CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 1 of 13 15 June 2012 

June 15, 2012 

AGENDA 

11:30 AM 

Lunch Prep Meeting 

Taberna Del Alabardero 

1776 I Street NW 

202-429-2200 

2:00 PM 

OMB Meeting 

New Executive Office Building 

725 17th Street, NW 

Room 10103 

Contact: Mabel Echols 

Attendees: 

Robert D. Bessett 

John C. deRuyter 

Lisa M. Jaeger 

Fred Cleveland 

Rob Kaufmann 

Bryan Dierlam 

Bob Morrow 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 2 of 13 15 June 2012 

Executive Summary 

 Keep work practice approaches 

 Need achievable limits for liquid units – only 3 units can comply with no cost 

 Need consideration of solid fuel variability in setting Hg and HCl limits for new 

and existing units 

 Set work practices for CO for fossil units – industrial boiler CO and hydrocarbon 

data are in same range as EGU data. At a minimum, do not set CO limits <100 

ppm. 

 Need more time to comply 

 Need more flexibility in emissions averaging 

 Need fixes to NHSM rule so less materials are regulated as solid waste 

 Other small fixes needed to boiler rules on technical issues 

Boiler MACT Rule 

1. CIBO strongly supports the improvements incorporated in the Dec. 23 proposed 

rule & strongly urges EPA to follow through with incorporating those in the final 

rule. Specific improvements include: 

 Work practices for dioxin/furan emissions control 

o Similar to Utility MATS approach. 

 Work practices generally for Gas 1 units 

 Dropping the H2S specification for Gas 2 fuels to be considered as Gas 1. 

o Great help to continue and increase beneficial use of landfill gas. 

 30-day rolling average periods for operating limits. 

2. Achievability: Liquid Fuels 

 Floor setting methodology relative to liquid fuels is a problem. 

 CIBO’s analysis shows problems exist with achievability of liquid standards. 

o Heavy Oil: 3 of 295 can meet all standards simultaneously 

o Light Oil: 0 of 262 units 

o Non-Continental: 0 of 19 

 Simple alternative compliance mechanism or work practice could be provided 

by EPA under its current authority for units that must fire oil. 

o Use of ultra-low sulfur distillate/diesel fuel oil constitutes MACT 

o Compliance demonstrated by fuel supplier certification. 

 Best performers are in most cases using fuel oils with low pollutant content 

(i.e. they are not in the floor due to use of add-on emission controls). 

 Liquid fuels meeting the Comparable Fuels specification of 261.38 should 

also be included in this approach. 

 If that cannot be done by definition, allow for a petition process to 

demonstrate the specific Comparable Fuel is similar in composition and 

combustion characteristics to ultra low sulfur distillate/diesel fuel oil. 

 Need the alternative HCl compliance approach for liquid fired units based on 

fuel oil water content as provided in MATS. 

o Same as MATS, no BMACT liquid top HCl performers utilized HCl 

emissions controls. 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 3 of 13 15 June 2012 

3. Achievability: Solid fuels HCl and Hg 

 Solid fuel characteristics and variability need to be considered for both new 

and existing units in order to establish workable and achievable standards. 

 Proposed rule solid fuel approach with no fuel variability factor applied 

imposes a bias against coal fired units. 

 Not reflective of demonstrated performance of the diverse combination of 

equipment and fuels. 

 Data in the EPA database on all solid fuels provides insight on the range of 

fuel quality for Cl and Hg across regulated sources. 

o Decidedly different characteristics of coal vs biomass, as well as the 

relative emissions control level required to meet the proposed limits. 

 URS-generated charts from the EPA database highlight the range of fuel 

quality that existing sources utilize. 

o Page 7 - average facility fuel Hg and Cl data, respectively. 

o Page 8 - maximum facility fuel Hg and Cl data, respectively. 

 Coal quality varies considerably across different mines and 

even within a specific mine and seam. Biomass characteristics 

also vary widely. Fuel variability is absolutely critical when 

considering coal quality and its impact on fuel-based emissions. 

o Existing boiler designs are based on specific fuel characteristics for 

proper combustion, to maintain operating efficiency, and achieve good 

emissions control system performance. Therefore, many facilities have 

limited fuel choice availability. 

o Very low Hg and HCl emission limits make it technically challenging at 

best to consistently achieve the emission limits with DSI/ACI 

technology; retrofit application of full scrubbing is technically infeasible 

in some cases due to congested facilities and wastewater limitations. 

