January 12, 2009 

Submitted Electronically 

Mr. Jim Eddinger 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-01) 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

 

Re: Comments of the American Forest & Paper Association on EPA’s Draft Phase II 

Boiler MACT and CISWI Testing Plan 

Dear Jim, 

The American Forest & Paper Association (“AF&PA”) appreciates the opportunity to 

submit comments on EPA’s draft December 22nd Phase II Boiler MACT and CISWI 

Testing Plan. Below are our comments on nine aspects of the draft plan that include: 

Subcategories; Testing Timeframe; Clarification of CISWI Units Determinations; Cost 

Considerations; Selection of Units; VOC/HC Comparative Testing; Emissions Variability;

Test Method Recommendations; and Testing Combustors that Burn Small Amounts of 

Solid Wastes. 

Subcategories 

EPA has identified the following ten (10) subcategories for the Boiler MACT testing: Coal 

Large, Coal Small, Coal Limited Use, Biomass Large, Biomass Small, Biomass Limited 

Use, Oil Large, Oil Small, Oil Limited Use, and Gas Large. In addition to these 

subcategories, AF&PA believes that it may be important to further subcategorize these 

boilers, particularly by combustor design and load characteristics, but pending further 

data evaluations, also potentially by size, time of use, and/or fuel type. AF&PA is 

concerned that the existing and proposed testing data will not provide adequate 

information to assess the variability of emissions from units that have different sizes, 

designs, controls, fuel mixes, and/or fuel quality. 

Additional subcategories that EPA should consider include: 

• Boiler Type/Design (e.g. fluidized bed, spreader stokers, dutch ovens, fuel cells, 

and suspension burners); 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 2

• Load changes (base loaded boilers, load-following boilers); 

• Process Heaters (separate from boilers); 

• Size (medium in addition to small and large, or by NSPS size ranges); 

• Fuel Types (single fuel boilers, combination boilers) ; 

• Subcategories within biomass (dry wood, bark/wet wood, bagasse); 

• Oil Subcategories (residual oil, distillate oil); 

• Coal subcategories (bituminous, sub-bituminous, lignite); and 

• Burner types (with and without low-NOx burners) 

• Sector or products produced (e.g., forest product sector). 

Boiler type/design, heat load characteristics, and fuel type are the most critical 

subcategories based on our preliminary analysis of the available data.1

 The analysis 

shows significant differences in emissions from different boiler types and how these 

differences impact the floor for solid fueled boilers. For example, all of the fluidized bed 

boilers with data were in the lowest 12% for carbon monoxide emitting solid fueled 

boilers, which could result in an emission limit that is achievable primarily by this 

technology and unachievable by other types of boilers. All of the best performing 12% of 

wood residue only fired units for mercury emissions are spreader stokers. Significant 

differences in other emission rates exist among boiler type as well. 

While there is a high level of variability among boilers as noted above, there may be an 

even greater variability among process heaters because in many cases they are 

designed for specific applications. Many process heaters in the wood products industry 

are of fuel cell design (such as Wellon units), which may have a different emissions 

profile and operating characteristics than a boiler. Fuels used in process heaters can be 

significantly different than those used in most industrial boilers. 

We recognize that increased subcategorization may lead to a more complicated rule at 

one level but may also lead to one with reasonable and rational emission limitations that 

acknowledge the tremendous unit diversity that exist within this source category. Now is 

the time to sort out whether the Agency has enough HAP data to develop MACT floors 

for all reasonable subcategories as authorized by the court in the Brick MACT decision. 

This may lead to more testing costs now but it will lead to better decisions and record at 

time of proposal. EPA needs to properly plan for the appropriate emission testing to 

support development of emission standards for potential subcategories. 

We can provide additional details regarding our recommendations for subcategories 

when we have more time to evaluate the final database which we understand is still being 

revised. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss with you our rational for 

appropriate combustion unit subcategories. 

 1

 See attached spreadsheets showing average emissions of best performing units and number 

of units with test data for select HAPs based on the December 12th version of the Boiler 

database. 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 3

AF&PA also recommends that boilers located at Area Sources not be included in 

developing MACT floor determinations. 

