
represents
an
equivalent,
more
flexible,

and
less
costly
alternative
to
controlling
certain
emission
points
to
MACT
levels.
We
have
concluded
that
a
limited
form
of
bubbling
could
be
implemented
and
not
lessen
the
stringency
of
the
standard.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
some
type
of
bubbling
option
would
provide
flexibility
in
compliance,
cost
and
energy
savings
to
owners
and
operators.
We
also
recognize
that
we
must
ensure
that
any
bubbling
option
can
be
implemented
and
enforced,
will
be
clear
to
sources,
and
most
importantly,
will
achieve
no
less
emissions
reductions
than
unit
by
unit
implementation
of
the
MACT
requirements.

The
final
rule
is
not
the
first
NESHAP
to
include
provisions
permitting
emission
averaging.
The
emissions
averaging
provisions
in
the
final
rule
are
based
in
part
on
the
emissions
averaging
provisions
in
the
Hazardous
Organic
NESHAP
(
HON).
The
legal
basis
and
rationale
for
the
HON
emissions
averaging
provisions
were
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
HON
(
59
FR
19425,
April
22,
1994).
In
general,

EPA
has
concluded
that
it
is
permissible
to
establish
within
a
NESHAP
a
unified
compliance
regimen
that
permits
averaging
across
affected
sources
subject
to
the
standard
under
certain
conditions.
Averaging
across
affected
sources
is
permitted
only
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
total
quantity
of
any
particular
HAP
that
may
be
emitted
by
that
portion
of
a
contiguous
major
source
that
is
subject
to
the
NESHAP
will
not
be
greater
under
the
averaging
mechanism
than
it
would
be
if
each
individual
affected
source
complied
separately
with
the
applicable
standard.
Under
this
rigorous
test,
the
practical
outcome
of
averaging
is
equivalent
in
every
respect
to
compliance
by
the
discrete
sources,
and
the
statutory
policy
embodied
in
the
MACT
floor
provisions
is,
therefore,
fully
effectuated.

The
EPA
has
generally
imposed
certain
limits
on
the
scope
and
nature
of
emissions
averaging
programs.
These
limits
include:
(
1)
no
averaging
between
different
types
of
pollutants,
(
2)
no
averaging
between
sources
that
are
not
part
of
the
same
major
source,
(
3)
no
averaging
between
sources
within
the
same
major
source
that
are
not
subject
to
the
same
NESHAP,
and
(
4)
no
averaging
between
existing
sources
and
new
sources.

The
final
rule
fully
satisfies
each
of
these
criteria.

Accordingly,
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
averaging
of
emissions
across
affected
units
permitted
by
the
final
rule
is
consistent
with
the
CAA.
In
addition,
EPA
notes
that
the
provision
in
the
final
rule
that
requires
each
facility
that
intends
to
utilize
emission
averaging
to
submit
an
emission
averaging
plan
provides
additional
assurance
that
the
necessary
criteria
will
be
adhered
to.
In
this
emission
averaging
plan,
the
facility
must
include
the
identification
of
(
1)
all
sources
in
the
averaging
group,
(
2)
the
control
technology
installed,
(
3)
the
process
parameter
that
will
be
monitored,
(
4)
the
specific
control
technology
or
pollution
prevention
measure
to
be
used,
(
5)
the
test
plan
for
the
measurement
of
particulate
matter
(
or
selected
total
metals),
hydrogen
chloride,
or
mercury
emissions,
(
6)
the
operating
parameters
to
be
monitored
for
each
control
device.
Upon
receipt,
the
regulatory
authority
will
not
approve
an
emission
averaging
plan
containing
averaging
between
emissions
of
different
types
of
pollutants
or
between
sources
in
different
subcategories.

The
rationale
for
including
certain
limitations
and
requirements
as
part
of
today's
emissions
averaging
provisions
generally
follows
the
HON
and
is
summarized
below.

The
final
rule
excludes
new
affected
sources
from
the
emissions
averaging
provision.
New
sources
have
historically
been
held
to
a
stricter
standard
than
existing
sources
because
it
is
most
cost
effective
to
integrate
state­
of­
the­
art
controls
into
equipment
design
and
to
install
the
technology
during
construction
of
new
sources.

One
reason
we
allow
emissions
averaging
is
to
give
existing
sources
flexibility
to
achieve
compliance
at
diverse
points
with
varying
degrees
of
add­
on
control
already
in
place
in
the
most
cost­
effective
and
technically
reasonable
fashion.

This
concern
does
not
apply
to
new
sources
which
can
be
designed
and
constructed
with
compliance
in
mind.

Only
existing
large
solid
fuel
units
that
are
part
of
the
affected
source
(
collection
of
existing
boilers
and
process
heaters),
as
defined
in
the
final
rule,
can
be
included
in
an
emissions
average.
Of
the
nine
subcategories
established
for
existing
sources,
existing
large
solid
fuel
units
is
the
only
subcategory
for
which
multiple
HAP
emissions
limits
apply.
For
the
existing
small
solid
fuel
subcategory
and
the
six
existing
gaseous
and
liquid
fuel
subcategories,
no
HAP
emissions
limits
are
included
in
the
final
rule
and,
thus,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
include
these
units
in
an
emissions
average.
As
for
the
existing
limited
use
solid
fuel
subcategory,
since
these
units,
as
defined
in
the
final
rule,
operated
on
a
limited
basis
(
capacity
factor
of
less
than
10
percent)
and
are
subject
only
to
a
less
stringent
PM
emissions
limit
(
as
a
surrogate
for
non­
mercury
metals),
we
believe
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
include
these
units
in
emissions
averaging
with
units
in
the
existing
large
solid
fuel
subcategory.

For
purposes
of
emission
averaging,
we
are
allowing
a
source
that
elects,
after
the
effective
date
of
the
rule,
to
modify
by
fuel
substitution
an
existing
large
solid
fuel
boiler
in
the
identified
averaging
group
such
that
its
applicable
subcategory
would
change
to
choose
to
remain
in
the
original
subcategory
and
continue
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limits
in
this
subpart
for
existing
large
solid
fuel
units.
We
believe
this
provision
is
appropriate
since
fuel
substitution
is,
in
certain
situations,
a
potential
and
available
pollution
prevention
control
technique
for
complying
with
the
emission
limits.
This
provision
would
be
an
incentive
for
switching
to
a
less
polluting
fuel
and,

thus,
would
result
in
additional
benefit
to
the
environment
by
reducing
other
pollutants
of
concerns
(
i.
e.,
sulfur
dioxide
and
nitrogen
oxide).
In
the
MACT
floor
analysis
conducted,
we
considered
several
possible
control
techniques
including
fuel
substitution,
but,
for
the
reasons
summarized
below
and
discussed
in
detail
in
the
memorandum
"
MACT
Floor
Analysis
for
the
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants"
located
in
the
docket,
we
decided
that
fuel
substitution
is
not
an
appropriate
criteria
for
identifying
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
for
the
boilers
and
process
heaters
category.
We
first
considered
whether
fuel
switching
would
be
an
appropriate
control
option
for
sources
in
each
subcategory.
We
considered
the
feasibility
of
both
fuel
switching
to
other
fuels
used
in
the
subcategory
and
to
fuels
from
other
subcategories.
This
consideration
included
determining
whether
switching
fuels
would
achieve
lower
HAP
emissions.
A
second
consideration
was
whether
fuel
switching
could
be
technically
achieved
by
boilers
and
process
heaters
in
the
subcategory
considering
the
existing
design
of
boilers
and
process
heaters.
We
also
considered
the
availability
of
various
types
of
fuel.
After
considering
these
factors,
we
determined
that
fuel
switching,
while
a
potential
pollution
prevention
technique
in
certain
situations,
was
not
an
universally
appropriate
control
technology
for
purposes
of
determining
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
for
any
subcategory.
This
decision
was
based
on
the
overall
effect
of
fuel
switching
on
HAP
emissions,
technical
and
design
considerations
and
concerns
about
fuel
availability.

As
for
comments
regarding
the
inclusion
of
new
units
in
the
emissions
averaging,
as
stated
previously,
no
averaging
can
be
permitted
between
existing
sources
and
new
sources
since
new
sources
have
historically
been
held
to
a
stricter
standard
than
existing
sources.
However,
the
final
rule
takes
a
different
approach
regarding
new
gaseous
fuel
units
that
are
replacements
for
existing
large
solid
fuel
units.

We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
a
source,
having
access
to
an
adequate
supply
of
natural
gas,
to
elects
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
for
an
existing
large
solid
fuel
unit
by
replacing
the
unit
with
a
new
gaseous
fuel
unit.
In
this
case,
the
source
would
be
allowed
to
continue
to
include,
in
effect,
the
permanently
shutdown
solid
fuel
unit
in
the
emission
averaging,
based
on
the
fuel
usage
of
the
new
gaseous
unit.
The
new
gaseous
fuel
unit
would
be
subject
to
the
emission
limits
and
associated
monitoring,
testing,
and
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements
for
new
gaseous
fuel
units.
This
provision
would
be
an
incentive
for
replacing
existing
more
polluting
units
and,

thus,
would
result
in
additional
benefit
to
the
environment
by
reducing
other
pollutants
of
concerns
(
i.
e.,
sulfur
dioxide
and
nitrogen
oxide).

The
final
rule
also
takes
a
different
approach
to
averaging
from
the
HON
approach
regarding
the
exclusion
from
emissions
averaging
any
units
equipped
with
emission
control
systems
that
were
installed
prior
to
the
passage
of
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act
on
November
15,
1990.
to
comply
with
a
State
or
Federal
rule
or
statute
(
other
than
today's
final
rule).
In
the
final
rule,
we
do
not
include
this
restriction.
In
this
standard,
owners
and
operators
are
permitted
to
average
across
all
existing
large
solid
fuel
units
regardless
of
preexisting
controls
in
determining
overall
compliance
with
the
standard.
In
the
HON
rulemaking,
EPA
had
concerns
that
credits
for
controls
applied
to
comply
with
another
rule
increase
the
source
ability
to
generate
credits,
but
do
not
generate
any
new
emissions
reductions,
thus
creating
more
emissions.
For
this
rulemaking,
we
believe
it
would
be
inappropriate
to
disallow
a
facility
from
including
in
the
emission
average
a
low
emitting
source
just
because
it
has
a
preexisting
control
device.
Most,
if
not
all,
existing
large
solid
fuel
boilers
are
equipped
with
some
type
of
control
device
to
reduce
flyash.
Most
of
these
control
devices
are
low
efficiency
mechanical
collectors
(
e.
g.,
cyclones
or
multiclones)
for
collecting
large
particles
but
are
ineffective
in
reducing
HAP
emissions.
In
the
HON,
the
preexisting
controls
were
installed
to
comply
with
a
State,

Federal,
or
tribal
rule
covering
the
HAP
being
regulated
by
the
HON.
This
is
not
the
case
for
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters.
Current
Federal
(
such
as,
NSPS),
State,

and
tribal
rules
covering
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
do
not
regulate
HAP
(
metals,
mercury,
and
HCl)

emissions.
The
existing
rules
regulate
criteria
pollutants
(
SO2,
NOx,
PM,
and
opacity).
Thus,
if
existing
units
with
control
devices
were
disallowed
to
be
used
in
emission
averaging,
there
would
be
no
existing
units
eligible
for
emission
averaging.
We
believe
that
taking
a
different
approach
regarding
previous
actions
is
appropriate
since,

unlike
in
the
case
of
the
HON,
the
existing
controls
on
large
solid
fuel
boilers
were
not
installed
to
control
HAP
emissions
and
are
ineffective
in
controlling
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
being
regulated.
Therefore,
for
the
HAP
regulated
(
mainly
HCl
and
mercury),
it
would
be
unreasonable
and
inappropriate
to
disallow
credit
for
sources
equipped
with
control
devices
due
to
previous
actions.

The
HON
requires
a
hazard
and
risk
study
for
emission
points
included
in
an
emissions
average
largely
because
the
HON
emission
averaging
provisions
allowed
averaging
across
all
HAP
(
interpollutant
trading)
covered
by
the
HON.
The
concern
with
the
HON
approach
was
that
such
a
provisions
would
allow
emissions
of
a
more
hazardous
pollutant
to
be
increased
for
corresponding
decreases
in
a
less
hazardous
pollutant.
Unlike
the
HON,
in
the
final
rule,
emission
averaging
is
allowed
only
on
a
single
pollutant
(
mercury,

HCl,
or
PM)
basis
and
not
across
all
pollutants.
Since
we
are
only
allowing
the
averaging
on
a
single
pollutant
basis,

we
believe
that
emission
averaging
will
achieve
a
comparable
hazard/
risk
benefit
as
point­
by­
point
compliance.
Thus,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
a
hazard
or
risk
study.

The
HON
requires
a
discount
factor
of
10
percent
in
credit
calculations
to
share
with
the
environment
some
portion
of
the
cost
savings
due
to
emissions
averaging
and
to
account
for
uncertainty
in
emissions
estimation.
Due
to
differences
(
discussed
below)
between
large
solid
fuel
boilers
and
HON
sources,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
for
the
final
rule
to
include
a
discount
factor.

The
HON
proposal
preamble
(
57
FR
62652,
December
31,

1992)
and
the
HON
final
preamble
discuss
how
cost
savings
due
to
emissions
averaging
should
be
shared
between
industry
and
the
environment.
For
the
HON,
we
decided
that
it
was
appropriate
that
industry
share
any
cost
savings
realized
from
emissions
averaging
and
included
a
discount
factor
because
the
costs
of
controlling
different
emission
points
could
vary
significantly.
The
HON
proposal
preamble
also
discussed
the
level
of
uncertainty
in
estimating
emissions
reductions
that
may
result
from
facilities
using
emissions
averaging.
For
the
HON,
the
uncertainty
arose
from
differing
accuracies
available
for
estimating
emissions
from
the
number
of
emission
points
at
a
HON
facility,
the
number
of
HAP
emitted
from
HON
facilities,
and
the
different
types
of
emission
points.

Large
solid
fuel
boiler
facilities
differs
in
almost
every
relevant
factor
from
the
HON.
First,
as
discussed
previously,
the
number
of
large
solid
fuel
boilers
that
might
be
included
in
an
emissions
average
is
fewer
than
could
be
included
in
a
HON
average
and,
therefore,
less
of
a
concern.
Second,
the
magnitude
of
emissions
from
HON
emission
points
is
typically
much
greater
than
the
emissions
from
large
solid
fuel
boilers.
Third,
emission
averaging
for
large
solid
fuel
boilers
is
on
a
single
HAP
basis
compared
to
averaging
over
140
HAP
emitted
from
HON
facilities.
Fourth,
large
solid
fuel
boilers
are
much
more
similar
emission
points
than
those
regulated
by
the
HON
and,

therefore,
unlikely
to
introduce
additional
uncertainty.

With
concern
about
the
equivalency
of
emissions
reductions
from
averaging
and
non­
averaging
in
mind,
the
Administrator
is
also
imposing
under
the
emission
averaging
provision
caps
on
the
current
emissions
from
each
of
the
sources
in
the
averaging
group.
The
emissions
for
each
unit
in
the
averaging
group
would
be
capped
at
the
emission
level
being
achieved
on
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule.

These
caps
would
ensure
that
emissions
do
not
increase
above
the
emission
levels
that
sources
currently
are
designed,

operated,
and
maintained
to
achieve.
In
the
absence
of
performance
tests,
in
documenting
these
caps,
these
sources
will
documented
the
type,
design,
and
operating
specification
of
control
devices
installed
on
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
to
ensure
that
existing
controls
are
not
removed
or
lessen.
By
including
this
provision
in
the
final
rule,
the
Administrator
has
taken
yet
another
step
to
assist
in
ensuring
that
emission
averaging
results
in
environmental
benefits
equivalent
or
better
over
what
would
have
happened
without
emission
averaging.

We
believe
the
inclusion
of
emissions
averaging
into
rules
and
the
decision
on
how
to
design
an
emission
averaging
approach
for
a
particular
source
category
must
be
evaluated
for
each
source
category.
Although
the
HON
and
the
final
rule
share
the
same
legal
basis
for
including
emission
averaging
as
a
compliance
option
and
the
same
basic
system
of
credits
and
debits,
some
of
the
restrictions
reasonable
for
the
HON
emissions
averaging
provisions
are
unnecessary
for
the
final
rule.
Emission
averaging
would
not
be
allowed
in
any
State
that
selects
to
exclude
this
option
from
its
approved
permitting
program.

Comment:
Many
commenters
supported
including
a
bubbling
compliance
alternative
in
the
final
rule.

