Representing the Interests of America’s Industrial Energy Users since 1978

Council Of Industrial Boiler Owners

 6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360, Burke, VA 22015-3757• Phone: 703-250-9042 Fax: 703-239-9042 

E-Mail: cibo@cibo.org

June 13, 2008 

VIA E-DOCKET

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 6102T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

Re: Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and 

Approval; Comment Request; Information Collection Effort for Facilities With 

Combustion Units, EPA ICR Number 2286.01, OMB Control No. 2060-New – 73 

Fed Reg 27820 (May 14, 2008) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

an Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted for approval to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et 

seq. EPA states that this information collection will be conducted by the Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR) to assist the Administrator of EPA, as required by sections 112(d) and 129 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), in determining the current population of affected combustion 

units and to develop emission standards for these source categories. 

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler owners, architect-engineers, related 

equipment manufacturers, and University affiliates with over 100 members representing 20 

major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in every region of the country and a 

representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel combination currently in 

operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the exchange of information within the 

industry and between industry and government relating to energy and environmental 

equipment, technology, operations, policies, law and regulations affecting industrial boilers. 

Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, 

reasonable, cost-effective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO 

supports regulatory programs that provide industry with enough flexibility to modernize – 

effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging energy infrastructure, as modernization is 

the key to cost-effective environmental protection. 
June 13, 2008 Page 2 of 9 

CIBO incorporates by reference and attaches its comments filed in response to EPA's draft 

ICR.1

 In addition to its attached comments, CIBO provides the following additional 

comments in response to this ICR submitted to OMB for approval. 

Supporting Statement

• P.3, 1(b). EPA intends to send the Survey to facilities classified as major source in 

their Title V permit that have a boiler or process heater listed in their permit. While 

this approach may be inclusive, it creates two difficulties. 

1. It will result in unjustified burden on those facilities whose combustion units 

are already regulated under another EPA regulation. For example, in 

promulgated Subpart DDDDD, §63.7491, certain boilers and process heaters 

are specifically identified as not being subject to that subpart. While this 

information collection request legitimately is applicable to CISWI sources, 

there are many other types of boilers and process heaters that should not be 

included since those units are not viable for inclusion in the determination of 

the new rule requirements. In fact, all of those units listed in §63.7491 except 

(e) (CISWI units) should not be required to provide responses. 

2. It could inadvertently impose an unjustified burden on sources that are not 

major HAP emitters. On pages 16 and 23, the Survey clarifies that it applies to 

major sources of HAPs. However, in other citations this distinction between 

Major Title V sources and Major HAP emitters is unclear. EPA should clarify 

at the outset which sources are obligated to respond to the Survey (i.e., those 

that are major for HAPs, have boilers or process heaters or CISWI units and 

are not exempt from DDDDD). Responses from other sources, CIBO 

assumes, would be voluntary. EPA should provide some formal method to 

document each response as voluntary or mandatory. Sources are concerned 

that if there is no agency record of their optional participation, they could be 

subject to an enforcement action for lack of response, when in fact they were 

under no legal obligation to respond. 

Clarifying in the ICR which sources must respond will minimize unnecessary burden 

 on both the regulated community and regulatory agencies. 

• P.3, 1(b). It is stated that the Survey will also be sent to facilities that have 

incineration units that were listed as exempt under the 2000 CISWI standard. This 

apparently refers to 40 C.F.R. 60.2020 under Subpart CCCC and 40 C.F.R. 60.2555 

under Subpart DDDD. Many of those exempted units are already regulated under 

other EPA regulations or do not combust commercial or industrial wastes. Therefore, 

it is inappropriate for EPA to require those facilities to complete the Survey since that 

data will not be useful for establishing revised Subpart DDDDD or CISWI 

regulations. To do so would be a waste of resources by both the regulated community 

and regulatory agencies. EPA must specifically identify appropriate sources whose 

 

1 72 Fed Reg 69213 (December 7, 2007). 
June 13, 2008 Page 3 of 9 

data is truly appropriate and critical to the intended purposes in order to limit the 

burden and cost of the information collection process. 

• P.6. EPA notes that some data may not reflect the current status of boilers. While that 

may be accurate in some cases, it is important to note that emissions data reflecting 

any changes that sources made to comply with EPA's promulgated standards should 

not be used to set the revised standards. Using that data would arbitrarily impose a 

double enforcement burden on units that have already made investments to come into 

compliance with the promulgated standards. For this reason, CIBO urges EPA to 

solicit all available data and seek corresponding information from sources that permit 

EPA to determine whether or not the data reflects changes made to comply with the 

promulgated standards. 