Testing Timeframe 

AF&PA remains concerned that the 4-month time period that EPA would require for all 

testing to be performed and reported is not practicable.2

 Based on information EPA has 

provided, EPA’s draft list includes almost 200 CISWI units to be tested (including 33 

paper and 12 wood products mills)3 and 53 Boiler MACT units (including an additional 14 

pulp mills). In addition, it is possible that another 20 or more facilities may be required to 

conduct testing for CO and VOC/HC when EPA proposes 5 facilities chosen randomly to 

conduct testing in each of the Large Oil, Biomass, Gas, and Coal subcategories.4

The draft testing plans specifies a significant amount of source testing that would need to 

be completed in four months. Assuming that facilities receive Section 114 letters from 

EPA by February 1, 2009, facilities would have to complete all of the required testing and 

report the results to EPA by June 1, 2009. AF&PA is concerned that there will not be a 

sufficient number of qualified measurement and laboratory contractors or equipment 

necessary to perform all of the testing during this time frame. The contemplated time 

frame is also problematic because some companies identified for testing may not be 

operating at full capacity due to current economic conditions or may not currently be 

operating their limited-use units. If a limited-use unit identified for testing is not currently 

operating, it is likely to be a significant and costly undertaking to startup the unit for 

testing (e.g., performing cleanup, maintenance or repairs, getting fuel onsite, getting the 

boiler up to steady state operating conditions). AF&PA believes that the volume of 

required testing will require more than 4 months, and in any case EPA will have to 

incorporate the new data after the rule proposal is issued. 

Test data would be available only a few weeks before EPA is scheduled to issue a 

proposed rule in mid-July 2009. Because of this tight schedule, EPA may not have 

sufficient time to adequately review and incorporate the new emission test reports in a 

manner needed to develop definitive subcategories and MACT floor emission limitations 

for the proposed rule. However, the new data will be important for filling the key data 

gaps for establishing the appropriate subcategories as an approach to fair and legally 

 2

 See comments filed with EPA February 5th 2008. 

3

 We realize this list may get winnowed down as facilities contact EPA questioning the 

rationale for their inclusion. 

4

 Even more testing is possible during this timeframe if data gaps are identified for other 

 subcategories not currently contemplated by EPA. 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 4

defensible MACT limitations as highlighted by the court in 20075. Thus, AF&PA suggest 

that EPA develop emission limitation ranges and/or options for various subcategories for 

the proposed rule based on existing available information while allowing industry an 

additional 6 to 8 weeks beyond the anticipated June 1st deadline to conduct all of the 

necessary source testing. EPA could provide an extended comment period (e.g. 120 

days) at rule proposal and in the period shortly after the proposed rule is issued, EPA 

could follow-up with a Notice of Data Availability (NODA)that included the new data and 

proposed adjustments to the emission limitations. 

Clarification of CISWI Unit Determinations 

AF&PA requests that EPA provide more detail on how solid waste materials were defined 

for the purpose of selecting the units for the draft CISWI Testing Plan. Based on our 

initial review of the database and draft EPA testing plans, it appears that in selecting units 

for CISWI testing, EPA included units from the forest products industry burning off-site 

sludge, construction and demolition debris (C&D), treated wood (crossties), off-spec used 

oil, glycerin from bio-fuel production, and oily and kerosene soaked rags. In preparing its 

list, on-site generated sludge and resinated trim did not appear to have been considered 

a solid waste by EPA. We believe that these on-site materials are fuels and are not solid 

waste and that combustion units should not be required to do CISWI testing because 

they are burning these fuels. Hence, we support EPA’s not including these units in its 

CISWI test list. Please confirm these assumptions and provide more detail on the 

process used to select combustion units for CISWI testing. We also believe that paper 

mill sludge from offsite is identical to onsite sludge in terms of how it is handled, treated 

as a commodity and ultimately burned to recover its energy value; hence, a unit should 

not be required to do CISWI testing merely because it is burning off-site paper mill 

sludge. We plan to submit comments by February 2nd on the Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the Identification of Nonhazardous Materials that are 

Solid Waste that will include information justifying why many of the materials burned in 

forest products industry boilers are fuels and not solid waste. 

AF&PA recommends that if a facility commits to stop burning any material defined as 

solid waste in a given unit, then CISWI testing for that unit should not be required. If EPA 

ultimately decides that a specific material is not defined as a solid waste, then the facility 

could burn that material in the future if it elects to do so. Furthermore, if a facility clarifies, 

for example, that the source of a material such as sludge being burned in a unit is from 

on-site operations and not from off-site operations, then EPA should consider the 

material as a fuel and remove these units from the CISWI Testing Plan. 