Commenters
cited
numerous
reasons,
including
cost
effectiveness,
energy
efficiency,
greater
flexibility
in
compliance,
and
greater
environmental
benefit.
Commenters
also
cited
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
MM,
Pulping
Chemical
Recovery
Combustion
MACT
as
a
precedent
for
including
bubbling
in
MACT
standards.
Other
commenters
disagreed
with
the
bubbling
compliance
alternative,
stating
that
bubbling
would
complicate
compliance
determinations,
does
not
fit
within
the
CAA
mandate,
and
is
inconsistent
with
the
purpose
of
CAA
section
112.
Many
of
those
commenters
who
supported
bubbling
recommended
additional
flexibility,
such
as
including
new
units,
bubbling
across
subcategories,
and
employing
emissions
averaging.

Response:
For
the
final
rule,
we
have
concluded
that
a
limited
form
of
bubbling
could
be
implemented
and
not
lessen
the
stringency
of
the
standard.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
some
type
of
bubbling
option
would
provide
flexibility
in
compliance,
cost
and
energy
savings
to
owners
and
operators.
We
also
recognize
that
any
bubbling
option
would
need
to
ensure
that
it
could
be
implemented
and
regulated
by
permitting
authority,
be
clear
to
sources,
and
most
importantly,
achieve
no
less
emissions
reductions
than
the
MACT
requirements.
Consequently,
we
have
decided
that
the
most
appropriate
method
to
allow
a
bubbling
option
yet
address
the
various
concerns
would
be
to
allow
emission
averaging
limited
to
large
existing
solid
fuel­
fired
units.

The
final
standard
contains
provisions
allowing
the
owner
or
operator
to
demonstrate
compliance
through
averaging
emissions
from
all
existing
large
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
(
i.
e.,
averaging
is
not
allowed
for
new
sources).

Averaging
between
pollutants
is
not
allowed.
The
final
standard
also
limits
averaging
to
like
sources
(
i.
e.,

emissions
from
an
existing
large
solid
fuel
boiler
can
be
averaged
only
with
emissions
from
another
existing
large
solid
fuel
boiler
at
the
same
plant
site).
Emission
averaging
would
not
be
allowed
in
any
State
that
selects
to
exclude
this
option
from
its
approved
permitting
program.

The
final
rule
is
not
the
first
NESHAP
to
include
provisions
permitting
emission
averaging.
In
general,
EPA
has
concluded
that
it
is
permissible
to
establish
within
a
NESHAP
a
unified
compliance
regimen
that
permits
averaging
across
affected
sources
subject
to
the
standard
under
certain
conditions.
Averaging
across
affected
sources
is
permitted
only
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
that
the
total
quantity
of
any
particular
HAP
that
may
be
emitted
by
that
portion
of
a
contiguous
major
source
that
is
subject
to
the
NESHAP
will
not
be
greater
under
the
averaging
mechanism
than
it
would
be
if
each
individual
affected
source
complied
separately
with
the
applicable
standard.
Under
this
rigorous
test,
the
practical
outcome
of
averaging
is
equivalent
in
every
respect
to
compliance
by
the
discrete
sources,
and
the
statutory
policy
embodied
in
the
MACT
floor
provisions
is,
therefore,
fully
effectuated.
A
construction
of
the
CAA
which
permits
EPA
to
establish
a
unified
compliance
regimen
in
these
limited
circumstances
promotes
economic
efficiency
and
has
no
adverse
environmental
consequences.
In
a
NESHAP
incorporating
such
a
unified
compliance
regimen,
EPA
would
construe
compliance
with
the
overall
regimen
to
constitute
compliance
for
each
of
the
affected
units.

Strict
limits
on
the
scope
and
nature
of
averaging
across
sources
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
no
HAP
is
emitted
by
that
portion
of
a
major
source
subject
to
a
NESHAP
in
quantities
that
are
greater
than
those
that
would
result
from
compliance
by
each
discrete
affected
unit
within
the
facility.
These
limits
include:
(
1)
no
averaging
can
be
permitted
between
differing
pollutants,
(
2)
no
averaging
can
be
permitted
between
sources
that
are
not
part
of
the
same
major
source,
(
3)
no
averaging
can
be
permitted
between
sources
within
the
same
major
source
that
are
not
subject
to
the
same
NESHAP,
and
(
4)
no
averaging
can
be
permitted
between
existing
sources
and
new
sources.

The
final
NESHAP
fully
satisfies
each
of
these
criteria.
Accordingly,
EPA
has
concluded
that
the
averaging
of
emissions
across
affected
units
permitted
by
the
final
NESHAP
is
consistent
with
the
CAA.
In
addition,
EPA
notes
that
the
provision
in
the
final
NESHAP
that
requires
each
facility
that
intends
to
utilize
emission
averaging
to
submit
an
emission
averaging
plan
provides
additional
assurance
that
the
necessary
criteria
will
be
adhered
to.

J.
Risk­
based
Approach
Comment:
Several
commenters
supported
EPA's
incorporation
of
risk­
based
concepts
into
the
MACT
Program.

One
commenter
believed
that
providing
risk­
based
applicability
criteria
for
sources
whose
HAP
emissions
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
is
appropriate.
Several
commenters
believed
that
there
is
clear
legal
authority
in
the
CAA
to
construct
NESHAP
based
on
risk,
and
such
an
approach
is
very
appropriate
in
the
case
of
the
Industrial
Boiler
MACT.
The
commenter
also
noted
that
the
regulatory
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
21
of
147
framework
exists
within
their
State
to
implement
such
an
approach.
Several
commenters
added
that
risk­
based
alternatives
will
function
as
indirect
emission
limits
that
must
be
maintained
by
the
facilities
to
assure
that
the
criteria
are
met,
and,
thus,
such
alternatives
for
low­
risk
facilities
are
supportable
by
EPA's
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
and
112(
c)(
9)
of
the
CAA
and
EPA's
inherent
de
minimis
authority.
Another
commenter
asserted
that
there
are
ways
to
structure
the
rule
to
focus
on
facilities
that
pose
significant
risks
and
avoid
imposition
of
high
costs
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk.
An
appropriate
approach
would
be
to
allow
individual
facilities
to
conduct
a
risk
assessment
to
show
that
it
poses
insignificant
risks
to
the
public.
However,
one
commenter
does
not
believe
that
it
is
appropriate
for
State
and
local
programs
to
determine
which
facilities
should
be
exempted
from
MACT.
Several
commenters
supported
a
risk­
based
off­
ramp
for
HCl.

Response:
Due
to
the
relatively
high
costs
associated
with
complying
with
the
final
Boiler
rule,
we
have
included
an
option
in
the
final
Boiler
rule
that
would
allow
individual
facilities
to
demonstrate
that
they
meet
the
health­
based
threshold
emission
limits
and
do
not
pose
a
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
22
of
147
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
We
are
using
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
to
establish
health­
based
threshold
emission
levels
for
acid
gases
and
Mn
for
the
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
(
Boilers)
source
category.
HCl
and
Mn
are
two
pollutants
for
which
health
thresholds
have
been
established.
Acid
gases
includes
HCl
and
chlorine.
Our
authority
and
legal
issues
associated
with
the
health
threshold
limits
under
§
112(
d)(
4)
are
discussed
below.

We
are
not
using
section
112(
c)(
9)
for
the
Boiler
MACT
rule,
and
there
are
no
additional
subcategories
and
no
delisting
of
subcategories,
as
would
be
consistent
with
section
112(
c)(
9).

The
criteria
defining
how
Boiler
facilities
demonstrate
that
the
source
meets
the
threshold
emissions
levels
is
included
in
Appendix
A
to
subpart
DDDDD
(
the
final
Boiler
rule).
The
criteria
in
Appendix
A
to
subpart
DDDDD
were
developed
for
and
apply
only
to
the
Boiler
industry
and
are
not
applicable
to
other
industries.
The
final
Boiler
rule
provides
two
ways
that
a
facility
may
demonstrate
that
the
source
meets
the
health­
based
threshold
emission
limits.

First,
lookup
tables
allow
facilities
to
determine,
using
a
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
23
of
147
limited
number
of
site­
specific
input
parameters,
whether
emissions
from
boilers
or
process
heaters
might
cause
a
hazard
index
(
HI)
limit
for
non­
carcinogens
to
be
exceeded.

Second,
a
tiered
modeling
approach
(
each
tier
less
conservative
and
more
complex
than
the
previous)
allows
those
facilities
that
cannot
demonstrate
that
source
meets
the
health
thresholds
using
the
lookup
tables
to
demonstrate
by
modeling
using
site­
specific
information.

Facilities
will
have
to
demonstrate
that
the
source
meets
the
criteria
established
by
today's
final
rule
and
then
assume
Federally
enforceable
limitations
that
ensure
their
HAP
emissions
do
not
subsequently
increase
to
exceed
levels
reflected
in
their
demonstrations.

Comment:
Multiple
commenters
are
opposed
to
the
riskbased
exemptions.
Some
noted
that
the
proposal
to
include
risk­
based
exemptions
is
critically
flawed
and
opposes
adoption
of
the
risk­
based
exemptions
into
MACT.

One
commenter
stated
that
the
inclusion
of
case­
by­
case
risk­
based
exemptions
into
the
first
phase
of
the
MACT
program
will
negate
the
legislative
mandate
and
jeopardize
the
effectiveness
of
the
national
air
toxics
program
to
adequately
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
and
to
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
24
of
147
establish
a
level
playing
field.
Therefore,
the
commenter
strongly
disagrees
with
inclusion
of
risk­
based
exemptions
in
the
MACT
standard
process.
The
commenter
was
very
concerned
that
EPA
referenced
a
fundamentally
flawed
interpretation
of
§
112(
d)(
4)
written
by
an
industry
(
AF&
PA)

subject
to
regulation.
Of
particular
concern
was
AF&
PA's
unprecedented
proposal
to
include
"
de
minimis
exemptions"

and
"
cost"
in
the
MACT
standard
process.

One
commenter
stated
the
belief
that
the
use
of
riskbased
concepts
to
evade
MACT
applicability
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
CAA
and
is
based
on
a
flawed
interpretation
of
Section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA.
The
commenter
added
that
the
CAA
requires
a
technology­
based
floor
level
of
control
and
does
not
provide
exclusions
for
risk
or
secondary
impacts
from
applying
the
MACT
floor.

One
commenter
stated
that
in
separate
rulemakings
and
lawsuits,
EPA
has
adopted
legal
positions
and
policies
that
refute
and
contradict
the
very
risk­
based
and
cost­
based
approaches
contained
in
the
proposals.
In
these
other
arena,
the
commenter
contended
that
EPA
has
properly
rejected
risk
assessment
to
alter
the
establishment
of
MACT
standards.
EPA
also
has
properly
rejected
cost
in
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
25
of
147
determining
MACT
floors
and
in
denying
a
basis
for
avoiding
the
MACT
floor.
The
commenter
attached
passages
from
several
EPA
briefs:
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA;
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
v.
EPA,
No.
99­
1457
and
consolidated
cases,
D.
C.

Cir.)
(
Jan.
18,
2001)
(
Attachment
1);
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.
EPA,

233
F.
3D
625
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000)
(
July
14,
2000)
(
Attachment
3).
1C.
3*

Several
commenters
stated
that
the
preamble
discussion
of
the
risk­
based
approaches
is
not
sufficient
to
allow
for
complete
public
comment
and,
therefore,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
for
EPA
to
go
directly
to
a
final
rule
(
without
reproposal)
with
any
of
the
approaches
outlined
in
the
proposal.
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
risk­
based
exemption
proposal
be
dropped
because
it
is
unacceptable.

Response:
For
many
of
the
reasons
provided
by
the
commenters,
we
are
not
pursuing
risk­
based
exemptions
based
on
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9).
We
do
not
believe
that
a
riskbased
approach
based
on
section
112(
c)(
9)
is
appropriate
for
the
Boilers
industry
because
....
We
also
are
not
relying
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
26
of
147
on
de
minimus
authority.
Legal
issues
associated
with
the
risk­
based
provisions
are
addressed
in
sections
_
through
_

of
this
document.

We
are,
however,
including
in
the
final
Boiler
rule
a
health
based
threshold
emission
level
based
on
our
authority
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4).
This
statute
requires
that
categories
or
subcategories
meet
specific
risk
criteria,
and
to
determine
this,
risk
analyses
may
be
used.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
we
must
wait
for
implementation
of
section
112(
f)
before
utilizing
risk
analysis
in
this
manner.
We
are
not
subcategorizing
or
determining
MACT
floors
based
on
cost.
Further,
because
facilities
will
make
their
low­
risk
demonstrations
following
promulgation
of
the
final
Boiler
rule,
the
MACT
level
of
emissions
reduction
required
by
the
final
Boiler
rule
is
not
affected
by
facilities
exempting
out
of
the
rule.

Comment:
Many
commenters
stated
that
the
proposal
to
include
risk­
based
exemptions
is
contrary
to
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
(
CAAA)
which
calls
for
MACT
standards
based
on
technology
rather
than
risk
as
a
first
step.
They
added
that
congress
incorporated
the
residual
risk
program
under
§
112(
f)
to
follow
the
MACT
standards
(
not
to
replace
them).
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
27
of
147
The
commenters
added
that
the
need
for
the
technology­
based
approach
has
been
recently
reinforced
by
the
results
of
the
National
Air
Toxics
Assessment
(
NATA),
which
indicates
that
exposure
to
air
toxics
is
very
high
throughout
the
country
in
urban
and
remote
areas.
Several
commenters
added
that
risk­
based
approaches
will
be
used
separately
to
augment
and
improve
technology­
based
standards
that
do
not
adequately
provide
protection
to
the
public.
One
commenter
added
that
they
have
been
unable
to
substantiate
the
basis
for
EPA's
support
of
the
regulatory
relief
sought
by
industry
through
risk­
based
exemptions.
In
fact,
the
use
of
risk
assessment
at
this
stage
of
the
MACT
program
is
directly
opposed
to
Title
III
of
the
CAA.

Response:
We
disagree
that
inclusion
of
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
in
the
final
Boiler
rule
is
contrary
to
the
1990
CAAA.
The
Boiler
MACT
is
a
technologybased
standard
developed
using
the
procedures
dictated
by
section
112
of
the
CAA.
The
only
difference
in
the
Boiler
MACT
and
other
MACT
is
that
we
used
our
discretion
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
...
We
believe
that
the
Boiler
rulemaking
is
particularly
well­
suited
for
a
risk­
based
option
for
specific
pollutants.
For
many
facilities,
the
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
28
of
147
pollutants
are
emitted
in
amounts
that
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
surrounding
population.
However,

the
cost
of
controlling
these
pollutants
is
high,
and
may
not
be
justified
by
environmental
benefits
for
these
lowrisk
facilities.
Those
sources
that
can
demonstrate
that
the
emissions
of
acid
gases
and
Mn
meet
the
threshold
emission
levels
will
be
in
compliance
with
the
MACT.
The
criteria
are
based
on
health­
protective
estimates
of
risk
and
the
threshold
emission
levels
will
provide
ample
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Inclusion
of
a
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
in
the
Boiler
rule
does
not
alter
the
MACT
program
or
affect
the
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
We
recognize
that
such
provisions
are
only
appropriate
for
certain
source
categories,
and
our
decisionmaking
process
required
source
category­
specific
input
from
stakeholders.
The
10­
year
MACT
standards,
which
are
now
being
completed,
are
the
last
group
of
MACT
standards
currently
planned
for
development,
and
for
any
risk
provisions
to
be
useful,
the
provisions
must
be
finalized
in
a
timely
manner
(
i.
e.,
not
later
than
the
promulgation
of
the
MACT
standards).
These
final
MACT
source
categories
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
29
of
147
were
included
in
the
"
10­
year
bin"
because
they
were
considered
to
be
the
lowest
risk
source
categories.

Although
NATA
may
show
measurable
concentrations
of
toxic
air
pollution
across
the
country,
these
data
do
not
suggest
that
facilities
that
do
not
contribute
to
the
high
exposures
and
risk
should
be
included
in
regulations.

Section
_
of
this
document
discusses
how
background
concentrations
are
accounted
for
by
Boiler
facilities
in
demonstrating
that
they
meet
the
threshold
emission
levels.

Comment:
Many
commenters
stated
that
the
proposal
to
allow
risk­
based
exemptions
would
divert
back
to
the
timeconsuming
NESHAP
development
process
that
existed
prior
to
the
CAAA.
The
commenters
asserted
that
under
this
process,

which
began
with
a
risk
assessment
step,
only
eight
NESHAP
were
promulgated
during
a
20­
year
period.
The
commenters
continued
that
if
the
proposed
approaches
are
inserted
into
upcoming
standards,
the
commenters
fear
the
MACT
program
(
which
is
already
far
behind
schedule)
would
be
further
delayed.
One
commenter
supported
EPA
efforts
to
determine
alternative
MACT
setting
methodologies
but
strongly
recommended
that
these
be
pursued
separately
from
this
rulemaking.
The
commenter
contended
that
this
will
provide
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
30
of
147
for
timely
issuance
of
final
RICE
and
Boiler/
Process
Heater
MACT
standards
relative
to
the
settlement
deadline.
Two
commenters
stated
that
delays
could
be
exacerbated
by
litigation
following
legal
challenges
to
the
rules,
and
such
delays
would
trigger
the
MACT
hammer,
which
would
unnecessarily
burden
the
State
and
local
agencies
and
the
industries.
The
commenters
concluded
that
further
delay
is
unacceptable.
The
commenters
did
not
want
to
be
in
a
position
of
implementing
the
112(
j)
program
and
urged
EPA
to
not
delay
the
issuance
of
any
MACT
standard.
The
commenters
noted
that
according
to
a
recently
proposed
EPA
rule
regarding
section
112(
j),
the
regulated
community
and
State
and
local
agencies
would
have
to
proceed
with
Part
2
permit
applications,
followed
by
case­
by­
case
MACT,
if
EPA
misses
the
newly
agreed­
upon
MACT
deadlines
by
as
little
as
two
months.
This
would
be
time
consuming,
costly,
and
burdensome
for
both
regulators
and
the
regulated
community.