• P.7, 2(b). EPA recognizes the need for fuel/material analysis data to address 

variability. CIBO strongly supports the need for this data to correlate emissions 

performance with fuel/material fed to the combustion device during emissions tests. 

Due to various materials and their composition as fed to boilers and process heaters, 

this variability must be adequately addressed in the rulemaking process in order to 

promulgate a feasible rule. 

EPA says “The data collected will be used to revise the population of potentially 

affected combustion units under §§ 112 and 129 of the Act, ...” EPA should confirm 

here that the data will be used to define source categories but will not bind any facility 

providing data to be defined as either a §112 or §129 unit. EPA should restate here 

that a facility retains the right to discontinue the use of a fuel and thereby subject to 

neither stack testing for that fuel under the second component of the ICR, nor 

redefinition as a §129 unit. 

• P.10, 3(c). EPA decided to provide only a 45 day response time to the ICR. CIBO 

understands the need for EPA to proceed with the rulemaking process in a timely 

manner. However, this very short timing will undoubtedly result in additional burden 

on responding entities simply due to the need to gather data, complete internal 

reviews, and report in a very short time period. EPA should expect some responses 

will not meet that time constraint. 

• P.10-11, 3(d). CIBO appreciates EPA recognizing the excessive burden of the 

emissions testing and changing the intended approach, e.g., eliminating emissions 

control device inlet emissions testing, eliminating paired trains. However, CIBO must 

again stress the inherent limitations of qualified emissions testing contractors to 

conduct a tremendous number of complex emissions tests in a short period of time, 

and that it is almost certain that availability of emissions testing contractors and 

submission of results will be a problem relative to EPA’s projected timeline. 

• P.16, 4(a). EPA notes that if a Survey recipient operates an incinerator in addition to 

boilers and process heaters, the facility will be requested to complete a separate 

section to characterize the incinerator. This request needs to specifically exclude 
June 13, 2008 Page 4 of 9 

incinerators regulated under other EPA regulations, such as hazardous waste 

incinerators. Those units would provide no useful information since they are not 

within the scope of the Boiler/Process Heater MACT or CISWI. 

• P.17, 4(b)(i). EPA states the Survey will request data for “other combustion devices” 

at the same site as boilers and process heaters. EPA should make clear that this only 

would be applicable to sources considered to be boilers, process heaters, or 

incinerators, and not devices such as internal combustion engines, etc. 

• P.18, 4(b)(i). During the stack testing, collection and analysis of three as-fired 

fuel/material samples taken at intervals throughout the testing period will be required. 

The testing protocol should be specific relative to samples, e.g., where three emissions 

test runs are conducted, one representative sample should be provided for each test run 

if possible. 

• Attachment 3B, footnote 6. The costs for conducting stack tests for 15-PAH and 

organic HAP are not included in the cost estimate. CIBO assumes therefore that none 

of that testing will be required. However, if EPA intends to require such testing, then 

the cost must be accounted for in the burden estimate, especially because that could be 

a significant cost. CIBO provided cost estimates for this testing in its earlier 

comments. (See attachment at 9.) 

• Attachment 3B, footnote 6. CIBO understands the desire to limit emissions testing 

costs at specific facilities by not testing for all emissions at every site. However, EPA 

needs to somehow account for coincident emission rates at specific design units firing 

specific fuels. Since there is such a great diversity in design, fuel/materials fired, 

operating parameters, emissions control device design and operation, great care must 

be exercised in extrapolating emissions test results from a limited number of sources 

across many other units. Therefore, having emissions data from specific design units 

firing specific fuels cases would have considerable value. 

• Attachment 3B. If EPA determines that mercury emissions testing from coal fired 

boilers is required, consideration should be given to use of the recently approved 

Reference Method 30B (sorbent trap method) where applicable in order to reduce 

testing cost compared to other wet chemistry Reference Methods. 

• Attachment 4. It is unclear whether the Agency burden and cost includes contractors. 

In order to provide total burden and cost, contractor cost needs to be included. 

• Attachment 4. CIBO believes it is inconceivable that determination of the sites to be 

selected for testing will take EPA technical resources only 8 hours to complete. 

• Attachment 4, footnote 5. CIBO believes EPA is overly optimistic regarding the time 

required to analyze each facility response (30 minutes). Since EPA is allowing use of 

alternative formats and submission of additional data, EPA will need to analyze and 
June 13, 2008 Page 5 of 9 

input that data in some manner so that it can be used in rulemaking determinations. 

This will all take additional time and effort. 