 5

 See March 17, 2007 DC Circuit Court decision (03-1202) is Sierra Club v. EPA page 20. 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 5

Cost Considerations for Testing 

According to estimates provided by two independent measurement contractors, the cost 

of performing the requested CISWI and Boiler MACT testing will be high (on the order of 

$40,000 per unit for the CISWI pollutants), especially with the added analytical cost of 

conducting testing for dioxins and furans for units designated as CISWI units. In addition, 

testing costs will escalate if multiple operating scenarios are required to capture variability 

or if CEMS rental is required for an extended period. AF&PA recommends that the 

number of requested tests for any single company be limited to no more than 2 facilities 

in order share the cost burden across the industry. 

In order to obtain the maximum amount of emission data without requiring even more 

testing, we also recommend that EPA request additional existing test data and CEMS 

data from facilities with units that have been initially identified as being in the top 

performing 12 percent of sources. Getting information on performance variability will be 

critical to setting emission limits. If EPA intends to conduct CO and hydrocarbon 

comparison studies, facilities with existing CO CEMS should be selected for this effort to 

further minimize cost. Use of existing data will help limit the cost and burdens of 

gathering additional information – a key goal of the Paperwork Reduction Act that is 

especially important given current economic conditions. 

Selection of Units for Testing 

Several of the Large Oil units identified for testing also burn wood. In order to obtain 

representative data for the Large Oil unit subcategory, AF&PA recommends that only 

units that obtain greater than 90% of their heating value from oil should be selected for 

the Large Oil unit testing. 

Some of our member companies have identified units included in the testing plans that 

are no longer operating and will submit that information to you separately. We 

recommend that EPA confirm with the individual facilities selected for testing that the 

units selected to test are still operational. 

Finally, AF&PA recommends that a facility be able to provide new data not previously 

available in place of conducting new testing as a means of satisfying the data gap 

identified by EPA. 

VOC/HC Comparative Testing 

AF&PA believes that the VOC/HC comparative testing will not provide the information 

that EPA is seeking. 

For the Large Boiler CO and VOC/HC comparative testing (Coal Large, Biomass Large, 

Oil Large, Gas Large), the selection of only 5 units will not be adequate to cover the 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 6

different boiler configurations and fuel types within the subcategories. The random 

selection of these units may provide fairness by distributing the cost across several 

facilities but will very likely not result in enough data to support an accurate correlation. 

In addition, tests conducted at maximum operating rates under steady state conditions 

would be expected to be significantly different than data collected during normal 

operating conditions. The tests would need to be conducted such that the variability of 

emissions due to operating O2 levels, load fluctuations, and other normal operating 

variables can be considered. Extensive and costly test programs would be necessary to 

determine if meaningful correlations between CO and organic HAP emissions exist. 

Using a flame ionization detector to measure total hydrocarbons will not provide a 

meaningful indicator of products of incomplete combustion because of its limited 

response to aldehydes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The analyzer will 

respond to methane which is not a hazardous air pollutant. In addition, since much of the 

THC in boiler emissions may be methane, the THC data needs to be corrected for 

methane. 

AF&PA recommends that EPA consider using existing data to evaluate the relationship 

between CO and organic HAPs. In particular, the 1992 report “Wood Products in the 

Waste Stream: Characterization and Combustion Emissions,” Chapter 8, should be 

included in the rulemaking record and carefully reviewed. The plots of CO versus THC 

and CO versus individual organics, demonstrate the futility of trying to develop any 

relationship between CO and THC (or benzene or formaldehyde) by snapshot sampling 

just five large wood fired boilers. The data reported in Chapter 8 also support the 

subcategorization by boiler type for CO, and further suggest that any sampling scheme 

needs to consider boiler type as opposed to random selection. If EPA still believes 

additional test data are required after examining existing information on CO and products 

of incomplete combustion, a more targeted selection process should be used to ensure 

units that are sampled are representative of other units in the subcategory, taking 

process variability into account and allowing significant time to collect sufficient data to 

draw a useful comparison. 

AF&PA believes that the available data supports that low organic HAP emissions can be 

achieved at CO emission rates that vary considerably depending on combustion 

equipment, type and quality of fuel, and varying operating loads. The inherent variability 

in CO-HAP relationships due to combustion equipment type and operation and fuel type 

and quality must be addressed when establishing MACT Floors. 

Given the complexities of developing an emission test plan that would produce 

meaningful data, EPA should either not peruse VOC-CO comparative testing, or should 

delay this part of the testing until a meaningful test plan can be developed. 