Response:
We
disagree
that
allowing
risk­
based
altnative
compliance
options
in
the
Boiler
rulemaking
will
alter
the
MACT
program
or
affect
the
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
We
do
not
anticipate
any
further
delays
in
completing
the
remaining
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
31
of
147
MACT
standards.
The
setting
of
health­
based
threshold
emission
levels
in
the
Boiler
rulemaking
affects
only
the
Boiler
NESHAP,
and
not
all
other
MACT
standards
that
have
yet
to
be
promulgated.

We
believe
that
the
approach
taken
in
the
Boiler
rulemaking
is
particularly
well­
suited
to
acid
gases
and
Mn,

which
are
the
only
pollutants
included
in
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options.
For
many
facilities,
the
pollutants
are
emitted
in
amounts
that
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
surrounding
population.
However,

the
cost
of
controlling
these
pollutants
is
high,
and
may
not
be
justified
by
environmental
benefits
for
these
lowrisk
facilities.
Only
those
Boiler
facilities
that
demonstrate
that
their
emissions
are
below
the
threshold
emission
limits
are
eligible
for
the
alternative
compliance
options.
The
criteria
defining
the
_
is
based
on
health
protective
estimates
of
risk
and
will
provide
ample
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Including
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
for
boiler
sources
does
not
mean
that
EPA
will
provide
riskbased
options
for
other
industries.
Furthermore,
EPA
has
no
intentions
of
re­
opening
previously
promulgated
NESHAP
in
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
32
of
147
light
of
decisions
made
specific
to
the
Boilers
source
category.
The
Boilers
NESHAP
is
being
promulgated
by
the
February
2004
court­
ordered
deadline.
Any
delays
in
implementation
of
the
Boilers
NESHAP
caused
by
legal
challenges
are
beyond
our
control.

Comment:
Many
commenters
stated
that
the
risk­
based
proposal
removes
the
"
level­
playing
field"
that
would
result
from
the
proper
implementation
of
technology­
based
MACT
standards.
The
commenters
added
that
establishing
a
baseline
level
of
control
is
essential
to
prevent
industry
from
moving
to
areas
of
the
country
that
have
the
least
stringent
air
toxics
programs,
which
was
one
of
the
primary
goals
of
developing
a
uniform
national
air
toxics
program
under
section
112
of
the
1990
CAA
amendments.
The
riskbased
approaches
would
jeopardize
future
reductions
of
HAPs
in
a
uniform
and
consistent
manner
across
the
nation.

Response:
We
agree
that
one
of
the
primary
goals
of
developing
a
uniform
national
air
toxics
program
under
section
112
of
the
1990
CAA
amendments
was
to
establish
a
level
playing
field.
We
do
not
believe
that
providing
alternative
compliance
options
for
sources
that
meet
the
threshold
emission
levels
in
the
final
Boiler
rule
does
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
33
of
147
anything
to
remove
the
level
playing
field
for
Boiler
facilities.
The
final
Boiler
rule
and
its
criteria
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
apply
uniformly
to
boilers
across
the
nation
in
the
large
solid
fuel­
fired
subcategories.
The
Boiler
NESHAP
establishes
a
baseline
level
of
emission
reduction
or
a
baseline
level
of
risk.
All
Boiler
facilities
are
subject
to
these
same
baseline
levels,
and
all
facilities
with
boilers
in
the
subcategories
have
the
same
opportunity
to
demonstrate
that
they
can
meet
the
threshold
emission
levels.
The
criteria
for
meeting
the
threshold
emission
levels
are
not
dependent
on
local
air
toxics
programs.
Therefore,
concerns
regarding
facilities
moving
to
areas
of
the
country
with
less­
stringent
air
toxics
programs
should
be
alleviated.

Comment:
Multiple
commenters
believed
that
Section
112(
d)(
4)
provides
EPA
with
authority
to
exclude
sources
that
emit
threshold
pollutants
from
regulation.
The
commenters
indicated
that
Section
112(
d)(
4)
allows
for
discretion
in
developing
MACT
standards
for
HAP
with
health
thresholds.
The
commenters
added
that
the
use
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
also
is
supported
by
CAA's
legislative
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
34
of
147
history,
which
emphasizes
that
Congress
included
§
112(
d)(
4)

in
the
CAA
to
prevent
unnecessary
regulation
of
source
categories.

One
commenter
pointed
out
that
Congress
does
not
differentiate
between
technology­
based
"
emission
standards"

set
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
versus
"
health
threshold"
based
"
emission
standards"
set
under
section
112(
d)(
4).
Instead,

the
statute
explicitly
treats
emission
standards
promulgated
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
and
112(
d)(
4)
as
equivalent
by
not
distinguishing
between
those
emission
standards
under
the
residual
risk
provisions
of
section
112(
f).
One
commenter
added
that
EPA
is
permitted
to
establish
alternative
standards
as
long
as
it
ensures
that
ambient
concentrations
are
less
than
the
health
thresholds
plus
a
margin
of
safety
and
the
emissions
do
not
cause
adverse
environmental
effects.
Multiple
commenters
pointed
out
that
EPA
has
exercised
such
authority
and
cited
the
Pulp
and
Paper
MACT.

In
addition,
the
commenters
added
that
in
the
Pulp
and
Paper
MACT,
EPA
identified
circumstances
in
which
they
would
decline
to
exercise
112(
d)(
4)
authority
 
where
significant
or
widespread
environmental
harm
would
occur
as
a
result
of
emissions
from
the
category
and
the
estimated
health
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
35
of
147
thresholds
are
subject
to
substantial
scientific
uncertainty.
The
comenters
concluded
that
EPA
determined
that
these
considerations
were
not
relevant
to
emissions
from
the
pulp
and
paper
source
category,
and
the
commenters
believe
that
the
same
is
true
for
their
source
categories
and
that
the
same
treatment
is
warranted
for
many
facilities
within
the
source
categories.
The
commenters
noted
that
facilities
that
cannot
meet
the
risk
criteria
would
remain
subject
to
the
MACT
requirements.

One
commenter
added
that
the
risk­
based
approaches
are
squarely
in
line
with
the
plain
meaning
of
section
112(
d)(
4).
The
commenters
cited
the
Senate
report
(
Sen
Rep.

No.
228,
101st
Congress,
1st
Sess
175­
6
(
1990))
showed
that
Congress
contemplated
that
sources
within
the
same
category
or
subcategory
would
be
subject
to
varied
regulatory
requirements,
depending
on
the
risk
they
pose
to
public
health.
The
commenters
added
that
nothing
in
the
statutory
definition
of
"
emission
standard"
suggests
that
the
term
is
limited
to
a
requirement
for
the
installation
of
control
technology.
The
commenters
added
that
the
risk
based
compliance
options
would
meet
this
requirement
because
they
would
apply
to
an
entire
source
category
or
subcategory.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
36
of
147
EPA
could
create
a
subcategory
for
low­
risk
sources
and
tailor
an
emission
standard
to
this
subcategory,
or
apply
to
all
sources
in
the
category
a
NESHAP
containing
multiple
compliance
options,
one
or
more
being
risk­
based.

Multiple
commenters
stated
that
the
plain
meaning
of
§
112(
d)(
4)
does
not
allow
EPA
to
make
MACT
standard
s
for
individual
sources.
Two
commenters
noted
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
states
that
"
with
respect
to
pollutants
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established,
the
Administrator
may
consider
such
threshold
level,
with
ample
margin
of
safety,
when
establishing
emission
standards
under
this
subsection."

Several
commenters
contended
that
EPA
has
misinterpreted
the
provision
in
112(
d)(
4)
in
that
Section
112(
d)(
4)
does
not
state
that
EPA
can
use
applicability
thresholds
"
in
lieu
of"
the
Section
112(
d)(
3)
MACT
floor
requirements.
The
commenter
interpreted
Section
112(
d)(
4)

to
state
that
health
based
thresholds
can
be
considered
when
establishing
the
degree
of
the
MACT
floor
requirements,
but
it
should
not
be
used
to
supplant
the
requirements
established
pursuant
to
Section
112(
d)(
3).

Many
commenters
stated
that
the
legislative
history
of
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
37
of
147
§
112(
d)(
4)
clearly
rejects
EPA's
proposed
facility­

byfacility
MACT
exemptions.
The
commenters
noted
that
Congress
considered
and
rejected
the
applicability
cutoffs
upon
which
EPA
now
solicits
comment.
The
commenters
noted
that
the
House
version
of
the
1990
Amendments
allowed
States
to
issue
permits
that
exempted
a
source
from
compliance
with
MACT
rules
if
the
source
presented
sufficient
evidence
to
demonstrate
negligible
risk,
and
the
Senate
version
of
the
1990
Amendments
contained
no
such
provision.
In
conference,

Congress
considered
both
the
House
and
Senate
versions
and
rejected
the
House
bill's
exemption
for
specific
facilities
in
favor
of
the
Senate
bill's
language.

Response:
Need
OGC
response.

The
Act
includes
certain
exceptions
to
the
general
statutory
requirement
to
establish
emission
standards
based
on
the
performance
of
MACT.
Of
relevance
here,
section
112(
d)(
4)
provides
EPA
with
authority,
at
its
discretion,
to
develop
risk­
based
standards
for
HAP's
"
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established",
provided
that
the
standard
achieves
an
"
ample
margin
of
safety."
(
The
full
text
of
the
section
112(
d)(
4):
"[
w]
ith
respect
to
pollutants
for
which
a
health
threshold
has
been
established,
the
Administrator
may
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
38
of
147
consider
such
threshold
level,
within
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
when
establishing
emission
standards
under
this
subsection.")

The
EPA
presumptively
applies
section
112(
d)(
4)
only
to
HAP's
that
are
not
carcinogens
because
Congress
clearly
intended
that
carcinogens
be
considered
nonthreshold
pollutants.
(
Staff
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works,
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,
Vol.
1
at
876,
statement
of
Senator
Durenberger
during
Senate
Debate
of
October
27,
1990:
"
With
respect
to
the
pollutants
for
which
a
safe
threshold
can
be
set,
the
authority
to
set
a
standard
less
stringent
than
maximum
achievable
control
technology
is
contained
in
subsection
(
d)(
4).
With
respect
to
carcinogens
and
other
non­
threshold
pollutants,
no
such
authority
exists
in
subsection
(
d)
or
in
any
other
provision
of
the
Act.")
The
legislative
history
further
indicates
that
if
EPA
invokes
this
provision,
it
must
assure
that
any
emission
standard
results
in
ambient
concentrations
less
than
the
health
threshold,
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
and
that
the
standards
must
also
be
sufficient
to
protect
against
adverse
environmental
effects
(
S.
Rep.
No.
228,
101st
Cong.
at
171).
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
39
of
147
Costs
are
not
to
be
considered
in
establishing
a
standard
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
4)
(
Ibid.).

Therefore,
EPA
believes
it
has
the
discretion
under
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
develop
risk­
based
standards
for
some
categories
emitting
threshold
pollutants,
which
may
be
less
stringent
than
the
corresponding
"
floor"­
based
MACT
standard
would
be.
If
EPA
decided
to
develop
standards
under
this
provision,
it
would
seek
to
assure
that
emissions
from
every
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
are
less
than
the
threshold
level
to
an
individual
exposed
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution.
The
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
calculated
is
calculated
using
the
"
high
end
exposure
estimate,"
defined
as
"
a
plausible
estimate
of
individual
exposure
for
those
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution,
conceptually
above
the
90th
percentile,
but
not
higher
than
the
individual
in
the
population
who
has
the
highest
exposure"
(
EPA
Exposure
Assessment
Guidelines,
57
FR
22888,
May
29,
1992).
The
EPA
believes
that
assuring
protection
to
persons
at
the
upper
end
of
the
exposure
distribution
is
consistent
with
the
"
ample
margin
of
safety"
requirement
in
section
112(
d)(
4).

The
EPA
emphasizes
that
use
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
40
of
147
authority
is
wholly
discretionary.
As
the
legislative
history
described
above
indicates,
cases
may
arise
in
which
other
considerations
dictate
that
the
Agency
should
not
invoke
this
authority
to
establish
less
stringent
standards,

despite
the
existence
of
a
health
effects
threshold
that
is
not
jeopardized.
For
instance,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
it
would
set
less
stringent
standards
where
the
estimated
health
threshold
for
a
contaminant
is
subject
to
large
uncertainty.
Thus,
in
considering
appropriate
uses
of
its
discretionary
authority
under
section
112(
d)(
4),
EPA
intends
to
consider
other
factors
in
addition
to
health
thresholds,

including
uncertainty
and
potential
"
adverse
environmental
effects,"
as
that
phrase
is
defined
in
section
112(
a)(
7).

We
agree
that
§
112(
d)(
4)
is
appropriate
for
boiler
HCl
and
Mn,
and
therefore
we
are
allowing
§
112(
d)(
4)
for
boiler
HCl
and
Mn.

Because
of
the
large
number
and
variety
of
facilities
with
boilers
and
process
heaters
subject
to
the
rule,
a
risk
assessment
cannot
be
done
by
EPA
for
every
facility.
The
final
rule
contains
criteria
that
define
a
low­
risk
facility.

Comment:
Many
commenters
contended
that
the
proposal
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
41
of
147
will
place
a
very
intensive
resource
demand
on
state
and
local
agencies
to
review
source's
risk
assessments,
and
state/
local
agencies
may
not
have
expertise
in
risk
assessment
methodology
or
the
resources
needed
to
verify
information
(
e.
g.,
emissions
data
and
stack
parameters)

submitted
with
each
risk
assessment.

Other
commenters
believe
that
a
risk­
based
program
can
be
structured
and
implemented
in
a
manner
that
does
not
adversely
impact
limited
State
resources.
One
commenter
asserted
that
EPA
should
work
closely
with
States
and
industry
to
implement
the
risk­
based
approach
in
a
nonburdensome
manner.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
riskbased
approaches,
like
other
MACT
standards,
would
simply
be
incorporated
into
each
state's
existing
Title
V
program.

The
commenter
concluded
that
because
the
Title
V
framework
already
exists,
the
addition
of
a
risk­
based
MACT
standard
would
not
require
States
to
overhaul
existing
permitting
programs.
Another
commenter
contended
that
the
final
MACT
rule
itself
should
set
forth
the
applicability
criteria
­

including
the
threshold
levels
of
exposure
­
that
sources
must
meet
to
qualify
for
a
risk­
based
determination.
Each
source
would
have
the
burden
of
demonstrating
that
its
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
42
of
147
exposures
are
below
this
limit,
and
therefore
the
states
would
not
be
required
to
develop
their
own
risk
assessment
guidance
or
to
conduct
source­
specific
risk
assessments.

Response:
We
acknowledge
that
review
of
the
eligibility
demonstrations
for
the
alternative
compliance
options
will
require
resources
for
verification
of
information
and
may
require
expertise
in
risk
assessment
methodology
that
is
lacking
in
some
States.
We
have
considered
the
commenters'
concerns
in
developing
the
criteria
defining
eligibility
for
thes
alternative
compliance
options,
and
we
believe
that
the
approach
that
is
included
in
the
final
rule
provides
clear,
flexible
requirements
and
enforceable
compliance
parameters.
The
final
rule
provides
two
ways
that
a
facility
may
demonstrate
eligibility.
First,
look­
up
tables,
which
are
included
as
Tables
2
(
HCl)
and
3
(
Mn)
in
Appendix
A
of
subpart
DDDDD,

allow
facilities
to
determine,
using
a
limited
number
of
site­
specific
input
parameters,
whether
emissions
from
their
sources
might
cause
a
hazard
index
limit
(
hazard
quotient
in
the
case
of
Mn)
to
be
exceeded.
If
a
facility
cannot
demonstrate
eligibility
using
a
look­
up
table,
a
threetiered
modeling
approach
(
each
tier
less
conservative
and
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
43
of
147
more
complex
than
the
previous)
can
be
followed.
Appendix
A
to
the
final
rule
presents
the
methodology
and
criteria
for
performing
the
site­
specific
risk
assessment.