Part B of the Supporting Document

• Section 1. EPA notes that CO and organic HAP data may be needed form gas fired 

units. CIBO urges EPA to consider and obtain coincident data for all units relative to 

CO (and organic HAP where appropriate) and NOx, along with CO2/O2. Low NOx 

emission rates with combustion modification can increase CO emissions. That 

balance must be considered when establishing HAP surrogate emission limits. Data 

can also be used to determine the CO level below which there are insignificant 

changes in HAP emissions, so that low CO emission levels are not simply driven by 

what is possibly seen during a specific test, but by what is required to provide 

assurance of acceptable HAP emission levels. 

• Section 2. Data analysis and evaluation needs to consider that all prior 

subcategorizations considered multiple fuel fired units to be associated with the 

highest-emitting fuel fired, so that coal fired boilers also include those that can also 

fire gaseous and/or oil fuels either alone or simultaneously. This is important when 

considering the inventory of units and the emissions controls applied to units. For 

example, while a coal fired boiler might be equipped with a baghouse, it was installed 

for controlling particulate emissions from coal firing and not for gas or oil firing. 

Draft Questionnaire

• Survey Overview. Note generally and specifically in sections as required, that units 

regulated under other EPA regulations (see comment above relative to 40 C.F.R. 

63.7491) are not subject to this ICR. 

• Part I, 6. If the source is not a major HAP source and not an incinerator, must the 

source complete the Survey? If no is the answer, the Survey should be optional, and 

sources should be told they can stop at this point and send it in without including 

additional information. 

• Part I, 10. Specify that this question applies to units that are not regulated under other 

EPA regulations, e.g., non RCRA-regulated (non-hazardous waste firing combustion 

units). 

• Part I, 11.a. The Survey references a "list," but does not identify which list. CIBO 

assumes this refers to the list of non-fossil fuels listed in definition 10 (Draft 

Definitions, p. 16 to 18) of the Survey. If so, this should be referenced. The document 

titled BMACT ICR Survey 5 includes a different, less-inclusive list of non-fossil fuels 

than the list of non-fossil fuels provided in the Draft Definitions. Should the two lists 

be the same, except for the addition of the fossil fuels? 
June 13, 2008 Page 6 of 9 

• Part I, 12. It is very difficult for facilities to answer these questions, particularly 12(c). 

For 12(c), personnel operating boilers regulated under section 112 are not likely to be 

familiar with the 2000 CISWI rule and its requirements and management is not likely 

to have reviewed the costs and requirements of §129. It is unknown whether and to 

what extent the definition of "solid waste" will affect the CISWI categories and 

standards. Even the eventual boiler MACT categories and standards cannot be known 

with the degree of confidence needed to provide reasonable answers to this question. 

Given all of the unknown factors, it is unlikely that sources would have conducted a 

study to understand costs. In addition, the existing Subpart CCCC and DDDD 

emission limits are in many cases simply not attainable by well controlled boilers 

firing fossil fuel, so that cofiring of those non-fossil or other materials might not be 

possible in that case. Therefore, responses to the question as posed may not provide 

useful information. EPA should either eliminate the question or provide a "unknown" 

option. At a minimum, EPA should make clear the answer provided is non-binding to 

the facility. For 12(b), an option should be added for generating additional steam 

from other boiler(s) at the site. 

• Part I, 13. As with the prior question, CIBO members indicate great difficulty or 

impossibility in answering this question. The question requires assumptions to be 

made about controls, fuels and other fundamental issues in order to provide a 

meaningful answer, most of which turn on the future content of EPA's revised boiler 

MACT and CISWI definitions and standards. Sources should not be required to 

commit to a guess based on a series of unknowns. If EPA retains the question, it 

should provide a "we do not know" option. 

• Part I, 13. While there are probably some units that would fall under Subpart CCCC 

(new sources after 11/30/99 or modified/reconstructed sources after 6/1/01), there are 

likely many more sources constructed before 11/30/99 that would fall under Subpart 

DDDD. Both of those subparts need to be referenced appropriately if the question 

remains in the Survey. 

• Part I, 13. The Survey should provide a response option that says we don’t know. It is 

unlikely that sites will have done an engineering study for §129 requirements and 

know the cost. 

• Part II.A. The terms “gas-fired” and “natural gas fired” are used interchangeably and 

it should be made clear whether responses are required for only natural gas or all fuel 

gases. If the definition is to apply, then the term “natural gas fired” should probably 

not be used to minimize confusion. 

• Part II.A, 1.a. and 2.a. The 10MMBtu/hr threshold should be specifically identified as 

heat input basis to be consistent with typical boiler convention. Many process heaters 

are typically rated on a heat output basis. While the definition does specify heat input, 

it would minimize confusion and potentially erroneous responses to state “heat input” 

at every instance. 
June 13, 2008 Page 7 of 9 

• Part II.A, 1d and 2d. To minimize confusion, CIBO recommends that the last item 

"CO limit units___" be deleted and the first item be revised to read: "CO numerical 

limit with units (e.g., ppm at 3% O2 dry, lb/MMBtu heat input, other- please specify)." 