 Our analysis indicates only 5 of 378 coal stoker fired boilers (1.3%) can meet 

all December 2011 emission limits simultaneously with no capital cost 

expenditure. Draft May 2012 emission limits can only be met by 10 of 387 

units with no capital cost expenditure. 

o This is the largest subcategory of solid fuel fired sources and the 

lowest percent of units that can meet the limits. 

o This is a problem that EPA must address. 

 CIBO supports EPA applying Fuel Variability Factors to address this 

achievability problem. 

o EPA has adequate data to apply well-supported fuel variability factors 

in order to accommodate the variation in fuels used across all 

regulated sources, especially coal fired units. 

o EPA should consider looking at an “above the Floor” analysis if 

necessary to reach achievable standards. 

o EPA should apply the same FVF to new source limits as applied to 

existing source limits. 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 4 of 13 15 June 2012 

4. Carbon Monoxide Standards: Work practice vs emission limits 

 Coal-fired EGU’s have a cost-effective approach in the MATS rule, while 

Industrial coal-fired units have aggressive emissions standards with 

enormous cost implications. 

o 560,000 jobs tied to Utilities (NAICS 22) 

o 11,930,000 jobs tied to Industrial Manufacturers (NAICS 31-33)1

 MATS work practice approach using tune-ups is equally applicable to ICI 

units because combustion characteristics related to CO formation are similar. 

o CO and THC emission characteristics for ICI units are similar to those 

of utility units per MATS data. 

o Pilot study for coal-fired units developed for MATS rule is equally 

applicable to industrial coal-fired units 

 URS-generated charts compare total hydrocarbon (Page 9) and 

CO (Page 10) emissions for both ICI and utility pulverized coal 

fired units. 

 Very low CO emission limits are unattainable, unsupportable, and will not 

demonstrate lower HAP emissions. 

o Driving CO down will increase NOx emissions 

o Use of CO catalyst may control CO, but will not control HAP emissions 

 and may require additional fossil fuel to reheat stack gases. 

 At a minimum, if work practices are not established for CO for fossil fuel units, 

do not set any CO limit < 100 ppm. EPA data does not support low CO limits 

based on HAP emission reductions. 

o Example case-coal fired spreader stoker boiler ICR 30-day emissions 

testing charts (Page 11). 

 CO was < 100 ppm (< 10 to > 90 ppm) during the 30 day test, 

but THC and formaldehyde showed no correlation with CO 

during that time. 

 Higher CO level data not available for this boiler. 

 If EPA proceeds with CO limits, they need to provide additional flexibility for 

units that cannot meet final limits without major combustor changes or add-on 

controls that would likely not reduce HAP emissions. 

 

1 March, 2012, employment statistics per BLS: http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag22.htm, 

http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag31-33.htm (6/1/2012). 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 5 of 13 15 June 2012 

5. Timing 

 Statute mandates three years for compliance, but allows EPA the discretion 

to add a fourth year. 

 Industrial facilities and universities will be in direct competition with electric 

utilities for limited supply of engineering, fabrication and construction 

resources. 

o Supply and demand: Prices will rise 

o Some valuable engineering and fabrication work will be off-shored 

 Congress never intended to force Industrial facilities and Universities to 

compete directly with regulated utilities for the same resources. 

 EPA should make it clear (e.g. preamble language) that the fourth year is 

automatic when making boiler modifications, installing controls, or switching 

fuels. 

6. Emissions averaging 

 Emissions averaging for repowered boilers (e.g., coal units converted to 

100% natural gas) could provide cost-effective compliance flexibility and 

additional emission reductions. 

 Emissions averaging should be allowed across subcategories-there is 

precedent in other MACT rules (e.g., Hazardous Organic NESHAP). 

 Subcategory of a boiler upon the proposed rule publication date (December 

23, 2011) could determine its subcategory relative to emissions averaging. 

 Conversion of a boiler to natural gas should allow use of 3 x RM DL emission 

rates to be used for that converted boiler in the emissions average if one-time 

actual emissions are < DL. 