Regarding
commenters'
concerns
with
looking
for
a
threshold
level
for
carcinogens,
the
alternative
compliance
options
only
applies
to
acid
gases
and
manganese,
which
are
not
carcinogens.
Also,
regarding
the
concern
expressed
by
a
commenter
about
exempting
a
facility
based
on
limited
emission
data
if
EPA
established
a
subcategory
listing
lowrisk
sources,
we
have
not
used
section
112(
c)(
9)
authority
to
establish
a
low­
risk
subcategory
for
the
Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
source
category.
With
respect
to
guidance
for
performing
site­
specific
risk
assessments,
all
of
the
procedures
for
performing
the
risk
assessments
are
provided
in
EPA's
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library,"

which
is
referenced
from
Appendix
A,
and
therefore,
no
additional
guidance
needs
to
be
developed.

Only
a
portion
of
the
major
facilities
in
the
large
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters
subcategory
will
submit
eligibility
demonstrations
for
the
alternative
compliance
options.
Of
this
portion
of
major
sources,
we
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
44
of
147
believe
that
most
will
be
able
to
demonstrate
eligibility
based
on
screening
analyses
(
e.
g.,
using
a
look­
up
table
or
performing
a
Tier
1
site­
specific
risk
assessment).

However,
it
is
likely
that
some
facilities
will
submit
detailed
Tier
2
or
3
risk
modeling
results.
The
criteria
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
alternative
compliance
options
are
clearly
spelled
out
in
the
final
rule.
Because
these
requirements
are
clearly
spelled
out
and
because
any
standards
or
requirements
created
under
section
112
are
considered
applicable
requirements
under
part
70,
the
alternative
compliance
options
would
be
incorporated
into
Title
V
programs,
and
States
would
not
have
to
overhaul
existing
permitting
programs.

Finally,
with
respect
to
the
burden
associated
with
ongoing
assurance
that
facilities
remain
low­
risk,
the
burden
to
States
will
be
minimal.
Rather
than
developing
detailed
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
facilities
that
initially
qualify
for
the
alternative
compliance
options,
we
are
requiring
periodic
review
and
certification
every
five
years
to
ensure
continuing
compliance.
Additionally,
before
changing
key
parameters
that
may
result
in
lower
allowable
risk­
based
emission
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
45
of
147
limits
or
changing
the
affected
sources,
the
facility
is
required
to
recalculate
the
emission
limits
under
the
riskbased
provisions
of
the
final
rule
and
submit
documentation
to
the
permitting
authority
supporting
continued
eligibility
for
the
alternative
compliance
option.

With
respect
to
our
consideration
of
the
public
process
required
in
reviewing/
approving
the
proposed
approaches
and
making
substantial
changes
to
existing
regulations,
our
inclusion
of
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
in
the
Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
MACT
standard
applies
only
to
that
specific
standard
and
does
not
directly
impact
other
regulations.

Furthermore,
the
Industrial/
Commercial/
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
proposal
provided
the
public
with
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
consideration
of
risk
in
the
final
rule.

Regarding
the
costs
and
resources
associated
with
assuring
adequate
public
participation
in
the
process
of
reviewing
the
risk
analyses,
draft
permits
and
permit
applications
must
be
made
available
from
the
state
or
local
agency
responsible
for
issuing
the
permit,
or
in
the
case
where
EPA
is
issuing
the
permit,
from
the
EPA
regional
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
46
of
147
office.
Members
of
the
public
may
request
that
the
state
or
local
agency
include
them
on
their
public
notice
mailing
list,
thus
providing
the
public
the
opportunity
to
review
the
risk
analysis.
Therefore,
most
of
the
burden
of
assuring
public
participation
falls
on
the
public
to
notify
the
permitting
authority
of
their
interest
in
the
permitting
process.
Regarding
the
opportunity
for
public
participation,
every
proposed
Title
V
permit
has
a
30
day
public
comment
period
and
a
45
day
EPA
review
period.
If
EPA
does
not
object
to
the
permit,
any
member
of
the
public
may
petition
EPA
to
object
to
the
permit
within
60
days
of
the
end
of
the
EPA
review
period.

We
acknowledge
the
comments
regarding
comments
submitted
by
others.
However,
we
will
respond
to
those
specific
comments
submitted
by
others
rather
than
agreeing
or
disagreeing
with
one
commenter's
assessment
of
another's
comments.

V.
Impacts
of
the
Final
Rule
A.
What
are
the
air
impacts?

Table
2
of
this
preamble
illustrates,
for
each
subcategory,
the
emissions
reductions
achieved
by
the
final
rule
(
i.
e.,
the
difference
in
emissions
between
a
boiler
or
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
47
of
147
process
heater
controlled
to
the
floor
level
of
control
and
boilers
or
process
heaters
at
the
current
baseline)
for
new
and
existing
sources.
Nationwide
emissions
of
selected
HAP
(
i.
e.,
HCl,
hydrogen
fluoride,
lead,
and
nickel)
will
be
reduced
by
58,500
tpy
for
existing
units
and
73
tpy
for
new
units.
Emissions
of
HCl
will
be
reduced
by
42,000
tpy
for
existing
units
and
72
tpy
for
new
units.
Emissions
of
mercury
will
be
reduced
by
1.9
tpy
for
existing
units
and
0.006
tpy
for
new
units.
Emissions
of
PM
will
be
reduced
by
565,000
tpy
for
existing
units
and
480
tpy
for
new
units.

Emissions
of
total
selected
nonmercury
metals
(
i.
e.,

arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,

nickel,
and
selenium)
will
be
reduced
by
1,100
tpy
for
existing
units
and
will
be
reduced
by
1.4
tpy
for
new
units.

In
addition,
emissions
of
sulfur
dioxide
are
established
to
be
reduced
by
113,000
tpy
for
existing
sources
and
110
tpy
for
new
sources.
A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
emissions
and
emissions
reductions
is
presented
in
"
Estimation
of
Baseline
Emissions
and
Emissions
Reductions
for
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters"
in
the
docket.

TABLE
2.
SUMMARY
OF
EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS
FOR
EXISTING
AND
NEW
SOURCES
(
TPY)
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
48
of
147
Source
Subcategory
HCl
PM
Non
Mercury
Metalsa
Mercury
Large
solid
units
42,100
560,000
1,100
2
Small
solid
units
0
0
0
0
Limited
use
solid
units
0
2,800
8
0.002
Liquid
units
0
0
0
0
Existing
Units
Gaseous
units
0
0
0
0
Large
solid
units
70
31
0.01
0.006
Small
solid
units
2.4
440
1.4
0.0006
Limited
use
solid
units
0.2
11
0.02
0.00002
Liquid
units
0
0
0
0
New
Units
Gaseous
units
0
0
0
0
a
Includes
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
nickel,
and
selenium.

Our
estimates
regarding
reductions
in
HAP
and
criteria
pollutant
emissions
will
necessarily
be
affected
by
the
extent
to
which
sources
demonstrate
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.

B.
What
are
the
water
and
solid
waste
impacts?

The
EPA
estimates
the
additional
water
usage
that
would
result
from
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
to
be
110
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
49
of
147
million
gallons
per
year
for
existing
sources
and
0.6
million
gallons
per
year
for
new
sources.
In
addition
to
the
increased
water
usage,
an
additional
3.7
million
gallons
per
year
of
wastewater
will
be
produced
for
existing
sources
and
0.6
million
gallons
per
year
for
new
sources.
The
costs
of
treating
the
additional
wastewater
are
$
18,000
for
existing
sources
and
$
2,300
for
new
sources,
in
advance
of
any
facility
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.
These
costs
are
accounted
for
in
the
control
costs
estimates.

The
EPA
estimates
the
additional
solid
waste
that
would
result
from
the
MACT
floor
level
of
control
to
be
102,000
tpy
for
existing
sources
and
1
tpy
for
new
sources.
The
estimated
costs
of
handling
the
additional
solid
waste
generated
are
$
1.5
million
for
existing
sources
and
$
17,000
for
new
sources,
in
advance
of
any
facility
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.
These
costs
are
also
accounted
for
in
the
control
costs
estimates.

A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
impacts
is
presented
in
"
Estimation
of
Impacts
for
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP"
in
the
docket.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
50
of
147
C.
What
are
the
energy
impacts?

The
EPA
expects
an
increase
of
approximately
1,130
million
kilowatt
hours
(
kWh)
in
national
annual
energy
usage
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule,
in
advance
of
any
facility
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.
Of
this
amount,
1,120
million
kWh
is
estimated
from
existing
sources
and
13
million
kWh
is
estimated
from
new
sources.

The
increase
results
from
the
electricity
required
to
operate
control
devices
installed
to
meet
the
final
rule,

such
as
wet
scrubbers
and
fabric
filters.

D.
What
are
the
control
costs?

To
estimate
the
national
cost
impacts
of
the
final
rule
for
existing
sources,
EPA
developed
several
model
boilers
and
process
heaters
and
determined
the
cost
of
control
equipment
for
these
model
boilers.
The
EPA
assigned
a
model
boiler
or
heater
to
each
existing
unit
in
the
database
based
on
the
fuel,
size,
design,
and
current
controls.
The
analysis
considered
all
air
pollution
control
equipment
currently
in
operation
at
existing
boilers
and
process
heaters.
Model
costs
were
then
assigned
to
all
existing
units
that
could
not
otherwise
meet
the
proposed
emission
limits.
The
resulting
total
national
cost
impact
of
the
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
51
of
147
final
rule
is
$
1,790
million
in
capital
expenditures
and
$
860
million
per
year
in
total
annual
costs,
in
advance
of
any
facility
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions..
The
total
capital
and
annual
costs
include
costs
for
testing,
monitoring,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting.
Table
3
of
this
preamble
shows
the
capital
and
annual
cost
impacts
for
each
subcategory.
Costs
include
testing
and
monitoring
costs,
but
not
recordkeeping
and
reporting
costs.

TABLE
3.
SUMMARY
OF
CAPITAL
AND
ANNUAL
COSTS
FOR
NEW
AND
EXISTING
SOURCES
Source
Subcategory
Estimated/
Projected
No.
of
Affected
Units
Annualized
Cost
(
106
$/
yr)
Capital
Costs
(
106$)

Large
solid
units
3,481
814
1,605
Small
solid
units
327
0
0
Limited
use
solid
units
249
23
105
Liquid
units
7,251
0
0
Existing
Units
Gaseous
units
46,892
0
0
Large
solid
units
211
10
21
New
Units
Small
solid
units
25
3
3
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
52
of
147
Limited
use
solid
units
11
1
1
Large
liquid
units
90
1
3
Small
liquid
units
164
0
0
Limited
use
liquid
units
51
0.3
2
Gaseous
units
3,463
11
51
Using
Department
of
Energy
projections
on
fuel
expenditures,
EPA
estimated
the
number
of
additional
boilers
that
could
be
potentially
constructed.
The
resulting
total
national
cost
impact
of
the
final
rule
in
the
5th
year
is
$
58
million
in
capital
expenditures
and
$
18.6
million
per
year
in
total
annual
costs,
in
advance
of
any
facility
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
provisions..

Costs
are
mainly
for
testing
and
monitoring.

A
discussion
of
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
cost
impacts
is
presented
in
"
Methodology
and
Results
of
Estimating
the
Cost
of
Complying
with
the
Industrial,

Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boiler
and
Process
Heater
NESHAP"
in
the
docket.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
53
of
147
E.
What
are
the
economic
impacts?

The
economic
impact
analysis
shows
that
the
expected
price
increase
for
output
in
the
40
affected
industries
would
be
no
more
than
0.04
percent
as
a
result
of
the
final
rule
for
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters.
The
expected
change
in
production
of
affected
output
is
a
reduction
of
only
0.03
percent
or
less
in
the
same
industries.
In
addition,
impacts
to
affected
energy
markets
show
that
prices
of
petroleum,
natural
gas,
electricity
and
coal
should
increase
by
no
more
than
0.05
percent
as
a
result
of
implementation
of
the
final
rule,
and
output
of
these
types
of
energy
should
decrease
by
no
more
than
0.01
percent.
Therefore,
it
is
likely
that
there
is
no
adverse
impact
expected
to
occur
for
those
industries
that
produce
output
affected
by
the
final
rule,
such
as
lumber
and
wood
products,
chemical
manufacturers,
petroleum
refining,
and
furniture
manufacturing.

F.
What
are
the
social
costs
and
benefits
of
the
final
rule?

Our
assessment
of
costs
and
benefits
of
the
final
rule
is
detailed
in
the
"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
54
of
147
and
Process
Heaters
MACT."
The
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA)
is
located
in
the
Docket.

It
is
estimated
that
3
years
after
implementation
of
the
final
rule,
HAP
will
be
reduced
by
58,500
tpy
(
53,200
megagrams
per
year
(
Mg/
yr))
due
to
reductions
in
arsenic,

beryllium,
HCl,
and
several
other
HAP
from
existing
affected
emission
sources.
Of
these
reductions,
42,000
tpy
(
38,200
Mg/
yr)
are
of
HCl.
In
addition
to
these
reductions,
there
are
73
tpy
(
66
Mg/
yr)
of
HAP
reductions
expected
from
new
sources.
Of
these
reductions,
virtually
all
of
them
are
of
HCl.
The
health
effects
associated
with
these
HAP
are
discussed
earlier
in
this
preamble.
While
it
is
beneficial
to
society
to
reduce
these
HAP,
we
are
unable
to
quantify
and
provide
a
monetized
estimate
of
the
benefits
at
this
time.

Despite
our
inability
to
quantify
and
provide
monetized
benefit
estimates
from
HAP
reductions,
it
is
possible
to
derive
rough
estimates
for
one
of
the
more
important
benefit
categories,
i.
e.,
the
potential
number
of
cancer
cases
avoided
and
cancer
risk
reduced
as
a
result
of
the
imposition
of
the
MACT
level
of
control
on
this
source
category.
Our
analysis
suggests
that
imposition
of
the
MACT
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
55
of
147
level
of
control
would
reduce
cancer
cases
by
possibly
tens
of
cases
per
year,
on
average,
starting
some
years
after
implementation
of
the
final
rule.
This
risk
reduction
estimate
is
uncertain
and
should
be
regarded
as
an
extremely
rough
estimate,
and
should
be
viewed
in
the
context
of
the
full
spectrum
of
unquantified
noncancer
effects
associated
with
the
HAP
reductions.
Noncancer
effects
associated
with
the
HAP
are
presented
earlier
in
this
preamble.

The
control
technologies
used
to
reduce
the
level
of
HAP
emitted
from
affected
sources
are
also
expected
to
reduce
emissions
of
PM
(
PM10,
PM2.5),
and
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2
).
It
is
estimated
that
PM10
emissions
reductions
total
approximately
562,000
tpy
(
510,000
Mg/
yr),
PM2.5
emissions
reductions
total
approximately
159,000
tpy
(
145,000
Mg/
yr),

and
SO2
emissions
reductions
total
approximately
113,000
tpy
(
102,670
Mg/
yr).
These
estimated
reductions
occur
from
existing
sources
in
operation
3
years
after
the
implementation
of
the
requirements
of
the
final
rule
and
are
expected
to
continue
throughout
the
life
of
the
sources.

Human
health
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
PM10
and
PM2.5
include
premature
mortality
(
short­
term
exposure
to
PM10
and
long­
term
exposure
to
PM2.5),
chronic
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
56
of
147
bronchitis,
additional
hospital
admissions
from
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
causes,
acute
respiratory
symptoms,
and
other
effects.
Welfare
effects
associated
with
PM10
and
PM
2.5
emissions
include
impaired
recreational
and
residential
visibility,
household
soiling,
and
materials
damage.
As
SO2
emissions
transform
into
PM,
they
can
lead
to
the
same
health
and
welfare
effects
listed
above.

For
PM10
and
PM2.5,
we
provide
a
monetary
estimate
for
the
benefits
associated
with
the
reduction
of
the
emissions,

and
we
conducted
several
analyses
recently
that
estimate
the
monetized
benefits
of
PM
reductions,
including:
the
RIA
of
the
PM/
Ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS)

(
1997),
the
Nitrogen
Oxide
(
NOx)
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
Call
(
1998),
the
CAA
section
126
RIA
(
1999),
a
study
conducted
for
section
812(
b)
of
the
CAA
(
1999),
the
Tier
2/
Gasoline
Sulfur
Standards
(
1999),
and
the
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
Standards
(
2000).

On
September
26,
2002,
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
(
NAS)
released
a
report
on
its
review
of
the
Agency's
methodology
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
measures
taken
to
reduce
air
pollution.
The
report
focused
on
EPA's
approach
for
estimating
the
health
benefits
of
regulations
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
57
of
147
designed
to
reduce
concentrations
of
airborne
PM.