• Part II. Recognize that the terms “water” and “feed water” are only applicable to 

boilers, and that various process streams are involved with process heaters. 

• Part II.A, 2. It would probably be of value to identify for process heaters whether they 

are forced draft or natural draft burner design, and to specify the number of burners 

per process heater. These features might influence the emissions profiles and other 

parameters. 

• Part II.A, 2. Section appears to be incorrectly numbered as 2 rather than 3. The second 

paragraph asks to provide daily average CEM data for CO, but then asks for the 

highest single data point within the most recent calendar year of CEM data. The 

Survey should specify daily average data, hourly data or instantaneous CO data. As 

drafted, this item is unclear. 

• Part II.B. Heading- It is believed that this part applies to all units that are not small 

natural gas fired units. The wording appears to eliminate natural gas fired units 

>10MMBtu/hr. 

• Part II.B, 1.m. Would probably be of value to know how many burners were installed 

on each unit. 

• Part II, 3.a.6. Insert the text in italics: What was the control device prior to the

upgrade/modification/installation/replacement for complying with 40 C.F.R. 63 

Subpart DDDDD. The text should reflect preparations for compliance but should not 

assume compliance by sources with vacated rules. 

• Part II.C, 2 and 3. In the tables, third column, the letter “B” shown in the lower cells 

needs to be defined in the top cell, as is done with “G”. 

• Part II.C.5. It is believed the question is referring to question 4 above, not 5 as shown. 

In addition, the question is probably referring to the emission test location rather than 

the equipment arrangement. Further clarification is needed. For example, there could 

be a dedicated control device and a shared stack, but the emission test could be 

conducted in the breeching dedicated to a single boiler prior to the stack. 

• Part II.D. For CEM data, allow for selection of months of CEM data available in the 

prior year, plus account for months the unit is operating to allow factoring for 

operating time represented by the data. For example, the single highest data point 

within the most recent calendar year would have different statistical meaning for a 

boiler that operated only sporadically, or for only 2 months in the year compared to a 

boiler that operated for 350 days in the year. 
June 13, 2008 Page 8 of 9 

• Part III. The list of fuel categories is provided twice – once in the Draft Definitions, 

which includes a list of non-fossil fuel materials, and as a separate, different list in the 

document titled BMACT ICR Survey 5. Should the lists be the same? The list in 

Survey 5 does not include several non-fossil fuel materials that are included in the 

Draft Definitions section of the Survey. Specifically, "paper byproducts: knots and 

paper fines" is not included in the list of materials on Survey 5. 

• Part IV. Specify that this is not required for hazardous waste incinerator units. 

• Part IV, 1.g. Allow for units other than tons per day. 

• Draft Definitions, 1. Process heater- delete the last sentence “Any other combustion 

unit combusting non-fossil fuel/material whether covered under another MACT 

standard or not.” Units covered under another MACT have no relevance to the 

Boiler/Process Heater MACT or CISWI, and requiring those to be provided increases 

burden for no purpose. 

• Draft Definitions, 4. Need to verify that the referenced list of HAPs excludes the 

delisted HAPs. 

• All Survey sheets. Add a clear title or header to indicate what units the sheet is 

applicable to and include a sheet number and page. 

• All Survey sheets. Top instructions indicate the sheets can be copied and pasted- does 

EPA want them pasted as separate sheets in the same file, or pasted below the original 

table in one sheet? More clarity on the instructions would help minimize data transfer 

effort on EPA’s part. 

• All Survey sheets. Be sure to instruct respondents to identify the specific fuels being 

fired during the tests, not just leave as Fuel 1, Fuel 2, etc. 

• All Survey sheets. Steam output is only applicable to boilers. Heat input should be 

provided as a separate column that can cover both boilers and process heaters. 

• CEM data sheets. Recognize that opacity is determined with COMS on 6-minute 

block averages and that daily/monthly or other basis average data is not routinely 

determined since it has no meaning and compliance is based on the 6-minute averages. 

It would be an excessive burden to require these calculations if they are not easily 

obtainable. 

• CEM data sheets. The control device configuration, operating rate, and fuel mix at the 

maximum emission data point may be data that is not available. Many systems 

without electronic historians would not record this data, and even if those were 

available, it might be a very time-consuming task to obtain that data. EPA must 

determine the real value of such data prior to requiring it to be provided. 
June 13, 2008 Page 9 of 9 

• Survey 2, sheet 2 description appears to be for non-small gas fired units, but the first 

page is for small gas fired units. Is it intended that both sheets are for small units? If 

so, correct the description and provide clear headings and instructions. 