 Converted boiler thereafter treated as a Gas 1 boiler: required tune-ups, etc. 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 6 of 13 15 June 2012 

CISWI Rule 

7. Transitioning should be allowed between Boiler MACT and CISWI more often 

than on a 6-month basis 

 Many problems could be avoided if permits could include requirements under 

both BMACT and CISWI for energy recovery units combusting traditional 

fuels and NHSM. 

 Applicability determined simply by whether NHSM solid waste materials are 

being fired at the time. 

o When firing 100% traditional fuels, comply with Boiler MACT standards 

o When firing any NHSM, comply with CISWI standards 

 Problems with startups/shutdowns under CISWI would be resolved since 

most units utilize fossil fuel for startup and shutdown and only burn NHSM 

during normal operation. 

 It is easy to document when NHSM is burned and thereby determine 

requirement applicability and compliance. 

 This would be a straight-forward means of providing operational flexibility 

without losing any compliance demonstration capability. 

 CISWI ERU subcategory fuel-based definitions would need to be changed 

slightly to be consistent with Boiler MACT respective unit definitions. 

8. Restore the 2000 rule “contained gaseous material” definition to make it clear 

that process gases in pipes and ducts are not contained gaseous materials, as 

proposed. 

 Previously, EPA defined “contained gaseous materials” (which are NOT solid 

waste) as gases that are in a container when the container is combusted. 

That definition made it absolutely clear that venting of process gases burned 

for energy recovery or in control devices did not constitute solid waste 

incineration. 

 The elimination of the contained gaseous material definition has caused 

regulatory confusion and has led one state to conclude that new process gas 

and landfill gas flares are solid waste incinerators. 

 EPA “fixed” the problem by issuing letters to several trade groups stating that 

EPA has not changed its position on contained gaseous material. 

 The letters filled the immediate gap. However, industry needs long-term 

regulatory certainty on this point. EPA’s interactions with States on this point 

may not always be consistent, and interpretive letters can be changed at any 

time and challenged as non-binding statements of policy. 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 7 of 13 15 June 2012 

Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) Rule 

9. Additional materials which have been fully evaluated by EPA should be included 

categorically as non-waste materials. 

 Pulp and Paper Wastewater Treatment Residuals (WWTR) should be listed 

as non-waste materials in 241.4(a). 

 Each facility should not be required to separately evaluate or submit 

rulemaking petitions for a non-waste determination for these common 

materials 

 87 million tons of these materials are produced every year imposing an 

unnecessary burden on manufacturing facilities. 

10. Regulatory certainty and the ability to comply with regulations with a high level of 

assurance requires an efficient and timely petition and determination process. 

11. Need clarity that process gases being burned in combustion units (either for 

energy recovery or as a result of control requirements under other regulations) 

are not solid waste. 

 With return of the 2000 CISWI “contained gaseous material” definition, 

regulatory certainty would be advanced by including similar wording or 

references in the final NHSM preamble. 

Other Technical Issues of Concern (as time allows)

12. Boiler MACT startup/shutdown definition. 

 CIBO provided a recommended approach for management of startup and 

shutdown periods in comments and discussed in detail with OAQPS. 

 Comments addressed the problem with trying to apply a one-size-fits-all 

approach to regulated units that are extremely diverse in design and 

operation. 

 Unit specific startup and shutdown procedures are most appropriate and 

provide flexibility for sources to practically and safely operate units. 

o Procedures are reviewable, approvable, and enforceable. 

o Furthermore, states have much experience in approving and enforcing 

site specific provisions for startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Most 

states have been doing this since the 1970’s. 

 Procedures should be used as a guide for operations to purposefully move 

through the startup and shutdown process. 

o Each startup and shutdown should be documented relative to elapsed 

time and timing of actions prescribed in the procedures so problems 

can be identified and corrected in a timely manner. 

o Deviations from procedures should be reported. 

 The startup/shutdown comments and issues are applicable to both BMACT 

and Area Source units with applicable emission limits. 
CIBO-OMB Meeting 

Industrial Boiler MACT, Area Source, CISWI, and NHSM Rules 

Page 8 of 13 15 June 2012 

13. Oxygen Trim Systems 

 Need for flexibility if O2 trim systems are required 

o Accommodate required design and operating latitude 

o Accommodate furnace safety requirements 

14. Parametric Monitoring Systems 

 Need for flexibility to optimize operations over full combustion unit and 

associated equipment operating ranges 

o Operating parameters. 

o Sorbent injection rates. 

o Operation with use of CEMs. 