In
its
report,
the
NAS
said
that
EPA
has
generally
used
a
reasonable
framework
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
PM­
control
measures.
It
recommended,
however,
that
the
Agency
take
a
number
of
steps
to
improve
its
benefits
analysis.
In
particular,
the
NAS
stated
that
the
Agency
should:

(
1)
Include
benefits
estimates
for
a
range
of
regulatory
options;

(
2)
Estimate
benefits
for
intervals,
such
as
every
5
years,
rather
than
a
single
year;

(
3)
Clearly
state
the
projected
baseline
statistics
used
in
estimating
health
benefits,

including
those
for
air
emissions,
air
quality,

and
health
outcomes;

(
4)
Examine
whether
implementation
of
proposed
regulations
might
cause
unintended
impacts
on
human
health
or
the
environment;

(
5)
When
appropriate,
use
data
from
non­
U.
S.
studies
to
broaden
age
ranges
to
which
current
estimates
apply
and
to
include
more
types
of
relevant
health
outcomes;
and
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
58
of
147
(
6)
Begin
to
move
the
assessment
of
uncertainties
from
its
ancillary
analyses
into
its
primary
analyses
by
conducting
probabilistic,
multiplesource
uncertainty
analyses.
This
assessment
should
be
based
on
available
data
and
expert
judgment.

Although
the
NAS
made
a
number
of
recommendations
for
improvement
in
EPA's
approach,
it
found
that
the
studies
selected
by
EPA
for
use
in
its
benefits
analysis
were
generally
reasonable
choices.
In
particular,
the
NAS
agreed
with
EPA's
decision
to
use
cohort
studies
to
derive
benefits
estimates.
It
also
concluded
that
the
Agency's
selection
of
the
American
Cancer
Society
(
ACS)
study
for
the
evaluation
of
PM­
related
premature
mortality
was
reasonable,
although
it
noted
the
publication
of
new
cohort
studies
that
should
be
evaluated
by
the
Agency.

Several
of
the
NAS
recommendations
addressed
the
issue
of
uncertainty
and
how
the
Agency
can
better
analyze
and
communicate
the
uncertainties
associated
with
its
benefits
assessments.
In
particular,
the
Committee
expressed
concern
about
the
Agency's
reliance
on
a
single
value
from
its
analysis
and
suggested
that
EPA
develop
a
probabilistic
approach
for
analyzing
the
health
benefits
of
proposed
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
59
of
147
regulatory
actions.
The
Agency
agrees
with
this
suggestion
and
is
working
to
develop
such
an
approach
for
use
in
future
rulemakings.

In
the
benefits
analysis
for
the
rule,
the
Agency
has
used
an
interim
approach
that
shows
the
impact
of
several
important
alternative
assumptions
about
the
estimation
and
valuation
of
reductions
in
premature
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis.
This
approach,
which
was
developed
in
the
context
of
the
Agency's
Clear
Skies
analysis,
provides
an
alternative
estimate
of
health
benefits
using
the
time
series
studies
in
place
of
cohort
studies,
as
well
as
alternative
valuation
methods
for
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis
risk
reductions.

For
the
final
rule,
we
conducted
an
air
quality
assessment
to
determine
the
change
in
ambient
concentrations
of
PM10
and
PM2.5
that
result
from
reductions
of
PM
and
SO2
at
existing
affected
facilities.
Our
air
quality
analysis
was
conducted
using
the
source­
receptor
(
S­
R)
matrix
model,

a
model
that
provides
changes
in
PM10
and
PM2.5
concentrations
based
on
changes
in
PM
and/
or
PM
precursor
emissions.
Unfortunately,
our
data
is
not
able
to
define
the
exact
location
of
the
reductions
for
every
affected
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
60
of
147
boiler
and
process
heater.
The
air
quality
analysis
was
conducted
for
emissions
reductions
from
those
emissions
sources
that
have
an
known
link
to
a
specific
control
device,
which
represents
approximately
50
percent
of
the
total
emissions
reductions
mentioned
above.
Using
this
subset
of
information,
we
utilized
the
S­
R
matrix
to
determined
the
air
quality
change
nationwide.
The
results
of
the
air
quality
assessment
served
as
input
to
a
model
that
estimates
the
total
monetary
value
of
benefits
of
the
health
effects
listed
above.
Total
benefits
associated
with
this
portion
of
the
analysis
are
$
8.2
billion
in
the
year
2005
(
presented
in
1998
dollars).

For
those
emissions
reductions
from
affected
sources
that
do
not
have
a
known
link
to
a
specific
control
device,

the
results
of
the
air
quality
analysis
serve
as
a
reasonable
approximation
of
air
quality
changes
to
transfer
to
the
remaining
emissions
reductions
of
the
final
rule.

Because
there
is
not
a
reasonable
way
to
apportion
the
total
benefits
of
the
combined
impact
of
the
PM
and
SO2
reductions
from
the
air
quality
and
benefit
analyses
completed
above,

we
performed
two
additional
S­
R
matrix
analyses.
One
analysis
was
performed
to
evaluate
the
impact
on
air
quality
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
61
of
147
of
the
PM
reductions
alone
(
holding
SO2
unchanged),
and
one
to
evaluate
the
impact
on
air
quality
from
the
SO2
reductions
alone
(
holding
PM
unchanged).
With
independent
PM
and
SO2
air
quality
assessments,
we
can
determine
the
total
benefit
associated
with
each
component
of
total
pollutant
reductions.
The
total
benefit
associated
with
the
PM
and
SO2
reductions
with
unspecified
location
are
$
7.9
billion.

Every
benefit­
cost
analysis
examining
the
potential
effects
of
a
change
in
environmental
protection
requirements
is
limited
to
some
extent
by
data
gaps,
limitations
in
model
capabilities
(
such
as
geographic
coverage),
and
uncertainties
in
the
underlying
scientific
and
economic
studies
used
to
configure
the
benefit
and
cost
models.

Deficiencies
in
the
scientific
literature
often
result
in
the
inability
to
estimate
changes
in
health
and
environmental
effects,
such
as
potential
increases
in
premature
mortality
associated
with
increased
exposure
to
carbon
monoxide.
Deficiencies
in
the
economics
literature
often
result
in
the
inability
to
assign
economic
values
even
to
those
health
and
environmental
outcomes
which
can
be
quantified.
While
these
general
uncertainties
in
the
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
62
of
147
underlying
scientific
and
economics
literatures
are
discussed
in
detail
in
the
RIA
and
its
supporting
documents
and
references,
the
key
uncertainties
which
have
a
bearing
on
the
results
of
the
benefit­
cost
analysis
of
the
final
rule
are
the
following:

(
1)
The
exclusion
of
potentially
significant
benefit
categories
(
e.
g.,
health
and
ecological
benefits
of
reduction
in
hazardous
air
pollutants
emissions);

(
2)
Errors
in
measurement
and
projection
for
variables
such
as
population
growth;

(
3)
Uncertainties
in
the
estimation
of
future
year
emissions
inventories
and
air
quality;

(
4)
Uncertainties
associated
with
the
extrapolation
of
air
quality
monitoring
data
to
some
unmonitored
areas
required
to
better
capture
the
effects
of
the
standards
on
the
affected
population;

(
5)
Variability
in
the
estimated
relationships
of
health
and
welfare
effects
to
changes
in
pollutant
concentrations;
and
(
6)
Uncertainties
associated
with
the
benefit
transfer
approach.

Despite
these
uncertainties,
we
feel
the
benefit­
cost
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
63
of
147
analysis
provides
a
reasonable
indication
of
the
expected
economic
benefits
of
the
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
MACT
under
two
sets
of
assumptions.

We
have
used
two
approaches
(
primary
and
alternative
estimates)
to
provide
benefits
in
health
effects
and
in
monetary
terms.
They
differ
in
the
method
used
to
estimate
and
value
reduce
incidences
of
mortality
and
chronic
bronchitis,
which
is
explained
in
detail
in
the
RIA.
While
there
is
a
substantial
difference
in
the
specific
estimates,

both
approaches
show
that
the
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
MACT
may
provide
benefits
to
public
health,
whether
expressed
as
health
improvements
or
as
economic
benefits.

These
include
prolonging
lives,
reducing
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis
and
hospital
admissions,
and
reducing
thousands
of
cases
in
other
indicators
of
adverse
health
effects,
such
as
work
loss
days,
restricted
activity
days,
and
days
with
asthma
attacks.
In
addition,
there
are
a
number
of
health
and
environmental
effects
which
we
were
unable
to
quantify
or
monetize.
These
effects,
denoted
by
"
B"
are
additive
to
the
both
the
primary
and
alternative
estimates
of
benefits.

Results
also
reflect
the
use
of
two
different
discount
rates
for
the
valuation
of
reduced
incidences
of
mortality;
a
3
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
64
of
147
percent
rate
which
is
recommended
by
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analysis
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2000a),
and
7
percent
which
is
recommended
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
Circular
A
 
94
(
OMB,
1992).

More
specifically,
the
base
estimate
of
benefits
reflects
the
use
of
peer­
reviewed
methodologies
developed
for
earlier
risk
and
benefit­
cost
assessments
related
to
the
CAA,
such
as
the
regulatory
assessments
of
the
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
and
Tier
II
Rules
and
the
Section
812
Report
to
Congress.
The
alternative
estimate
explores
important
aspects
of
the
key
elements
underlying
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
PM
and
SO2
emissions,
specifically
focusing
on
estimation
and
valuation
of
mortality
risk
reduction
and
valuation
of
chronic
bronchitis.
The
alternative
estimate
of
mortality
reduction
relies
on
recent
scientific
studies
finding
an
association
between
increased
mortality
and
short­
term
exposure
to
particulate
matter
over
days
to
weeks,
while
the
base
estimate
relies
on
a
recent
reanalysis
of
earlier
studies
that
associate
long­
term
exposure
to
fine
particles
with
increased
mortality.
The
alternative
estimate
differs
in
the
following
ways:
it
explicitly
omits
any
impact
of
long­
term
exposure
on
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
65
of
147
premature
mortality,
it
uses
different
data
on
valuation
and
makes
adjustments
relating
to
the
health
status
and
potential
longevity
of
the
populations
most
likely
affected
by
PM,
it
also
uses
a
cost­
of­
illness
method
to
value
reductions
in
cases
of
chronic
bronchitis
while
the
base
estimate
is
based
on
individual's
willingness
to
pay
to
avoid
a
case
of
chronic
bronchitis.

In
addition,
one
key
area
of
uncertainty
is
the
value
of
a
statistical
life
(
VSL)
for
risk
reductions
in
mortality,
which
is
also
the
category
of
benefits
that
accounts
for
a
large
portion
of
the
total
benefit
estimate.

The
adoption
of
a
value
for
the
projected
reduction
in
the
risk
of
premature
mortality
is
the
subject
of
continuing
discussion
within
the
economic
and
public
policy
analysis
community.
There
is
general
agreement
that
the
value
to
an
individual
of
a
reduction
in
mortality
risk
can
vary
based
on
several
factors,
including
the
age
of
the
individual,
the
type
of
risk,
the
level
of
control
the
individual
has
over
the
risk,
the
individual's
attitude
toward
risk,
and
the
health
status
of
the
individual.

The
Environmental
Economics
Advisory
Committee
(
EEAC)

of
the
EPA
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB)
recently
issued
an
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
66
of
147
advisory
report
that
states
that
"
the
theoretically
appropriate
method
is
to
calculate
willingness
to
pay
for
individuals
whose
ages
correspond
to
those
of
the
affected
population,
and
that
it
is
preferable
to
base
these
calculations
on
empirical
estimates
of
willing
to
pay
by
age."
(
EPA­
SAB­
EEAC­
00­
013).
In
developing
our
base
estimate
of
the
benefits
of
premature
mortality
reductions,

we
have
appropriately
discounted
over
the
lag
period
between
exposure
and
premature
mortality.
However,
the
empirical
basis
for
adjusting
the
current
$
6
million
VSL
for
other
factors
does
not
yet
justify
including
these
in
our
base
estimate.
A
discussion
of
these
factors
is
contained
in
the
RIA
and
supporting
documents.
The
EPA
recognizes
the
need
for
additional
research
by
the
scientific
community
to
develop
additional
empirical
support
for
adjustments
to
VSL
for
the
factors
mentioned
above.
Furthermore,
EPA
prefers
not
to
draw
distinctions
in
the
monetary
value
assigned
to
the
lives
saved
even
if
they
differ
in
age,
health
status,

socioeconomic
status,
gender
or
other
characteristic
of
the
adult
population.

Given
the
advice
from
the
SAB,
we
employed
the
suggested
approach
for
the
benefit
analysis
of
the
Heavy
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
67
of
147
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
standard
conducted
in
2000,
and
for
the
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boiler
and
Process
Heater
NESHAP
discussed
in
this
preamble.
A
full
discussion
of
considerations
made
in
our
presentation
of
benefits
is
summarized
in
the
preamble
of
the
Final
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Program
issued
in
December
2000,
and
in
all
supporting
documentation
and
analyses
of
the
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Program,
and
in
the
RIA
for
the
final
rule.

In
addition
to
the
presentation
of
mortality
valuation,

our
estimate
also
includes
a
"
B"
to
represent
those
additional
health
and
environmental
benefits
which
could
not
be
expressed
in
quantitative
incidence
and/
or
economic
value
terms.
A
full
listing
of
the
benefit
categories
that
could
not
be
quantified
or
monetized
in
our
estimate
are
provided
in
the
RIA
for
the
final
rule.
A
full
appreciation
of
the
overall
economic
consequences
of
the
industrial
boiler
and
process
heater
standards
requires
consideration
of
all
benefits
and
costs
expected
to
result
from
the
final
rule,

not
just
those
benefits
and
costs
that
could
be
expressed
here
in
dollar
terms.
A
full
listing
of
the
benefit
categories
that
could
not
be
quantified
or
monetized
in
our
base
estimate,
and
hence
in
total
represent
what
we
defined
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
68
of
147
as
"
B"
above,
are
provided
in
Table
5
of
this
preamble.

TABLE
5.
 
UNQUANTIFIED
BENEFIT
CATEGORIES
Unquantified
benefit
categories
associated
with
HAP
Unquantified
benefit
categories
associated
with
PM
Health
Categorie
s
 
Airway
responsiveness
 
Pulmonary
inflammation
 
Increases
susceptibility
to
respiratory
infection
 
Acute
inflammation
and
respiratory
cell
damage
 
Chronic
respiratory
damage/
Premature
aging
of
lungs
 
Emergency
room
visits
for
asthma
Welfare
Categorie
s
 
Ecosystem
and
vegetation
effects
 
Damage
to
urban
ornamentals
(
e.
g.
grass,
flowers,
shrubs,
and
trees
in
urban
areas)
 
Commercial
field
crops
 
Fruit
and
vegetable
crops
 
Reduced
yields
of
tree
seedlings,
commercial
and
non­
commercial
forests
 
Damage
to
ecosystems
 
Materials
damage
 
Changes
in
pulmonary
function.
 
Morphological
changes.
Altered
host
defense
mechanisms
 
Cancer
 
Other
chronic
respiratory
disease
 
Emergency
room
visits
for
asthma
 
Emergency
visits
for
non­
asthma
respiratory
and
cardiovascular
causes
 
Lower
and
upper
respiratory
systems
 
Acute
bronchitis
 
Shortness
of
breath
 
Increased
school
absence
rates
 
Materials
damage
 
Damage
to
ecosystems
(
e.
g.,
acid
sulfate
deposition).
 
Nitrates
in
drinking
water
 
Visibility
in
recreational
and
residential
areas
In
summary,
the
base
estimate
using
the
VSL
approach
yields
a
total
monetized
benefit
estimate
of
$
16.1
billion
+
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
69
of
147
B
(
1999
dollars)
in
2005
when
using
a
3
percent
interest
rate
(
or
approximately
$
15.4
billion
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
interest
rate.)
The
alternative
estimate
totals
approximately
$
2.4
billion
+
B
when
using
a
3
percent
interest
rate
(
or
approximately
$
2.6
billion
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
interest
rate).

Using
the
results
of
the
benefit
analysis,
we
can
use
benefit­
cost
comparison
(
or
net
benefits)
as
another
tool
to
evaluate
the
reallocation
of
society's
resources
needed
to
address
the
pollution
externality
created
by
the
operation
of
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters.
The
additional
costs
of
internalizing
the
pollution
produced
at
major
sources
of
emissions
from
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
are
compared
to
the
improvement
in
society's
wellbeing
from
a
cleaner
and
healthier
environment.
Comparing
benefits
of
the
final
rule
to
the
costs
imposed
by
alternative
ways
to
control
emissions
optimally
identifies
a
strategy
that
results
in
the
highest
net
benefit
to
society.

In
the
final
rule,
we
include
only
one
option,
the
minimal
level
of
control
mandated
by
the
CAA,
or
the
MACT
floor.

Other
alternatives
that
lead
to
higher
levels
of
control
(
or
beyond­
the­
floor
alternatives)
lead
to
higher
estimates
of
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
70
of
147
benefits
net
of
costs,
but
also
lead
to
additional
economic
impacts,
including
more
substantial
impacts
to
small
entities.
For
more
details,
please
refer
to
the
RIA
for
the
final
rule.