• Survey 5. Is the exclusion limited to natural gas fired units or all gas fired units? 

Draft Definitions for Questionnaire

• The Survey provides good definitions of incinerators. However, Survey questions 

should cite the location of the definition early on to help. 

• The definitions of non-fossil fuel/materials includes “paper byproducts: knots and 

paper fines.” However, the list of fuels included in the document titled “BMACT ICR 

Survey 5” does not include this category of non-fossil fuels. This category and other 

non-fossil fuels listed in the definitions should be included on this survery document. 

If you have questions or need clarification, please contact me at 703.250.9042. 

 Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette 

President 

Attachment 
Attachment 1 
Representing the Interests of America’s Industrial Energy Users since 1978

Council Of Industrial Boiler Owners

 6035 Burke Centre Parkway, Suite 360, Burke, VA 22015-3757• Phone: 703-250-9042 Fax: 703-239-9042 

E-Mail: cibo@cibo.org

February 5, 2008 

VIA E-DOCKET

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 6102T 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058

Re: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request; Information Request for National Emission Standards for Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; EPA ICR No. 

2286.01 -- 72 Fed Reg 69213 (December 7, 2007) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) appreciates the opportunity to comment on 

the proposed text of an Information Collection Request (ICR) that will be submitted for 

approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. EPA will seek ICR approval to implement 

§112 and §129 of the Clean Air Act. 

CIBO is a broad-based association of industrial boiler owners, architect-engineers, related 

equipment manufacturers, and University affiliates with over 100 members representing 20 

major industrial sectors. CIBO members have facilities in every region of the country and a 

representative distribution of almost every type of boiler and fuel combination currently in 

operation. CIBO was formed in 1978 to promote the exchange of information within the 

industry and between industry and government relating to energy and environmental 

equipment, technology, operations, policies, law and regulations affecting industrial boilers. 

Since its formation, CIBO has been active in the development of technically sound, 

reasonable, cost-effective energy and environmental regulations for industrial boilers. CIBO 

supports regulatory programs that provide industry with enough flexibility to modernize – 

effectively and without penalty – the nation's aging energy infrastructure, as modernization is 

the key to cost-effective environmental protection. 

CIBO members will be directly affected by EPA's implementation of §114 and the rules that 

are written based on that information collection: they will receive EPA's §114 information 
 

2 

request and be required to respond to the Survey and are among those facilities to be randomly 

selected for required stack testing. CIBO members have reviewed the Federal Register notice 

(FR), the Supporting Statement (SS) and Attachments (identified by number/letter). CIBO 

provides these comments on specific aspects of the Draft ICR. 

I WEBSURVEYOR 

EPA plans to conduct the §114 Survey through the Websurveyor automated system. See 2F. 

CIBO COMMENTS 

The automated system should facilitate internal review of draft responses. Using a web 

survey tool is an efficient way for EPA to obtain standardized information from facilities, but 

it presents a problem for facilities in their internal management and legal review of 

information they provide in response to the survey. Given the short timeframe, facilities need 

an efficient way to prepare a draft response and review the draft internally before submitting it 

to EPA. EPA states that forms and spreadsheets will be distributed to respondents. SS at 12. 

CIBO urges EPA to ensure that these materials can be used to develop draft responses 

"offline" and used for internal review purposes and then loaded into the survey tool. If the 

EPA materials are flexible enough to be used first internally and then externally, most 

facilities will be able to meet the short timeframe of 45 days to respond to the Survey. 

EPA should ensure that passwords for the electronic survey can be obtained easily and 

remain usable. For facilities, one of the most frustrating aspects of responding electronically 

to requests for information is the difficulty of obtaining a password, and then its failure to 

work on the date of the electronic filing of the response. CIBO members urge EPA to ensure 

its password system facilitates filing e-responses. 

II NUMBER OF FACILITIES AND UNITS 

EPA estimates 3,396 facilities, with an average of 2.6 boilers at each facility. SS at 14-15. 

EPA explains that it had been using the 1997 ICR inventory and survey data, to estimate there 

were 15,900 facilities with affected units and 3894 solid fuel units. (SS at 19). EPA has 

gathered more recent data from States and facility initial notifications, and now estimates 

3,396 facilities, with no estimate for the number of solid waste units. (SS at 19) 

CIBO COMMENTS 

In the §112(j) ICR, EPA estimated 20,000 facilities and 60,000 units and used 20,000 

occurrences as the multiplier for its burden estimates. EPA ICR No. 1648.06; OMB Control 

No. 2060-0266; 72 Fed Reg 62226 (November 2, 2007), Supporting Statement at 8 (§112(j) 

ICR SS). These numbers do not correlate with the numbers in the present ICR. What is the 

correct number of facilities and units?
 

