January 12, 2009

Submitted Electronically

Mr. Jim Eddinger

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Progr am 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 Associati on (“AF&PA”) appreciates the opportunity to

submit comments on EPA’s draft December 22 nd Phase II Boiler MACT and CISWI Testing Plan. Below are our comments on nine aspects of the draft plan that include: Subcategories; Testing Timeframe; Clarifica tion of CISWI Units Determinations; Cost Considerations; Selection of Units; VOC/HC Compar ative Testing; Emissions Variability; Test Method Recommendations; and Testing Co mbustors that Burn Small Amounts of

Solid Wastes.

Subcategories

EPA has identified the following t en (10) subcategories for the Boiler MACT testing: Coal Large, Coal Small, Coal Limited Use, Biom ass Large, Biomass Sma ll, Biomass Limited Use, Oil Large, Oil Small, Oil Limited Use, and Gas Lar ge. In addition to these subcategories, AF&PA believes that it may be important to further subcategorize these boilers, particularly by combus tor design and load characteri stics, but pending further data evaluations, also potentially by size, ti me of use, and/or fuel type. AF&PA is concerned that the existing and proposed te sting data will not provide adequate information to assess the variability of emissions from units that have different sizes, designs, controls, fuel mi xes, and/or fuel quality.

Additional subcategories that EPA should consider include:

• Boiler Type/Design (e.g. fluidized bed, sp reader stokers, dutch ovens, fuel cells, and suspension burners);AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 2

• Load changes (base loaded boiler s, load-followi ng boilers);

• Process Heaters (sep arate 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 (residua l 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 characterist ics, and fuel type are the most critical subcategories based on our preliminar y 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 bo ilers. For example, al l 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 emi ssions are spreader stok ers. 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 heat ers because in many cases they are designed for specific applications. Many pr ocess heaters in the wood products industry are of fuel cell design (suc h as Wellon units), which may have a different emissions profile and operating characteri stics than a boiler. Fuels used in process heaters can be significantly different than those used in most industrial boilers.

We recognize that increased subcategorizati on may lead to a more complicated rule at one level but may also lead to one with reasonabl e and rational emission limitations that acknowledge the tremendous unit di versity that exist within this source category. Now is

the time to sort out whet her 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 standar ds 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 opport unity to discuss with you our rational for appropriate combustion unit subcategories.

1 See attached spreadsheets showing average em issions of best performing units and number

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

database.AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 3

AF&PA also recommends that boilers loca ted at Area Sources not be included in developing MACT floor determinations.

Testing Timeframe

AF&PA remains concerned that the 4-month ti me 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 qualif ied 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 co mpanies identified for testing may not be operating at full capacity due to current econom ic 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, ge tting 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 th e 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 incor porate the new emission test reports in a manner needed to develop definitiv e subcategories and MACT fl oor emission limitations for the proposed rule. However, the new dat a will be important for filling the key data gaps for establishing the appropriate subcat egories as an approach to fair and legally

2 See comments filed with EPA February 5 th 2008.

3 We realize this list may get winnowed dow n as facilities contact EPA questioning the

rationale for their inclusion.

4 Even more testing is possible during this ti meframe if data gaps are identified for other subcategories not currently contemplated by EPA.AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 4

defensible MACT limitations as highlighted by the court in 2007 5 . Thus, AF&PA suggest that EPA develop emission limitat ion 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 1 st 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 s hortly after the proposed rule is issued, EPA could follow-up with a Notice of Data Availa bility (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 test ing plans, it appears that in selecting units for CISWI testing, EPA includ ed units from the forest produc ts 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 tr im did not appear to have been considered a solid waste by EPA. We belie ve that these on-site material s 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 a ssumptions and provide more detail on the process used to select combustion units for CI SWI testing. We also believe that paper mill sludge from offsite is identical to onsit e 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 2 nd on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for the Identific ation of Nonhazardous Materials that are Solid Waste that will include information justif ying why many of the materials burned in forest products industry boilers are fuels and not solid waste.

AF&PA recommends that if a facility commi ts 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 fu ture if it elects to do so. Fu rthermore, 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 decisi on (03-1202) is Sierra Club v. EPA page 20.AF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 5

Cost Considerations for Testing

According to estimates provided by two i ndependent measurement cont ractors, the cost of performing the requested CISW I and Boiler MACT testing wil l be high (on the order of $40,000 per unit for the CISWI pollutants), espec ially 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 operatin g scenarios are required to capture variability or if CEMS rental is required for an ex tended 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 bur den across the industry.

In order to obtain the maxi mum amount of emission data without requiring even more testing, we also recommend that EPA reque st 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. Us e of existing data will help lim it 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 test ing also burn wood. In order to obtain representative data for the Large Oil unit subcategory, AF&PA recommends that only units that obtain greater t han 90% of their heating value fr om oil should be selected for the Large Oil unit testing.