Table
6
of
this
preamble
presents
a
summary
of
costs,

benefits,
and
net
benefits
(
i.
e.,
benefits
minus
costs).

Based
on
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
final
rule
and
the
predicted
change
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industries,
the
estimated
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
$
780
million
(
1999
dollars).
Social
costs
are
different
from
compliance
costs
in
that
social
costs
take
into
account
the
interactions
consumers
of
affected
products
in
response
to
the
imposition
of
the
compliance
costs.

Therefore,
the
Agency's
base
estimate
of
monetized
benefits
net
of
costs
is
$
15.2
billion
+
B
(
1999
dollars)
in
2005
when
using
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
$
15
billion
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).

However,
using
the
more
conservative
alternative
estimate
of
benefits,
net
benefits
are
$
1.5
billion
+
B
(
1999
dollars)

under
a
3
percent
discount
rate
(
or
approximately
$
1.7
billion
+
B
when
using
a
7
percent
discount
rate).
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
71
of
147
In
both
cases,
net
benefits
would
be
greater
if
all
the
benefits
of
the
HAP
and
other
pollutant
reductions
could
be
quantified.
Notable
omissions
to
the
net
benefits
include
all
benefits
of
HAP
reductions,
including
reduced
cancer
incidences,
toxic
morbidity
effects,
and
cardiovascular
and
CNS
effects.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
not
all
benefits
of
SO2
and
PM
reductions
have
been
monetized.

TABLE
6.
 
ANNUAL
NET
BENEFITS
OF
THE
INDUSTRIAL
BOILERS
AND
PROCESS
HEATERS
NESHAP
IN
2005a
MACT
floor
(
million
1999$)
Beyond
the
MACT
floor
(
million
1999$)

Social
Costsb
$
837
$
1,923
Social
Benefits:
b,
c,
d
HAP­
related
health
and
welfare
benefits
Not
monetized
Not
monetized
PM­
related
welfare
benefits
Not
monetized
Not
monetized
SO2­
and
PM­
related
health
benefits:
Primary
Estimate
 
Using
3%
Discount
Rate
$
16,300
+
B
$
17,230
+
B
 
Using
7%
Discount
Rate
$
15,430
+
B
$
16,310
+
B
Alternative
Estimate
 
Using
3%
Discount
Rate
$
2,350
+
B
$
2,380
+
B
 
Using
7%
Discount
Rate
$
2,585
+
B
$
2,620
+
B
Net
Benefits
(
Benefits
­
Costs):
c,
d
Primary
Estimate
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
72
of
147
 
Using
3%
Discount
Rate
$
15,465
$
15,305
+
B
 
Using
7%
Discount
Rate
$
14,595
+
B
$
14,385
+
B
Alternative
Estimate
 
Using
3%
Discount
Rate
$
1,515
$
455
+
B
 
Using
7%
Discount
Rate
$
1,750
+
B
$
700
+
B
a
All
costs
and
benefits
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
$
5
million.
Thus,
figures
presented
in
this
table
may
not
exactly
equal
benefit
and
cost
numbers
presented
in
earlier
sections
of
the
chapter.
b
Note
that
costs
are
the
total
costs
of
reducing
all
pollutants,
including
HAP
as
well
as
SO2
and
PM10.
Benefits
in
this
table
are
associated
only
with
PM
and
SO2
reductions.
c
Not
all
possible
benefits
or
disbenefits
are
quantified
and
monetized
in
this
analysis.
Potential
benefit
categories
that
have
not
been
quantified
and
monetized
are
listed
in
Table
8
 
13
of
the
RIA.
B
is
the
sum
of
all
unquantified
benefits
and
disbenefits
(
i.
e,
the
potential
benefits
categories
listed
in
Table
5
above
and
also
in
Table
8­
13
of
the
RIA).
d
Monetized
benefits
are
presented
using
two
different
discount
rates.
Results
calculated
using
3
percent
discount
rate
are
recommended
by
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analyses
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2000a).
Results
calculated
using
7
percent
discount
rate
are
recommended
by
OMB
Circular
A
 
94
(
OMB,
1992).

G.
How
will
the
risk­
based
provisions
reduce
impacts?

Today's
final
rule
contains
risk­
based
provisions
establishing
eligibility
criteria
for
an
exemption
from
the
HCl
emission
limit
and
an
exclusion
from
including
manganese
in
the
total
selected
metals
emission
rate.
Therefore,
the
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
will
be
reduced.
The
reduction
in
costs,
environmental,
and
economic
impacts
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
73
of
147
associated
with
inclusion
of
the
risk­
based
provisions
in
the
final
rule
are
summarized
in
this
section.

1.
Estimated
Number
of
Eligible
Facilities
To
estimate
the
potential
impact
of
the
risk­
based
provisions,
EPA
performed
a
preliminary
"
rough"
assessment
of
the
large
solid
fuel
subcategory.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
rough
assessment,
448
coal­
fired
boilers
could
potentially
be
eligible
for
the
HCl
exemption
and
386
biomass­
fired
boilers
could
be
potentially
eligible
for
the
manganese
exclusion,
provided
these
assessments
are
confirmed
by
source­
specific
demonstrations.
The
difference
in
regulatory
impacts
due
to
inclusion
of
the
risk­
based
provisions
in
the
final
rule
are
summarized
in
the
following
paragraphs.

Based
on
the
HCl
lookup
table,
facilities
with
less
than
587
million
Btu
per
hour
heat
input
of
coal
capacity
would
be
exempt
from
complying
with
the
HCl
emission
limit.

Assuming
2
boilers
per
facility
and
the
uncontrolled
HCl
emission
factor,
this
would
indicate
coal­
fired
boilers
below
250
million
Btu
per
hour
would
not
incur
any
control
costs.
Based
on
the
manganese
lookup
table,
facilities
with
less
than
84
million
Btu
per
hour
heat
input
of
wood
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
74
of
147
capacity
would
be
able
to
exclude
manganese
from
the
total
selected
metals
emission
rate.
Assuming
2
boilers
per
facility
and
controlled
with
cyclones,
this
would
indicate
wood­
fired
boilers
below
45
million
Btu
per
hour
would
not
incur
any
control
costs.

2.
Air
quality
impacts
We
estimate
that
the
total
HAP
emissions
reductions
estimate
provided
in
section
III.
B
will
decrease
by
5600
tons/
yr)
due
to
facilities
becoming
eligible
for
the
riskbased
provisions.
Therefore,
considering
the
impact
of
facilities
becoming
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions,

we
estimate
that
today's
final
rule
will
result
in
a
total
reduction
in
HAP
emissions
of
52,400
tons/
yr.

Including
the
risk­
based
provisions
will
affect
the
estimates
of
criteria
pollutant
reductions
as
well.
We
estimate
that
PM
and
SO2
emissions
reductions
estimates
will
decrease
by
17,100
and
64,000
tons/
yr,
respectively.
As
a
result,
we
estimate
that
the
total
reduction
in
PM
and
SO2
emissions
will
be
approximately
549,000
and
49,000
tons/
yr,

respectively.

3.
Cost
impacts
Facilities
that
become
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
75
of
147
provisions
will
not
need
to
install
APCD
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
the
high­
end
estimated
costs
of
today's
final
rule
will
be
less
than
the
estimates
presented
in
section
V.
D
We
estimate
that
the
total
annualized
costs,

which
include
annualized
capital
costs
for
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
operation
and
maintenance
expenses,

and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
costs,
will
decrease
by
$
145
million.
Therefore,
we
estimate
that
the
total
annualized
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
$
690
million.

Economic
impacts.
(
ISEG
will
provide
after
final
decisions
made
and
analyses
completed)

Social
costs
and
benefits.
(
ISEG
will
provide
after
final
decisions
made
and
analyses
completed)

IV.
Summary
of
Responses
VI.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,

1993),
the
EPA
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
"
significant"
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
OMB
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
"
significant
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
76
of
147
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,

jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,

local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligation
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
the
EPA
has
determined
that
the
final
rule
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
it
has
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
over
$
100
million.
As
such,
the
final
rule
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
77
of
147
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
information
collection
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
approves
them.

The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,

recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
national
emission
standards.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
EPA
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.

The
final
rule
requires
maintenance
inspections
of
the
control
devices,
but
does
not
require
any
notifications
or
reports
beyond
those
required
by
the
General
Provisions.

The
recordkeeping
requirements
require
only
the
specific
information
needed
to
determine
compliance.

The
annual
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
standards)
is
estimated
to
be
$
165
million.
This
includes
2.7
million
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
labor
cost
of
$
142
million
per
year,
and
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
78
of
147
total
non­
labor
capital
costs
of
$
24
million
per
year.
This
estimate
includes
a
one­
time
performance
test,
semiannual
excess
emission
reports,
maintenance
inspections,

notifications,
and
recordkeeping.
The
total
burden
for
the
Federal
government
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
standard)
is
estimated
to
be
346,000
hours
per
year
at
a
total
labor
cost
of
$
14
million
per
year.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,

or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,

validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
79
of
147
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.

The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
When
this
ICR
is
approved
by
OMB,
the
Agency
will
publish
a
technical
amendment
to
40
CFR
part
9
in
the
Federal
Register
to
display
the
OMB
control
number
for
the
approved
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
final
rule.

The
EPA
requested
comments
on
the
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,

and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,

including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
the
final
rule.
We
have
also
determined
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
80
of
147
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
by
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
category
of
the
owning
entity.

The
range
of
small
business
size
standards
for
the
40
affected
industries
ranges
from
500
to
1,000
employees,

except
for
petroleum
refining
and
electric
utilities.
In
these
latter
two
industries,
the
size
standard
is
1,500
employees
and
a
mass
throughput
of
75,000
barrels/
day
or
less,
and
4
million
kilowatt­
hours
of
production
or
less,

respectively;

(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impact
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities,
we
have
determined
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Based
on
SBA
size
definitions
for
the
affected
industries
and
reported
sales
and
employment
data,

EPA
identified
185
of
the
576
entities,
or
32
percent,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
81
of
147
owning
affected
facilities
as
small
entities.
Although
small
entities
represent
32
percent
of
the
entities
within
the
source
category,
they
are
expected
to
incur
only
4
percent
of
the
total
compliance
costs
of
$
862.7
million
(
1998
dollars).
There
are
only
ten
small
entities
with
compliance
costs
equal
to
or
greater
than
3
percent
of
their
sales.
In
addition,
there
are
only
24
small
entities
with
cost­
to­
sales
ratios
between
1
and
3
percent.

An
economic
impact
analysis
was
performed
to
estimate
the
changes
in
product
price
and
production
quantities
for
the
final
rule.
As
mentioned
in
the
summary
of
economic
impacts
earlier
in
this
preamble,
the
estimated
changes
in
prices
and
output
for
affected
entities
is
no
more
than
0.05
percent.

This
analysis
indicates
that
the
final
rule
should
not
generate
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
for
following
reasons.
First,
there
are
only
34
small
entities
(
or
18
percent
of
all
affected
small
entities)
with
compliance
costs
equal
to
or
greater
than
1
percent
of
their
sales.
Of
these,
only
ten
small
entities
(
or
5
percent
of
all
affected
small
entities)
with
compliance
costs
equal
to
or
greater
than
3
percent
of
their
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
82
of
147
sales.
Second,
the
results
of
the
economic
impact
analysis
show
minimal
impacts
on
prices
and
output
from
affected
firms,
including
small
entities,
due
to
the
implementation
of
the
final
rule.
This
analysis,
therefore,
allows
us
to
certify
that
there
will
not
be
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
from
the
implementation
of
the
final
rule.
For
more
information,
consult
the
docket
for
the
final
rule.

The
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
as
a
result
of
several
decisions
EPA
made
regarding
the
development
of
the
rule,
which
resulted
in
limiting
the
impact
of
the
rule
on
small
entities.
First,
as
mentioned
earlier
in
this
preamble,
EPA
identified
small
units
(
heat
input
of
10
MMBtu/
hr
or
less)
and
limited
use
boilers
(
operate
less
than
10
percent
of
the
time)
as
separate
subcategories
different
from
large
units.
Many
small
and
limited
use
units
are
located
at
small
entities.
As
also
discussed
earlier,
the
results
of
the
MACT
floor
analysis
for
these
subcategories
of
existing
sources
was
that
no
MACT
floor
could
be
identified
except
for
the
limited
use
solid
fuel
subcategory,
which
is
less
stringent
than
the
MACT
floor
for
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
83
of
147
large
units.
Furthermore,
the
results
of
the
beyond­

thefloor
analysis
for
these
subcategories
indicated
that
the
costs
would
be
too
high
to
consider
them
feasible
options.

Consequently,
the
final
rule
contains
no
emission
limitations
for
any
of
the
existing
small
and
limited
use
subcategories
except
the
existing
limited
use
solid
fuel
subcategory.
In
addition,
the
alternative
metals
emission
limit
resulted
in
minimizing
the
impacts
on
small
entities
since
some
of
the
potential
entities
burning
a
fuel
containing
very
little
metals
are
small
entities.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
to
State,
local,

and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
84
of
147
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
must
develop
a
small
government
agency
plan
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
promulgation
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

We
determined
that
the
final
rule
contains
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
85
of
147
more
for
State,
local,
and
Tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.

Accordingly,
we
have
prepared
a
written
statement
(
titled
"
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Analysis
for
the
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP)"
under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
which
is
summarized
below.

Statutory
Authority
As
discussed
in
section
I
of
this
preamble,
the
statutory
authority
for
the
final
rulemaking
is
section
112
of
the
CAA.
Title
III
of
the
CAA
Amendments
was
enacted
to
reduce
nationwide
air
toxic
emissions.
Section
112(
b)
of
the
CAA
lists
the
188
chemicals,
compounds,
or
groups
of
chemicals
deemed
by
Congress
to
be
HAP.
These
toxic
air
pollutants
are
to
be
regulated
by
NESHAP.

Section
112(
d)
of
the
CAA
directs
us
to
develop
NESHAP,

which
require
existing
and
new
major
sources
to
control
emissions
of
HAP
using
MACT
based
standards.
This
NESHAP
applies
to
all
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
located
at
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions.

In
compliance
with
section
205(
a)
of
the
UMRA,
we
identified
and
considered
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
86
of
147
alternatives.
Additional
information
on
the
costs
and
environmental
impacts
of
these
regulatory
alternatives
is
presented
in
the
docket.

The
regulatory
alternative
upon
which
the
final
rule
is
based
represents
the
MACT
floor
for
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters
and,
as
a
result,
it
is
the
least
costly
and
least
burdensome
alternative.

Social
Costs
and
Benefits
The
regulatory
impact
analysis
prepared
for
the
final
rule
including
the
EPA's
assessment
of
costs
and
benefits,

is
detailed
in
the
"
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
MACT"
in
the
docket.

Based
on
estimated
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
final
rule
and
the
predicted
change
in
prices
and
production
in
the
affected
industries,
the
estimated
social
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
$
780
million
(
1998
dollars).

It
is
estimated
that
5
years
after
implementation
of
the
final
rule,
HAP
will
be
reduced
by
58,500
tpy
due
to
reductions
in
arsenic,
beryllium,
dioxin,
hydrochloric
acid,

and
several
other
HAP
from
industrial
boilers
and
process
heaters.
Studies
have
determined
a
relationship
between
exposure
to
these
HAP
and
the
onset
of
cancer,
however,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
87
of
147
there
are
some
questions
remaining
on
how
cancers
that
may
result
from
exposure
to
these
HAP
can
be
quantified
in
terms
of
dollars.
Therefore,
the
EPA
is
unable
to
provide
a
monetized
estimate
of
the
benefits
of
the
HAP
reduced
by
the
final
rule
at
this
time.
However,
there
are
significant
reductions
in
PM
and
in
SO2
that
occur.
Reductions
of
560,000
tons
of
PM
with
a
diameter
of
less
than
or
equal
to
10
micrometers
(
PM10),
159,000
tons
of
PM
with
a
diameter
of
less
than
or
equal
to
2.5
micrometers
(
PM2.5),
and
112,000
tons
of
SO2
are
expected
to
occur.
These
reductions
occur
from
existing
sources
in
operation
5
years
after
the
implementation
of
the
regulation
and
are
expected
to
continue
throughout
the
life
of
the
affected
sources.
The
major
health
effect
that
results
from
these
PM
and
SO2
emissions
reductions
is
a
reduction
in
premature
mortality.

Other
health
effects
that
occur
are
reductions
in
chronic
bronchitis,
asthma
attacks,
and
work­
lost
days
(
i.
e.,
days
when
employees
are
unable
to
work).

While
we
are
unable
to
monetize
the
benefits
associated
with
the
HAP
emissions
reductions,
we
are
able
to
monetize
the
benefits
associated
with
the
PM
and
SO2
emissions
reductions.
For
SO2
and
PM,
we
estimated
the
benefits
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
88
of
147
associated
with
health
effects
of
PM,
but
were
unable
to
quantify
all
categories
of
benefits
(
particularly
those
associated
with
ecosystem
and
environmental
effects).