Emission Variability 

AF&PA believes that it is essential that the sampling program develop information about 

the variability of emissions from the best performing units. The emission data collected in 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 7

the 114 letter survey does not appropriately reflect the emission variability because much 

of the test information was collected during compliance test conditions. States require 

that compliance tests be conducted under specific conditions, generally representing 

base loaded, steady state conditions within 90% of the units rated capacity. Emission 

rates at normal operating conditions for boilers that follow load are not represented in the 

114 data. Thus, the appropriate data to assess emission variability must come from the 

emission sampling. 

Emissions variability information can be developed through varying the production 

variables such as load (high, medium, and low), fuel moisture content, fuel types, soot 

blowing, etc during the testing for units selected for additional testing. 

Alternatively, EPA could select facilities that appear to be among the top performers for 

each subcategory for additional testing at operating conditions that are different than for 

the data submitted. The total number of test runs for the top performing units would need 

to include enough data to determine a 99.9% confidence coefficient. Thus, AF&PA 

recommends that EPA request additional existing test data and CEMS data from facilities 

with units that have been initially identified as being in the top performing 12 percent of 

sources. 

AF&PA also recommends that EPA request data on variability of HAP metals in fuel 

analysis as a cost effective approach to gather key information. The data should be 

helpful developing variability information for setting realistic MACT limits for metals. 

If the December 19th D.C. Court of Appeals decision to vacate the existing SSM rule 

remains, a critical issue will be how to include start-up, shutdown, and malfunction events 

in the MACT floor. As EPA is aware, and as has been required in past stack testing, 

available emission data was obtained almost entirely under high-load, steady-state 

conditions. Hence, depending upon the final disposition of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, it 

may be necessary to obtain data during start-up, shut-down, and malfunction events in 

order to have the necessary information for setting MACT emission limits.6

 This will 

necessarily greatly delay development and promulgation of a new Boiler MACT standard. 

Since the ultimate resolution of the SSM case is still pending, AF&PA recommends that 

testing only be required at this time for normal operations, including varying loads and 

load swings. 

The forest products industry may also elect to perform select testing of units later this 

year in order to assess variability of top performers. Unfortunately, since we do not yet 

have a complete data base and do not yet know the subcategories that will be proposed, 

we cannot identify what information would be most useful. In view of the additional 

voluntary testing that is likely to be performed, we request that EPA leave the record 

open as long as possible for submission of additional test data. 

 6

 It may not necessarily be the case that emission limitations will be required and that work 

practices under section 112(h) could be used instead. 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 8

Test Method Recommendations 

AF&PA has prepared two tables below summarizing our recommended and alternative 

test methodologies for the CISWI and Boiler MACT Testing Plans. In addition, we have 

the following detailed comments regarding CO, VOC/THC, and HAP emissions testing for 

your consideration. 

Regarding the proposed CO testing, AF&PA recommends that CO emission limitations 

be established on a long-term averaging period basis (at least monthly) rather than a 

short-term averaging period basis (3-hour) given the wide variability in CO emissions and 

the preponderance of existing data available in the database. Installation of temporary 

CO CEMS for short term testing will provide little benefit since the data will not be 

representative of the variability in industrial boiler CO emissions. Setting a CO limit 

based on 3-hour tests for CO, especially when such tests are generally done at highload, steady-state conditions, is also not a valid approach given variability in CO levels for 

industrial boilers. Wherever possible, any limits on CO should be long-term averages 

based on hourly CEMS CO data from sources already equipped with CO CEMS. If it is 

necessary to do additional CO monitoring for a particular subcategory, EPA should 

recognize that to obtain representative data, portable CO CEMS may have to be 

operated on the boiler for 30 days or longer in order to fully account for the variability in 

emissions from these units. 

For the proposed VOC/THC testing, operation of a THC analyzer will be difficult and 

costly and is unlikely to generate meaningful data. Development of a meaningful 

correlation between CO and THC, assuming that one exists for a particular boiler 

subcategory, would require development and then implementation of a well-thought out 

test protocol, which will need to include some compound-specific testing. This will 

require far more than the four months EPA intends to provide for boiler testing. In 

addition, Method 25A does not provide an accurate depiction of non-methane organic 

hydrocarbons alone. This is a very complicated issue and we would welcome an 

opportunity to sit down with EPA to determine the best way to get the information that is 

needed. 

Regarding HAP emissions, AF&PA recommends that EPA request data on variability of 

HAPs in fuel analysis as a cost effective approach to gather key information. The data 

should be especially helpful in setting realistic, achievable MACT limits for HCl and 

metals. AF&PA recommends that EPA consider the added value of requesting that 

facilities required to test for HCl also test at the same time for filterable particulate matter. 