Some of our member companies have identifi ed units included in the testing plans that are no longer operating and wil l submit that information to you separately. We

recommend that EPA confirm with the individual fa cilities selected fo r 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 test ing 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 comparat ive testing (Coal Large, Biomass Large, Oil Large, Gas Large), the selection of onl y 5 units will not be adequate to cover theAF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 6

different boiler configurations and fuel ty pes within the subcategor ies. The random selection of these units may provide fairne ss by distributing the cost across several facilities but will very likely not result in enou gh data to support an accurate correlation. In addition, tests conducted at maximum oper ating rates under steady state conditions would be expected to be significantly di fferent than data collected during normal operating conditions. The tests would need to be conducted such that the variability of emissions due to operating O 2 levels, load fluctuations, and other normal operating

variables can be considered. Extensive and co stly test programs wo uld be necessary to determine if meaningful correlations betwe en CO and organic HAP emissions exist. Using a flame ionization detector to meas ure total hydrocarbons will not provide a meaningful indicator of products of inco mplete 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 ex isting data to evaluate the relationship between CO and organic HAPs. In particula r, the 1992 report “W ood Products in the

Waste Stream: Characterization and Combus tion Emissions,” Chapter 8, should be included in the rulemaking record and carefully reviewed. The plots of CO versus THC and CO versus individual organics, demonstrat e 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 dat a 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 examin ing existing information on CO and products of incomplete combustion, a more target ed selection process should be used to ensure units that are sampled are r epresentative of other units in the subcategory, taking process variability into account and allowing signi ficant time to collect sufficient data to draw a useful comparison.

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

achieved at CO emission rates that va ry considerably depending on combustion equipment, type and quality of fuel, and varying operating loads. The inherent variability in CO-HAP relationships due to combusti on equipment type and operat ion and fuel type and quality must be addressed wh en establishing MACT Floors.

Given the complexities of developing an emission test plan that would produce meaningful data, EPA should eit her not peruse VOC-CO compar ative 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 e ssential that the sampling prog ram develop information about the variability of emissions fr om the best performing units. T he emission data collected inAF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 7

the 114 letter survey does not appropriately re flect the emission variability because much

of the test information was coll ected during compliance test c onditions. States require that compliance tests be conducted under spec ific conditions, generally representing base loaded, steady state conditions within 90% of the units rated c apacity. 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 dev eloped 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 t he top performers for each subcategory for additional testing at operati ng 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 existi ng 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 fo r setting realistic MACT limits for metals.

If the December 19th D.C. C ourt of Appeals decision to va cate the existing SSM rule remains, a critical issue will be how to include st art-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 dispos ition of the D.C. Cir cuit’s opinion, it may be necessary to obtain data during start- up, shut-down, and malfunction events in order to have the necessary informa tion for setting MACT emission limits. 6 This will necessarily greatly delay development and prom ulgation of a new Boil er 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 k now the subcategories that will be proposed, we cannot identify what information would be most useful. In vi ew of the additional voluntary testing that is likely to be perfo rmed, we request that EPA leave the record open as long as possible for submi ssion 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 Sampli ng Plan for Boiler & CISWI MACT January 12, 2009 Page 8

Test Method Recommendations

AF&PA has prepared two tables below su mmarizing our recommended and alternative test methodologies for the CISWI and Boiler MA CT Testing Plans. In addition, we have the following detailed comments regarding C O, VOC/THC, and HAP emissions testing for your consideration.

Regarding the proposed CO testing, AF&PA re commends that CO emission limitations be established on a long-term averaging period bas is (at least monthly) rather than a short-term averaging period basis (3-hour) given the wide vari ability in CO emissions and the preponderance of existing data available in the database. Installation of temporary CO CEMS for short term testing will pr ovide little benefit si nce the data will not be representative of the variabilit y 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 va lid 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 fr om 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 CE MS may have to be operated on the boiler for 30 days or longer in or der to fully account for the variability in

emissions from these units.

For the proposed VOC/THC testing, operat ion 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 t hen 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 ac curate 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 t he best way to get the information that is

needed.

Regarding HAP emissions, AF&PA recommends t hat EPA request data on variability of HAPs in fuel analysis as a cost effectiv e approach to gather key information. The data should be especially helpful in setting realis tic, achievable MACT limits for HCl and

metals. AF&PA recommends that EPA consi der the added value of requesting that facilities required to test for HCl also test at t he same time for filterabl e particulate matter. Combining these two methods will be cost effectiv e, increase the size of the data set, and

add value to the data collection program.

EPA has identified a data gap for metals fo r certain groups of units but has only requested additional data for emissions for mercury and particulate matter. AF&PAAF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng 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 (HBC A). If additional data is needed to include these two options in the new standard, EPA s hould 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 NoneAF&PA Comments on draft HAP Sampli ng 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 mercuryfractions may cause detection limit issues on lowlevel emitting sources.

Facilities should also be allowed to ut ilize 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 t he amount of solid waste burned is very small in comparison to other fuel use. The current test plan for CI SWI units would result in an emission standard based primarily on the characteristics of the underlying fuel

rather than the non-tradit ional fuel (waste) that caused t he combustor to be included in the sampling plan because the amount of non- traditional fuels bur ned 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 ca ses, the non-traditional fuels contain less contaminants than the traditional fuels they r eplace. 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 requir ed to test if the unit burns small amounts of waste as compared to the primary fuel s of the unit (wood and coal) because the emissions from the primary fuels will significant ly overshadow the emissions of the fuels categorized as

solid waste.

Since the emission characteristics from CISW I units are likely to be influenced more by the fuel and boiler design than the waste c haracteristics, 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 Sampli ng 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 importanc e of getting data that refl ects real world boiler operating variability. We look forward to c ontinuing 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