3 

III FIRST COMPONENT: SURVEY 

All facilities with potentially affected units must complete the Survey. See 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D. 

EPA seeks 4 data points (SS at 11): unit design & operations, fuel type and/or combustor 

design, and most recent fuel analyses & emissions test data for all HAP & HAP surrogates 

(HCl, Hg, As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, PM, CO). 

EPA will request available stack test data for: § 129 pollutants (Dioxins/Furans, SO2, 

opacity, NOx), additional pollutants based on EPA invoking its discretion to add 

pollutants to § 129 (PAH, HCB, PCB), and O2 and CO2. 

EPA's projected timeline for the Survey is to send the Survey to sources on June 30, 2008, 

with responses due from facilities in 45 days, around August 15, 2008. SS at 13. 

EPA lists two Survey Activities: read instructions and complete electronic survey. 3A 

and SS at 12. A third activity will apply to 10% of the sources, which will be required to 

submit, upon request by EPA, a hard copy of their emission test report, for QA/QC 

reasons. EPA based its cost estimate on cost estimates it produced for the BMACT rule. 

Gas-fired units will do a shortened survey and their cost estimate is lower. EPA 

estimates the burden per unit for the Survey to be 28.2 hours, $2263 per respondent. 

CIBO COMMENTS 

The Survey should not cover boilers covered by another NESHAP or not covered by 

Subpart DDDDD. The Draft Questionnaire does not acknowledge that boilers may be 

covered by another NESHAP Standard. Those boilers should be exempt from responding 

to the §114 request. Also, units previously listed in Subpart DDDDD § 63.7491 (69 FR 

55254) as not subject to that rule should not be included in the responses. CIBO 

recommends EPA make this clear by inserting the text in italics in the Attachments as 

noted: 

• Attachment 2A, Survey Overview, insert: Any boiler and process heater not 

subject to Subpart DDDDD or covered as an affected source in another 

standard(s) under 40 CFR part 63 is not subject to subpart DDDDD and is not 

required to reply to this Questionnaire. 

• Attachment 2E, Definitions, insert: "1. For purposes of this survey, combustion 

units are limited to the following devices that are not covered as an affected 

source in another standard(s) under 40 CFR part 63 and not subject to subpart 

DDDDD." 

Some sources cannot meet EPA’s 45-day Survey response schedule. If the §114 

request is submitted on June 30th, the response time should be 60 to 90 days to account 

for shutdowns. Some CIBO members will be completely shutdown during June and/or 

July, which means that mail will not be received and any survey response efforts cannot 

commence until late July. In some cases, on a normal basis facilities can be shut down at 

any point in time from mid-June through mid/late July for model year changeover. In the 

present economy, facilities are being temporarily shut down more frequently for longer 

periods of time, which also may occur during the June/July timeframe and cannot be 

predicted. In addition, many facilities will need to coordinate this effort from a corporate 
 

4 

standpoint and will need to channel responses through central locations for review and 

consistency purposes, which also will add time. 

EPA should provide more time for the Survey to ensure complete responses. More 

importantly, for sources facing shutdowns during the timeframe proposed for the Survey, 

EPA must provide some process to deal systematically with this and other unusual 

circumstances, so sources can avoid missing deadlines for responding to the Survey. 

EPA should clarify which pollutants will be covered by the Survey. In its discussion 

of the Survey requirements, EPA states that it will seek available stack test data for all 

HAPs. That data clearly applies to all affected units. However, in the same Survey 

discussion, EPA states that it will also seek available stack test data for § 129 pollutants, 

pollutants EPA plans to add to the § 129 list, and two constituents that are neither criteria 

pollutants nor HAPS, nor indicated as future additions to the § 129 list (O2 and CO2). 

See 2B, 2C, 2D and SS at 11. 

It is unclear whether EPA intends to collect information on these additional pollutants 

from all potentially affected units or only from those units that may become § 129 units. 

The placement of this discussion in the Survey portion of the Draft ICR creates confusion 

about whether all units must supply data for all pollutants indicated, regardless of 

whether the units are potentially § 129 units based on the revised solid waste definition. 

EPA should require PCB and HCB testing, if at all, only selectively and only if 

justified. EPA provides no justification for PCB and HCB testing, other than third-party 

interest in these chlorinated compounds. These are not tested for in conventional boilers 

firing conventional fossil fuels. If this is a non-fossil fuel concern, EPA should limit 

testing to non-fossil units. 

EPA should identify the PAHs, PCDDs and PCDFs of concern to minimize burden 

and costs and ensure usefulness of data. PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon) is a 

very broad category that captures organic compounds comprised of more than one 

benzene ring. CIBO members know of no single EPA test method that can be used to test 

for “PAH.” Rather, the appropriate test method would involve collecting a gas sample 

and taking it to a lab for analysis by Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). 