Combining these two methods will be cost effective, increase the size of the data set, and 

add value to the data collection program. 

EPA has identified a data gap for metals for certain groups of units but has only 

requested additional data for emissions for mercury and particulate matter. AF&PA 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 9

continues to support the total selected metals (TSM) compliance option and its linkage to 

the Health Based Compliance Alternative (HBCA). If additional data is needed to include 

these two options in the new standard, EPA should also identify potential units for TSM 

testing as well. 

The following tables provide our recommended and alternative test methodologies for the 

CISWI and Boiler MACT Testing Plans. 

Test Method Recommendations for CISWI Unit Testing: 

Compound Recommended 

Test Method Alternate Test Methods 

Cadmium (Cd) EPA Method 29 None 

Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) 

EPA Method 10 None 

Dioxins and 

Furans 

(PCDD/F) 

EPA Method 23 None 

Hydrogen 

Chloride (HCl) 

EPA Method 26A EPA Method 26 can be used if the source does 

not have the presence of entrained water droplets. 

Lead (Pb) EPA Method 29 EPA Method 12 

Mercury (Hg) EPA Method 29 ASTM-D6784-02 can be used if speciated data is 

requested. Be aware that separation of mercury 

fractions may cause detection limit issues on low 

emitting sources. 

Oxides of 

Nitrogen (NOx) 

EPA Method 7E None 

Filterable 

Particulate 

Matter (PM) 

EPA Method 5 Method 17 

Total Particulate 

Matter (TPM) 

EPA Method 5 and 

OTM-028 

None 

Sulfur Dioxide EPA Method 6C None 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 10

Test Method Recommendations for Boiler MACT Unit Testing: 

Compound Recommended 

Test Method Alternate Test Methods 

Filterable 

Particulate 

Matter (FPM) 

EPA Method 5 Method 17 

Total Particulate 

Matter (TPM) 

EPA Method 5 and 

OTM-028 

None 

Hydrogen 

Chloride (HCl) 

EPA Method 26A EPA Method 26 can be used if the source does 

not have the presence of entrained water droplets.

Lead (Pb) EPA Method 29 EPA Method 12 

Mercury (Hg) EPA Method 29 ASTM-D6784-02 can be used if speciated data is 

requested. Be aware that speciation of mercury 

fractions may cause detection limit issues on lowlevel emitting sources. 

Facilities should also be allowed to utilize additional methodologies if appropriate.

Testing Combustors that Burn Small Amounts of Solid Wastes 

AF&PA believes that it may be meaningless to develop emission standards for burning 

solid wastes based on sampling units where the amount of solid waste burned is very 

small in comparison to other fuel use. The current test plan for CISWI units would result 

in an emission standard based primarily on the characteristics of the underlying fuel 

rather than the non-traditional fuel (waste) that caused the combustor to be included in 

the sampling plan because the amount of non-traditional fuels burned at many of the 

facilities in the plan provide a small fraction of the total heat input. Most, if not all, of the 

emissions would result from the traditional fuels burned and have emission profiles very 

similar to industrial boilers. In many cases, the non-traditional fuels contain less 

contaminants than the traditional fuels they replace. Emission test data from units 

deriving a small percentage of their heat input from non-traditional fuels would not reflect 

the nature of their emissions. Thus, AF&PA recommends that selected CISWI units in 

the testing plan not be required to test if the unit burns small amounts of waste as 

compared to the primary fuels of the unit (wood and coal) because the emissions from 

the primary fuels will significantly overshadow the emissions of the fuels categorized as 

solid waste. 

Since the emission characteristics from CISWI units are likely to be influenced more by 

the fuel and boiler design than the waste characteristics, AF&PA further recommends 

that the CISWI regulations be subcategorized along the same divisions as suggested 

above for industrial boilers and process heaters. The test plans for CISWI units should 

reflect the potential subcategorization. 
AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampling Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT 

January 12, 2009 

Page 11

Summary 

Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on EPA’s draft Boiler 

MACT and CISWI Testing Plan. We especially would like you to focus on our comments 

on subcategories and the importance of getting data that reflects real world boiler 

operating variability. We look forward to continuing to work with the Agency on the 

development of the Boiler MACT and CISWI test plans and regulations. 

 Sincerely, 

 Timothy G. Hunt 

 Senior Director, Air Quality Programs 

Attachment 

Cc: Brian Shrager, OAQPS 

 Bob Wayland, OAQPS 

 Mike Galbraith, OSW 

 Courtney Higgins, OMB