Unquantified
benefits
are
noted
with
"
B"
in
the
estimates
presented
below.
Our
primary
estimate
of
the
monetized
benefits
in
2005
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
proposed
alternative
is
$
16.1
billion
+
B
(
1998
dollars).

This
estimate
is
about
$
15.3
billion
+
B
(
1998
dollars)

higher
than
the
estimated
social
costs
shown
earlier
in
this
section.
The
Alternative
Estimate
of
benefits
is
$
2.7
billion
+
B
(
1998
dollars),
which
is
about
$
1.7
billion
+
B
higher
than
the
estimated
social
costs.
The
general
approach
to
calculating
monetized
benefits
is
discussed
in
more
detail
earlier
in
this
preamble.
For
more
detailed
information
on
the
benefits
estimated
for
the
final
rule,

refer
to
the
RIA
in
the
docket.

Future
and
Disproportionate
Costs
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Act
requires
that
we
estimate,

where
accurate
estimation
is
reasonably
feasible,
future
compliance
costs
imposed
by
the
rule
and
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects.
Our
estimates
of
the
future
compliance
costs
of
the
final
rule
are
discussed
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
89
of
147
previously
in
this
preamble.

We
do
not
feel
that
there
will
be
any
disproportionate
budgetary
effects
of
the
final
rule
on
any
particular
areas
of
the
country,
State
or
local
governments,
types
of
communities
(
e.
g.,
urban,
rural),
or
particular
industry
segments.
This
is
true
for
the
257
facilities
owned
by
54
different
government
bodies,
and
this
is
borne
out
by
the
results
of
the
"
Economic
Impact
Analysis
of
the
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
NESHAP,"
the
results
of
which
are
discussed
previously
in
this
preamble.

Effects
on
the
National
Economy
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Act
requires
that
we
estimate
the
effect
of
the
final
rule
on
the
national
economy.
To
the
extent
feasible,
we
must
estimate
the
effect
on
productivity,
economic
growth,
full
employment,
creation
of
productive
jobs,
and
international
competitiveness
of
the
U.
S.
goods
and
services,
if
we
determine
that
accurate
estimates
are
reasonably
feasible
and
that
such
effect
is
relevant
and
material.

The
nationwide
economic
impact
of
the
final
rule
is
presented
in
the
"
Economic
Impact
Analysis
for
the
Industrial
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
MACT"
in
the
docket.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
90
of
147
This
analysis
provides
estimates
of
the
effect
of
the
final
rule
on
some
of
the
categories
mentioned
above.
The
results
of
the
economic
impact
analysis
are
summarized
previously
in
this
preamble.
The
results
show
that
there
will
be
little
impact
on
prices
and
output
from
the
affected
industries,
and
little
impact
on
communities
that
may
be
affected
by
the
final
rule.
In
addition,
there
should
be
little
impact
on
energy
markets
(
in
this
case,
coal,
natural
gas,
petroleum
products,
and
electricity).
Hence,
the
potential
impacts
on
the
categories
mentioned
above
should
be
minimal.

Consultation
with
Government
Officials
The
Unfunded
Mandates
Act
requires
that
we
describe
the
extent
of
the
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
affected
State,

local,
and
tribal
officials,
summarize
the
officials'

comments
or
concerns,
and
summarize
our
response
to
those
comments
or
concerns.
In
addition,
section
203
of
the
UMRA
requires
that
we
develop
a
plan
for
informing
and
advising
small
governments
that
may
be
significantly
or
uniquely
impacted
by
a
rule.
Although
the
final
rule
does
not
significantly
affect
any
State,
local,
or
Tribal
governments,
we
have
consulted
with
State
and
local
air
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
91
of
147
pollution
control
officials.
We
also
have
held
meetings
on
the
final
rule
with
many
of
the
stakeholders
from
numerous
individual
companies,
environmental
groups,
consultants
and
vendors,
labor
unions,
and
other
interested
parties.
We
have
added
materials
to
the
docket
to
document
these
meetings.

In
addition,
we
have
determined
that
the
final
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
While
some
small
governments
may
have
some
sources
affected
by
the
final
rule,
the
impacts
are
not
expected
to
be
significant.

Therefore,
the
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications."

"
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications"
are
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
92
of
147
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.

The
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.

It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,

on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.

The
agency
is
required
by
section
112
of
the
CAA,
to
establish
the
standards
in
the
final
rule.
The
final
rule
primarily
affects
private
industry,
and
does
not
impose
significant
economic
costs
on
State
or
local
governments.

The
final
rule
does
not
include
an
express
provision
preempting
State
or
local
regulations.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.

Although
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule,
we
consulted
with
representatives
of
State
and
local
governments
to
enable
them
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
into
the
development
of
the
final
rule.
This
consultation
took
place
during
the
ICCR
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
FACA)
committee
meetings
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
93
of
147
where
members
representing
State
and
local
governments
participated
in
developing
recommendations
for
EPA's
combustion­
related
rulemakings,
including
the
final
rule.

The
concerns
raised
by
representatives
of
State
and
local
governments
were
considered
during
the
development
of
the
final
rule.

In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132,
and
consistent
with
EPA
policy
to
promote
communications
between
EPA
and
State
and
local
governments,
EPA
specifically
solicited
comment
on
the
final
rule
from
State
and
local
officials.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000)

requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
"
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications."
The
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.

The
final
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments.
We
do
not
know
of
any
industrial­
commercial­
institutional
boilers
or
process
heaters
owned
or
operated
by
Indian
tribal
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
94
of
147
governments.
However,
if
there
are
any,
the
effect
of
these
rules
on
communities
of
tribal
governments
would
not
be
unique
or
disproportionate
to
the
effect
on
other
communities.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.
The
EPA
specifically
solicited
additional
comment
on
the
final
rule
from
tribal
officials,
but
received
none.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)

applies
to
any
regulation
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
"
economically
significant"
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.

If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
regulation
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
EPA.

The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
95
of
147
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5­
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
Executive
Order
13211
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)

provides
that
agencies
shall
prepare
and
submit
to
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
for
certain
actions
identified
as
"
significant
energy
actions."
Section
4(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13211
defines
"
significant
energy
actions"
as
"
any
action
by
an
agency
(
normally
published
in
the
Federal
Register)
that
promulgates
or
is
expected
to
lead
to
the
promulgation
of
a
final
rule
or
regulation,
including
notices
of
inquiry,
advance
notices
of
final
rulemaking,
and
notices
of
final
rulemaking:
(
1)
(
i)
That
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
or
any
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
96
of
147
successor
order,
and
(
ii)
is
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy;
or
(
2)
that
is
designated
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
as
a
"
significant
energy
action."
The
final
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
energy
action"
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
The
basis
for
the
determination
is
as
follows.

The
reduction
in
petroleum
product
output,
which
includes
reductions
in
fuel
production,
is
estimated
at
only
0.001
percent,
or
about
68
barrels
per
day
based
on
2000
U.
S.
fuel
production
nationwide.
That
is
a
minimal
reduction
in
nationwide
petroleum
product
output.
The
reduction
in
coal
production
is
estimated
at
only
0.014
percent,
or
about
3.5
million
tons
per
year
(
or
less
than
1,000
tons
per
day)
based
on
2000
U.
S.
coal
production
nationwide.
The
combination
of
the
increase
in
electricity
usage
estimated
with
the
effect
of
the
increased
price
of
affected
output
yields
an
increase
in
electricity
output
estimated
at
only
0.012
percent,
or
about
0.72
billion
kilowatt­
hours
per
year
based
on
2000
U.
S.
electricity
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
97
of
147
production
nationwide.
All
energy
price
changes
estimated
show
no
increase
in
price
more
than
0.05
percent
nationwide,

and
a
similar
result
occurs
for
energy
distribution
costs.

We
also
expect
that
there
will
be
no
discernable
impact
on
the
import
of
foreign
energy
supplies,
and
no
other
adverse
outcomes
are
expected
to
occur
with
regards
to
energy
supplies.
All
of
the
results
presented
above
account
for
the
pass
through
of
costs
to
consumers,
as
well
as
the
cost
impact
to
producers.
For
more
information
on
the
estimated
energy
effects,
please
refer
to
the
economic
impact
analysis
for
the
final
rule.
The
analysis
is
available
in
the
public
docket.

Therefore,
we
conclude
that
the
final
rule
when
implemented
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Public
Law
No.
104­
113;
15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
the
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
their
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
98
of
147
technical
standards
(
e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
the
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

The
final
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
EPA
cites
the
following
standards
in
the
final
rule:
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2F,
2G,
3A,
3B,
4,
5,
5D,
17,
19,
26,
26A,
29
of
40
CFR
part
60.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
EPA
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
2F,
2G,

5D,
and
19.
The
search
and
review
results
have
been
documented
and
are
placed
in
the
docket
for
the
final
rule.

The
three
voluntary
consensus
standards
described
below
were
identified
as
acceptable
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
final
rule.

The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASME
PTC
19­
10­
1981­

Part
10,
"
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses,"
is
cited
in
the
final
rule
for
its
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
99
of
147
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas.

This
part
of
ASME
PTC
19­
10­
1981­
Part
10
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
Method
3B.

The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASTM
D6522­
00,

"
Standard
Test
Method
for
the
Determination
of
Nitrogen
Oxides,
Carbon
Monoxide,
and
Oxygen
Concentrations
in
Emissions
from
Natural
Gas­
Fired
Reciprocating
Engines,

Combustion
Turbines,
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
Using
Portable
Analyzers"
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
EPA
Method
3A
for
identifying
carbon
monoxide
and
oxygen
concentrations
for
the
final
rule
when
the
fuel
is
natural
gas.

The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASTM
Z65907,
"
Standard
Method
for
Both
Speciated
and
Elemental
Mercury
Determination,"
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
EPA
Method
29
(
portion
for
mercury
only)
for
the
purpose
of
the
final
rule.
This
standard
can
be
used
in
the
final
rule
to
determine
the
mercury
concentration
in
stack
gases
for
boilers
with
rated
heat
input
capacities
of
greater
than
250
MMBtu
per
hour.

In
addition
to
the
voluntary
consensus
standards
EPA
uses
in
the
final
rule,
the
search
for
emissions
measurement
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
100
of
147
procedures
identified
15
other
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
EPA
determined
that
13
of
these
15
standards
identified
for
measuring
emissions
of
the
HAP
or
surrogates
subject
to
the
emission
standards
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
final
rule.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
adopt
these
standards
for
this
purpose.
(
See
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2002­

0058
for
further
information
on
the
methods.)

Two
of
the
15
voluntary
consensus
standards
identified
in
this
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
for
the
purposes
of
the
final
rule
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:

ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
"
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,"

for
EPA
Method
2
(
and
possibly
1);
and
ASME/
BSR
MFC
12M,

"
Flow
in
Closed
Conduits
Using
Multiport
Averaging
Pitot
Primary
Flowmeters,"
for
EPA
Method
2.

Section
63.7520
and
Tables
4A
through
4D
to
subpart
DDDDD
of
this
standard
list
the
EPA
testing
methods
included
in
the
final
rule.
Under
§
63.7(
f)
and
§
63.8(
f)
of
subpart
A,
40
CFR
part
63,
of
the
General
Provisions,
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
test
methods
or
alternative
monitoring
requirements
in
place
of
any
of
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
101
of
147
the
EPA
testing
methods,
performance
specifications,
or
procedures.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
§
5
U.
S.
C.
801,
et
seq.,

as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
The
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
the
final
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
United
States
Senate,
the
United
States
House
of
Representatives,

and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
major
rule
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
action
is
a
"
major
rule"
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
§
804(
2).
The
rule
will
be
effective
on
[
INSERT
DATE
60
DAYS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION
OF
FINAL
RULE
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
102
of
147
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

______________________
Dated:

_______________________
Michael
O.
Leavitt,
Administrator.
NESHAP:
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
 
FINAL
RULE
­
Page
103
of
147
place
rule
here............
km
104
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63,
of
the
Code
of
the
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
63­­[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
63
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
42
U.
S.
C.
7401,
et
seq.

2.
Part
63
is
amended
by
adding
subpart
DDDDD
to
read
as
follows:

Subpart
DDDDD­­
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Industrial,
Commercial,
and
Institutional
Boilers
and
Process
Heaters
Sec.

What
this
Subpart
Covers
63.7480
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.7485
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.7490
What
is
the
affected
source
of
this
subpart?
63.7491
Are
any
boilers
or
process
heaters
exempt
from
this
subpart?
63.7495
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limits
and
Work
Practice
Standards
63.7499
What
are
the
subcategories
of
boilers
and
process
heaters?
63.7500
What
emission
limits,
work
practice
standards,
and
operating
limits
must
I
meet?

General
Compliance
Requirements
105
63.7505
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?
63.7506
Do
any
boilers
or
process
heaters
have
limited
requirements?
63.7507
What
are
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
for
the
HCl
and
total
selected
metals
standards?

Testing,
Fuel
Analyses,
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
63.7510
What
are
my
initial
compliance
requirements
and
by
what
date
must
I
conduct
them?
63.7515
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
or
fuel
analyses?
63.7520
What
performance
tests
and
procedures
must
I
use?
63.7521
What
fuel
analyses
and
procedures
must
I
use?
63.7522
Can
I
use
emission
averaging
to
comply
with
this
subpart?
63.7525
What
are
my
monitoring,
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
requirements?
63.7530
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards?

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
63.7535
How
do
I
monitor
and
collect
data
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance?
63.7540
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards?

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.7545
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7550
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7555
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.7560
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.7565
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
63.7570
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.7575
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63
106
Table
1
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Emission
Limits
and
Work
Practice
Standards
Table
2
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Operating
Limits
for
Boilers
Table
3
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Operating
Limits
for
Boilers
Emission
Limits
Table
4
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Operating
Limits
for
Boilers
Table
5
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Performance
Testing
Requirements
Table
6
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Fuel
Analysis
Requirements
Table
7
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Establishing
Operating
Limits
Table
8
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Demonstrating
Continuous
Compliance
Table
9
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Reporting
Requirements
Table
10
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63.
Applicability
of
General
What
this
Subpart
Covers
§
63.7480
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?

This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
emitted
from
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards.

§
63.7485
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?

You
are
subject
to
this
subpart
if
you
own
or
operate
an
industrial,
commercial,
or
institutional
boiler
or
process
heater
as
defined
in
§
63.7575
that
is
located
at,
107
or
is
part
of,
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
as
defined
in
§
63.2
or
§
63.760
(
40
CFR
63
Subpart
HH,
for
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Production
Facilities)
of
this
subpart,

except
as
specifically
exempted
in
§
63.7491.

§
63.7490
What
is
the
affected
source
of
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
applies
to
new,
reconstructed,
or
existing
affected
sources
as
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)

and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
The
affected
source
of
this
subpart
is
the
collection
of
all
existing
industrial,
commercial,
and
institutional
boilers
and
process
heaters
as
defined
in
§
63.7575
located
at
a
major
source.

(
2)
The
affected
source
of
this
subpart
is
each
new
or
reconstructed
industrial,
commercial,
or
institutional
boiler
or
process
heater
as
defined
in
§
63.7575
located
at
a
major
source.

(
b)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
is
new
if
you
commence
construction
of
the
boiler
or
process
heater
after
January
13,
2003,
and
you
meet
the
applicability
criteria
at
the
time
you
commence
construction.

(
c)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
is
reconstructed
if
you
meet
the
reconstruction
criteria
as
defined
in
§
63.2
of
108
subpart
A
of
this
part,
you
commence
reconstruction
after
January
13,
2003,
and
you
meet
the
applicability
criteria
at
the
time
you
commence
reconstruction.

(
d)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
is
existing
if
it
is
not
new
or
reconstructed.

§
63.7491
Are
any
boilers
or
process
heaters
exempt
from
this
subpart?

(
a)
The
types
of
boilers
and
process
heaters
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
14)
of
this
section
are
exempt
from
this
subpart.

(
1)
A
municipal
waste
combustor
covered
by
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
AAAA,
subpart
BBBB
or
subpart
Cb.

(
2)
A
hospital/
medical/
infectious
waste
incinerator
covered
by
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Ce
or
subpart
Ec.

(
3)
An
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit
that
is
a
fossil
fuel­
fired
combustion
unit
of
more
than
25
megawatts
that
serves
a
generator
that
produces
electricity
for
sale.
A
unit
that
cogenerates
steam
and
electricity
and
supplies
more
than
one­
third
of
its
potential
electric
output
capacity
and
more
than
25
megawatts
electrical
output
to
any
utility
power
distribution
system
for
sale
is
considered
an
electric
utility
steam
generating
unit.
109
(
4)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
required
to
have
a
permit
under
section
3005
of
the
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
or
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
supbart
EEE
(
e.
g.,
hazardous
waste
boilers).