In order for the GC/MS analysis to be meaningful, the analyzers must be calibrated for 

the compounds in question. Given that there are 100’s of PAH compounds, EPA should 

identify those PAHs of most interest (for example, EPA could use ATSDR or IARC 

carcinogenicity rankings). This would ensure that sources will test for the same PAHs 

and data is comparable across sources. Without some clarification, test data will not be 

useful. The further specificity for these pollutants is needed to maximize the use of the 

data and minimize costs. 

EPA should also collect data that reflects mitigating fuel inputs for accurate 

assessment of fuel efficiency. In past data collection efforts, EPA has not gathered 

sufficient data relating to certain important mitigating factors when assessing boiler 

performance. One specific example especially relevant here is the environmental and 
 

5 

energy benefits of alternate fuels. Many units co-fire fuels to achieve emissions limits or 

cost or engineering efficiencies. In those cases, it is important that boiler efficiency is 

viewed from both an alternate fuels benefits perspective as well as from that of total air 

emissions per heat input. Use of alternate fuels provides significant environmental and 

energy benefits, which EPA should account for in its rulemakings. EPA should expand 

the Survey questions to include data collection that will permit it to fully account for 

those efficiency benefits in its future rulemaking proposals. 

EPA use of CO2 and O2 data. EPA states that it intends to collect CO2 and O2 data, as 

these are also indicators for combustion efficiency. (SS at 11). However, data for O2 

and CO2 likely to be entered in Attachments 2B, 2C would be the O2 and CO2 

measurement taken during the emissions tests for the specific pollutants. Since emissions 

tests are typically conducted at near maximum firing rate under stable conditions, the O2 

and CO2 levels are not indicative of normal operation and are only representative data at 

those specific conditions firing those specific fuels. O2 levels are lower at high firing 

rates than at lower firing rates due to inherent operating limitations with fuel and air 

mixing at lower loads. Therefore, EPA should clarify why it is collecting this data and 

the ultimate purpose. If it is collecting this data as a measure of combustion efficiency, 

test data for CO2 and O2 should be collected at the burner and not from the stack. 

Formal notice and comment will be needed for sources to review data. EPA indicates that 

it obtained data from States and other sources to estimate the burdens of this ICR. EPA will 

supplement that with data obtained from thousands of covered units. EPA’s tight timeframe 

for the Survey, immediately followed by selection of sources to conduct stack tests leaves no 

time for sources to correct data. Data review and correction is a standard element of this type 

of process, and data mistakes are very common. A data QA/QC correction opportunity will 

be very important here, because the next step in EPA’s plan is to select sources to undertake 

mandatory, highly expensive and disruptive stack testing. This is a significant commitment of 

facility resources that must be based on accurate data.

EPA burden estimates are low. In comments on the §112(j) ICR, CIBO pointed out 

significant discrepancies in the Draft ICR overall burden estimates, making these 

observations: “EPA estimates the average administrative cost for the Table 2 Activities to be 

$5,613.80 per respondent. . . . At the low end, CIBO burden estimates are 78% higher than the 

ICR for §112(j) implementation. This gap is likely attributable to EPA's lack of understanding 

of management controls on cost (capital and operating) and lack of understanding of the 

reality of industrial operations and the availability of detailed information on older combustion 

units that commenced operation prior to computerization of records. Critical process 

information, particularly design basis items and physical parameters for equipment is in hardcopy drawings and specifications. This boosts technical and clerical time to meet permitting 

agency requests. Management involvement requires multiple levels of communication and 

review for important changes, particularly where changes involve capital expenditures. 

For this ICR, CIBO restates its concern that EPA fails to appreciate the challenge faced by 

regulated sources of any mandatory data collection. Attachment 3A indicates much lower 

cost estimates for activities than CIBO members estimate, because EPA does not account for 
 

6 

the full range of challenges of responding in a short period of time to highly detailed 

questions, which require high level certification of accuracy and legal review. 

One specific example of underestimated burden relates to gas-fired units. Attachment 3A 

differentiates the burden and costs for “Gas Fired Units,” whereas the Survey instructions in 

Part IIA2 appear to provide lesser reporting requirements for units firing only natural gas. It is 

not clear that the table data is limited to those firing only natural gas, or those that met the 

prior Subpart DDDDD gaseous fired unit definition (all gaseous fuels and those with Distillate 

Oil backup). Burden and costs would be significantly higher than shown if the table is based 

on the prior Subpart DDDDD criteria and the instructions do not match. 