15. Definition of “gas curtailment or supply interruption” 

 Remaining issue with “period of gas curtailment or supply interruption” 

definition to not prevent use of available natural gas purchase contract and 

tariff arrangements. 
Page 9 of 13 15 June 2012 

 

Boiler MACT Solid Fuel HCl and Hg Fuel Analysis Data – Average Content per Facility by Frequency 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1.00E-101.00E-083.00E-077.00E-071.10E-061.50E-061.90E-062.30E-062.70E-063.10E-063.50E-063.90E-064.30E-064.70E-065.50E-066.50E-067.50E-068.50E-069.50E-061.05E-051.15E-051.25E-051.35E-051.45E-051.75E-052.25E-052.75E-05

Mercury content, lb/MMBtu

Biomass and Coal Mercury Fuel Content Data in 

BMACT Database, Average By Facility

bio freq

coal freq

top biomass

top coal

existing limit

new limit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.00E-061.00E-051.00E-041.00E-033.00E-035.00E-037.00E-039.00E-031.00E-022.00E-023.00E-024.00E-025.00E-026.00E-027.00E-028.00E-029.00E-021.00E-011.10E-012.00E-013.00E-014.00E-015.00E-016.00E-017.00E-018.00E-019.00E-01

1.00E+00

More

Chloride, lb/MMBtu

Coal and Biomass Chloride Content Data from BMACT 

Database, Average by Facility

bio freq

coal freq

top biomass

top coal

existing and new limit
Page 10 of 13 15 June 2012 

 

Boiler MACT Solid Fuel HCl and Hg Fuel Analysis Data – Maximum Content per Facility by Frequency

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1.00E-101.00E-083.00E-077.00E-071.10E-061.50E-061.90E-062.30E-062.70E-063.10E-063.50E-063.90E-064.30E-064.70E-065.50E-066.50E-067.50E-068.50E-069.50E-061.05E-051.15E-051.25E-051.35E-051.45E-051.75E-052.25E-052.75E-05

Mercury content, lb/MMBtu

Biomass and Coal Mercury Fuel Data in BMACT 

Database, Maximum By Facility

bio freq

coal freq

top biomass

top coal

existing limit

new limit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.00E-061.00E-051.00E-041.00E-033.00E-035.00E-037.00E-039.00E-031.00E-022.00E-023.00E-024.00E-025.00E-026.00E-027.00E-028.00E-029.00E-021.00E-011.10E-012.00E-013.00E-014.00E-015.00E-016.00E-017.00E-018.00E-019.00E-01

1.00E+00

More

Chloride, lb/MMBtu

Coal and Biomass Chloride Content Data from BMACT 

Database, Maximum by Facility

bio freq

coal freq

top biomass

top coal

existing and new limit
Page 11 of 13 15 June 2012 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80 100

ppm Total Hydrocarbon

Boiler Data Point Number

Total Hydrocarbon Test Data for Pulverized Coal 

Units From EPA MACT Databases

Boiler 

MACT 

Values

Utility 

MACT 

Values
Page 12 of 13 15 June 2012 

 

 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 50 100 150 200

ppm CO

Boiler Data Point Number

Boiler CO Test Data for Pulverized Coal Units 

From EPA MACT Databases

Reported

Industrial

Boiler Values

EPA Adjusted

Industrial

Boiler Values

Utility Boiler

Reported

Values (19

values over

400 ppm)
Page 13 of 13 15 June 2012 

 

DuPont Washington Works Boiler 5 Total Hydrocarbon versus CO Data (in Boiler MACT Database) 

DuPont Washington Works Boiler 5 Formaldehyde versus CO Data (in Boiler MACT Database) 

y = 0.0013x + 0.1864

R2 = 0.0035

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

THC, ppm

CO, ppm

WWks Boiler 5 THC vs CO

y = 0.0008x + 0.5007

R2 = 0.0009

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

HCOH, ppm

CO, ppm

WWks Boiler 5 HCOH vs CO