(
5)
A
commercial
and
industrial
solid
waste
incineration
unit
covered
by
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
CCCC
or
subpart
DDDD.

(
6)
A
recovery
boiler
or
furnace
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
MM.

(
7)
A
boiler
or
process
heater
that
is
used
specifically
for
research
and
development.
This
does
not
include
units
that
only
provide
steam
to
a
process
at
a
research
and
development
facility.

(
8)
A
hot
water
heater
as
defined
in
this
subpart.

(
9)
A
refining
kettle
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,

subpart
X.

(
10)
An
ethylene
cracking
furnace
covered
by
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
YY.

(
11)
Blast
furnace
stoves
as
described
in
the
EPA
document
entitled
"
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
Integrated
Iron
and
Steel
Plants
­
Background
Information
for
Proposed
110
Standards"
(
EPA­
453/
R­
01­
005).

(
12)
Any
boilers
and
process
heaters
specifically
listed
as
an
affected
source
in
another
standard
under
40
CFR
part
63.

(
13)
Temporary
boilers
as
defined
in
this
subpart.

(
14)
Blast
furnace
gas
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters
as
defined
in
this
subpart.

§
63.7495
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
boiler
or
process
heater,
you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
by
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
or
upon
startup
of
your
boiler
or
process
heater,

whichever
is
later.

(
b)
If
you
have
an
existing
boiler
or
process
heater,

you
must
comply
with
this
subpart
no
later
than
3
years
after
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER].

(
c)
If
you
have
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
hazardous
air
pollutants,
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)

and
(
2)
of
this
section
apply
to
you.

(
1)
Any
new
or
reconstructed
boiler
or
process
heater
111
at
the
existing
facility
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
upon
startup.

(
2)
Any
existing
boiler
or
process
heater
at
the
existing
facility
must
be
in
compliance
with
this
subpart
within
3
years
after
the
facility
becomes
a
major
source.

(
d)
You
must
meet
the
notification
requirements
in
§
63.7545
according
to
the
schedule
in
§
63.7545
and
in
subpart
A
of
this
part.
Some
of
the
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
you
are
required
to
comply
with
the
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
in
this
subpart.

Emission
Limits
and
Work
Practice
Standards
§
63.7499
What
are
the
subcategories
of
boilers
and
process
heaters?

(
a)
The
subcategories
of
boilers
and
process
heaters
are
large
solid
fuel,
limited
use
solid
fuel,
small
solid
fuel,
large
liquid
fuel,
limited
use
liquid
fuel,
small
liquid
fuel,
large
gaseous
fuel,
limited
use
gaseous
fuel,

and
small
gaseous
fuel.
Each
subcategory
is
defined
in
§
63.7575.

(
b)
If
you
change
an
existing
boiler
or
process
heater
in
a
solid
fuel
subcategory
such
that
its
applicable
112
subcategory
also
changes
and
the
change
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
reconstruction
as
defined
in
subpart
A
of
this
part,
you
may
choose
to
meet
the
applicable
emission
limits
for
the
original
solid
fuel
subcategory.

§
63.7500
What
emission
limits,
work
practice
standards,

and
operating
limits
must
I
meet?

(
a)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
You
must
meet
each
emission
limit
and
work
practice
standard
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart
that
applies
to
your
boiler
or
process
heater,
except
as
provided
under
§
63.7507.

(
2)
You
must
meet
each
operating
limit
in
Tables
2
through
4
of
this
subpart
that
applies
to
your
boiler
or
process
heater.
If
you
use
a
control
device
or
combination
of
control
devices
not
covered
in
Tables
2
through
4
of
this
subpart,
or
you
wish
to
establish
and
monitor
an
alternative
operating
limit
and
alternative
monitoring
parameters,
you
must
apply
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
alternative
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
of
this
part.

(
b)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
EPA
may
approve
use
of
113
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
this
section.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7505
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
(
including
operating
limits)
and
the
work
practice
standards
in
this
subpart
at
all
times,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.

(
b)
You
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i).

(
c)
You
can
demonstrate
compliance
with
any
applicable
emission
limit
using
fuel
analysis
if
the
emission
rate
calculated
according
to
§
63.7530(
d)
is
less
than
the
applicable
emission
limit.
Otherwise,
you
must
demonstrate
compliance
using
performance
testing.

(
d)
If
you
demonstrate
compliance
with
any
applicable
emission
limit
through
performance
testing,
you
must
develop
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
114
section.
This
requirement
also
applies
to
you
if
you
petition
the
Administrator
for
alternative
monitoring
parameters
under
§
63.8(
f)
of
this
part.

(
1)
For
each
continuous
monitoring
system
required
in
this
section,
you
must
develop
and
submit
to
the
Administrator
for
approval
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
that
addresses
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.
You
must
submit
this
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
at
least
60
days
before
your
initial
performance
evaluation
of
your
continuous
monitoring
system.

(
i)
Installation
of
the
continuous
monitoring
system
(
CMS)
sampling
probe
or
other
interface
at
a
measurement
location
relative
to
each
affected
process
unit
such
that
the
measurement
is
representative
of
control
of
the
exhaust
emissions
(
e.
g.,
on
or
downstream
of
the
last
control
device);

(
ii)
Performance
and
equipment
specifications
for
the
sample
interface,
the
pollutant
concentration
or
parametric
signal
analyzer,
and
the
data
collection
and
reduction
systems;
and
(
iii)
Performance
evaluation
procedures
and
acceptance
criteria
(
e.
g.,
calibrations).
115
(
2)
In
your
site­
specific
monitoring
plan,
you
must
also
address
paragraphs
(
d)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iii)
of
this
section.

(
i)
Ongoing
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.8(
c)(
1),(
3),
and
(
4)(
ii);

(
ii)
Ongoing
data
quality
assurance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.8(
d);
and
(
iii)
Ongoing
recordkeeping
and
reporting
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.10(
c),

(
e)(
1),
and
(
e)(
2)(
i).

(
3)
You
must
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
continuous
monitoring
system
in
accordance
with
your
sitespecific
monitoring
plan.

(
4)
You
must
operate
and
maintain
the
continuous
monitoring
systems
in
continuous
operation
according
to
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan.

(
e)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,

shutdown,
and
malfunction
(
SSM)
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).

§
63.7506
Do
any
boilers
or
process
heaters
have
limited
requirements?
116
(
a)
New
or
reconstructed
boilers
and
process
heaters
in
one
of
the
liquid
fuel
subcategories
(
the
large
liquid
fuel
subcategory,
the
limited
use
liquid
fuel
subcategory,

or
the
small
liquid
fuel
subcategory)
that
burn
only
fossil
fuels
and
other
gases
and
do
not
burn
any
residual
oil
are
subject
to
the
emission
limits
and
applicable
work
practice
standards
in
Table
1
of
this
subpart.
You
are
not
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
You
are
not
required
to
set
and
maintain
operating
limits
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
emission
limits.
However,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
you
must
include
a
signed
statement
in
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
report
required
in
§
63.7545(
e)
that
indicates
you
burn
only
liquid
fossil
fuels
other
than
residual
oils
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
gaseous
fuels.

(
2)
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limits,
you
must
also
keep
records,
as
required
in
§
63.7555,
that
demonstrate
that
you
burn
only
117
liquid
fossil
fuels
other
than
residual
oils
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
gaseous
fuels.
You
must
also
include
a
signed
statement
in
each
semiannual
compliance
report
required
in
§
63.7550
that
indicates
you
burned
only
liquid
fossil
fuels
other
than
residual
oils,
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
gaseous
fuels,
during
the
reporting
period.

(
b)
The
affected
boilers
and
process
heaters
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
are
subject
to
only
the
initial
notification
requirements
in
§
63.9(
b)
of
subpart
A
(
i.
e.,
they
are
not
subject
to
the
emission
limits,
work
practice
standards,
performance
testing,
monitoring,
SSM
plans,
site­
specific
monitoring
plans,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
of
this
subpart
or
any
other
requirements
in
subpart
A).

(
1)
Existing
large
and
limited
use
gaseous
fuel­
fired
units.

(
2)
Existing
large
and
limited
use
liquid
fuel­
fired
units.

(
3)
New
small
gaseous
fuel­
fired
units.

(
4)
New
small
liquid
fuel­
fired
units
that
burn
only
gaseous
fuels
or
distillate
oil.
New
small
liquid
fuel­
118
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters
that
commence
burning
of
any
other
type
of
liquid
fuel
must
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
this
subpart
and
subpart
A
of
this
part
upon
startup
of
burning
the
other
type
of
liquid
fuel.

(
c)
The
affected
boilers
and
process
heaters
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
are
not
subject
to
the
initial
notification
requirements
in
§
63.9(
b)
of
subpart
A
and
are
not
subject
to
any
requirements
in
this
subpart
or
in
subpart
A
of
this
part
(
i.
e.,
they
are
not
subject
to
the
emission
limits,
work
practice
standards,
performance
testing,
monitoring,
SSM
plans,
site­
specific
monitoring
plans,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
of
this
subpart,
or
any
other
requirements
in
subpart
A
of
this
part.

(
1)
Existing
small
solid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters.

(
2)
Existing
small
liquid
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters.

(
3)
Existing
small
gaseous
fuel­
fired
boilers
and
process
heaters.

§
63.7507
What
are
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
119
options
for
the
HCl
and
total
selected
metals
standards?

(
a)
As
an
alternative
to
the
requirement
for
large
solid
fuel
fired
boilers
located
at
a
single
facility
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
HCl
emission
limit
in
Table
1,
you
may
demonstrate
eligibility
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
option
for
HCl
emissions
under
the
procedures
prescribed
in
Appendix
A.

(
b)
In
lieu
of
complying
with
the
emission
standard
for
total
selected
metals
in
Table
1
based
on
the
sum
of
emissions
for
the
8
selected
metals,
you
may
demonstrate
eligibility
for
complying
with
the
emission
standard
for
total
selected
metals
in
Table
1
based
on
the
sum
of
emissions
for
7
selected
metals
(
by
excluding
manganese
emissions
from
the
summation
of
total
selected
metals
emissions)
under
the
procedures
prescribed
in
Appendix
A.

Testing,
Fuel
Analyses,
and
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7510
What
are
my
initial
compliance
requirements
and
by
what
date
must
I
conduct
them?

(
a)
For
affected
sources
that
elect
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
any
of
the
emission
limits
of
this
subpart
through
performance
testing,
your
initial
compliance
requirements
include
conducting
performance
tests
according
120
to
§
63.7520
and
Table
5
of
this
subpart,
conducting
a
fuel
analysis
for
each
type
of
fuel
burned
in
your
boiler
or
process
heater
according
to
§
63.7521
and
Table
6
of
this
subpart,
establishing
operating
limits
according
to
§
63.7530
and
Table
7
of
this
subpart,
and
conducting
continuous
monitoring
system
performance
evaluations
according
to
§
63.7525.

(
b)
For
affected
sources
that
elect
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
hydrogen
chloride,

mercury,
or
total
selected
metals
through
fuel
analysis,

your
initial
compliance
requirement
is
to
conduct
a
fuel
analysis
for
each
type
of
fuel
burned
in
your
boiler
or
process
heater
according
to
§
63.7521
and
Table
6
of
this
subpart
and
establish
operating
limits
according
to
§
63.7530
and
Table
7
of
this
subpart.

(
c)
For
sources
that
have
an
applicable
work
practice
standard,
your
initial
compliance
requirements
depend
on
the
rated
capacity
of
your
boiler
or
process
heater.
If
your
boiler
or
process
heater
has
a
heat
input
capacity
less
than
100
million
Btu
per
hour,
your
initial
compliance
demonstration
is
conducting
a
performance
test
for
carbon
monoxide
according
to
Table
5
of
this
subpart.
If
your
121
boiler
or
process
heater
has
a
heat
input
capacity
of
100
million
Btu
per
hour
or
greater,
your
initial
compliance
demonstration
is
conducting
a
performance
evaluation
of
your
continuous
emission
monitoring
system
for
carbon
monoxide
according
to
63.7525(
a).

(
d)
For
existing
affected
sources,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
no
later
than
180
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
source
in
§
63.7495
and
according
to
the
applicable
provisions
in
§
63.7(
a)(
2)
as
cited
in
Table
10
of
this
subpart.

(
e)
If
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
January
13,
2003
and
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
either
the
proposed
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
or
the
promulgated
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
or
within
180
calendar
days
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).

(
f)
If
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
122
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
January
13,
2003,
and
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],
and
you
chose
to
comply
with
the
proposed
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
when
demonstrating
initial
compliance,
you
must
conduct
a
second
compliance
demonstration
for
the
promulgated
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
within
3
years
after
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER]
or
within
3
years
after
startup
of
the
affected
source,
whichever
is
later.

(
g)
If
your
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
commences
construction
or
reconstruction
after
[
INSERT
THE
DATE
THE
FINAL
RULE
IS
PUBLISHED
IN
THE
FEDERAL
REGISTER],

you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
promulgated
emission
limits
and
work
practice
standards
no
later
than
180
days
after
startup
of
the
source.

§
63.7515
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
or
fuel
analyses?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
all
applicable
performance
tests
according
to
§
63.7520
on
an
annual
basis
unless
you
follow
the
requirements
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.
Annual
performance
tests
must
be
completed
123
between
10
and
12
months
after
the
previous
performance
test,
unless
you
follow
the
requirements
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.

(
b)
You
can
conduct
performance
tests
less
often
for
a
given
pollutant
if
your
performance
tests
for
the
pollutant
(
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride,
mercury,

or
total
selected
metals)
for
at
least
3
consecutive
years
show
that
you
comply
with
the
emission
limit.
In
this
case,
you
do
not
have
to
conduct
a
performance
test
for
that
pollutant
for
the
next
2
years.
You
must
conduct
a
performance
test
during
the
third
year
and
no
more
than
36
months
after
the
previous
performance
test.

(
c)
If
your
boiler
or
process
heater
continues
to
meet
the
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride,
mercury,
or
total
selected
metals,
you
may
choose
to
conduct
performance
tests
for
these
pollutants
every
third
year,
but
each
such
performance
test
must
be
conducted
no
more
than
36
months
after
the
previous
performance
test.

(
d)
If
a
performance
test
shows
noncompliance
with
an
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter,
hydrogen
chloride,

mercury,
or
total
selected
metals,
you
must
conduct
annual
124
performance
tests
for
that
pollutant
until
all
performance
tests
over
a
consecutive
3­
year
period
show
compliance.

(
e)
If
you
have
an
applicable
work
practice
standard
for
carbon
monoxide
and
your
boiler
or
process
heater
has
a
heat
input
capacity
less
than
100
million
Btu
per
hour
,

you
must
conduct
annual
performance
tests
for
carbon
monoxide
according
to
§
63.7520.
Each
annual
performance
test
must
be
conducted
between
10
and
12
months
after
the
previous
performance
test.

(
f)
You
must
conduct
a
fuel
analysis
according
to
§
63.7521
for
each
type
of
fuel
burned
no
later
than
5
years
after
the
previous
fuel
analysis
for
each
fuel
type.
If
you
burn
a
new
type
of
fuel,
you
must
conduct
a
fuel
analysis
before
burning
the
new
type
of
fuel
in
your
boiler
or
process
heater.
You
must
still
meet
all
applicable
continuous
compliance
requirements
in
§
63.7540.

(
g)
You
must
report
the
results
of
performance
tests
and
fuel
analyses
within
60
days
after
the
completion
of
the
performance
tests
or
fuel
analyses.
This
report
should
also
verify
that
the
operating
limits
for
your
affected
source
have
not
changed
or
provide
documentation
of
revised
operating
parameters
established
according
to
§
63.7530
and
125
Table
7
of
this
subpart,
as
applicable.
The
reports
for
all
subsequent
performance
tests
and
fuel
analyses
should
include
all
applicable
information
required
in
§
63.7550.

§
63.7520
What
performance
tests
and
procedures
must
I
use?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
all
performance
tests
according
to
§
63.7(
c),(
d),
(
f),
and
(
h).
You
must
also
develop
a
site­
specific
test
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
c)
if
you
elect
to
demonstrate
compliance
through
performance
testing.

(
b)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
according
to
the
requirements
in
Table
5
of
this
subpart.

(
c)
New
or
reconstructed
boilers
or
process
heaters
in
one
of
the
liquid
fuel
subcategories
that
burn
only
fossil
fuels
and
other
gases
and
do
not
burn
any
residual
oil
must
demonstrate
compliance
according
to
§
63.7506(
a).

(
d)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
under
the
specific
conditions
listed
in
Tables
5
and
7
of
this
subpart.
You
must
conduct
performance
tests
at
the
maximum
normal
operating
load
while
burning
the
type
of
fuel
or
mixture
of
fuels
that
have
the
highest
content
of
chlorine,

mercury,
and
total
selected
metals,
and
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
and
establish
your
operating