Avoidance of double compliance. EPA’s data collection and recalculation of floors for the 

revised Boiler MACT rule (and eventually the floors for the §129 sources) could impose 

double compliance obligations on sources prepared to comply by September 2007 with the 

previously effective Subpart DDDDD. The Survey should gather data necessary to set floors 

that will not subject some sources to double compliance. 

Sources subject to Subpart DDDDD were preparing for compliance by September 2007 

under those rules. Those rules had been in effect since September 2004 and were not 

stayed by the DC Circuit during the challenge to those rules. As such, many sources had 

already undertaken costly capital and other improvements to reduce emissions to be able 

to comply by that original deadline. EPA has noted this fact several times. SS at 4 and 

§112j ICR SS at 6. EPA has not indicated how it intends to ensure that its floor 

calculation for the revised MACT standard is based on emissions data that pre-date those 

investments made to comply with the vacated standard. Survey question IIB3 requests 

the date of installation of emissions control equipment modifications. However, the 

Survey should also ask whether the modifications were made in response to Subpart 

DDDDD, to permit EPA to identify measures already undertaken for Subpart DDDDD 

compliance. 

IV SECOND COMPONENT: STACK TESTING 

EPA plans to randomly select up to 350 boilers or process heaters, which will be required to 

do a stack test with an EPA-approved protocol. (72 FR 6921472) EPA explains that 350 is a 

statistically significant portion of units based on 1997 ICCR numbers (15,900 facilities; 3894 

solid fuel units). Because new data reflects a much lower number of affected units (3,396 

facilities; no solid fuel unit number given), the likely number of units required to do stack tests 

should be much lower than 350. 

The ICR indicates the stack test “will require 3 runs, before and after the control device 

with a specified HAP speciation method using paired emissions sampling trains at each 

location." SS at 8, 11. EPA will include in its §114 letter a generic QAPP (quality 

assurance project plan) and any necessary modifications should be sent to EPA for 

review. (SS at 12) 
 

7 

EPA lists 8 Activities for units required to do stack testing. See 3B and SS at 12. EPA 

estimates the per unit burden for stack testing to be 84.5 hours and $33,465. 

EPA's timeline for stack testing (SS at 13) is to send the §114 Stack Test letter out 

September 15, 2008, with stack tests due in 60 days, around November 15, 2008. 

CIBO COMMENTS 

Formal notice and comment is needed prior to any required testing. Once EPA has 

reviewed the data, amended it with data corrections from regulated sources, identified 

data gaps and developed a plan for testing, EPA will need to provide the regulated 

community with its plans for testing. In light of the many issues raised in these 

comments, sources will need to review the plan and provide formal comment to EPA on 

the plan and whether and how it can be achieved. Sources will also be able to provide 

EPA with valuable information regarding its analysis and conclusions regarding data 

gaps it identifies, and other aspects of EPA's plan for gathering data for the rulemakings.

EPA greatly underestimates the cost of stack testing as described in the ICR. In the 

§112(j) ICR, CIBO provided this estimate of the cost of stack testing for just PM and CO: 

"Stack testing for PM and CO could cost $30,000 to 50,000 per boiler, accounting for all 

operational costs that will be incurred in conducting the test, with the higher range costs 

incurred for sources firing multiple fuels, with testing over multiple days. For solid-fuel 

boilers, data must be gathered over several days and fuel and ash test samples must 

undergo laboratory analysis. To achieve good data quality, testing is very costly. The 

costs to prepare, monitor and submit stack test data could require an estimated 100 hours 

technical work, 5 hours management work and 3 hours legal work." 

In the present ICR, EPA intends to require stack testing that will be more costly than the 

potential State testing addressed in CIBO’s earlier cost estimate for the §112(j) ICR. 

Costs will be greater for a number of reasons. First, for this BMACT ICR, EPA intends 

to require testing for all §129 pollutants, other pollutants EPA intends to add to §129, and 

yet other pollutants identified by third parties. This testing for multiple pollutants will 

cause sources to incur significantly higher costs and entail more effort by site personnel. 

Many other elements increase the testing cost beyond EPA’s estimate and even CIBO’s 

estimates for the §112j ICR, including the following examples: 

• Depending on the facility capabilities and required testing schedule, boiler 

operation at or near maximum capacity might require venting of steam. That 

would be a significant cost to the facility and is not included in the burden 

estimate. 

• If access platforms do not exist at test port locations, considerable cost will be 

imposed to set up a safe test location, requiring scaffolding or even permanent 

platforms, depending on the location. 

• Determination of control device efficiency for some of the targeted pollutants like 

heavy metals or chlorine may require spiking of known quantities of the 

pollutants in order to minimize detection limit issues. This adds tremendously to 
 

8 

the cost and difficulty of a stack test, akin to those of hazardous waste incinerator 

trial burns. 

• Additional plant costs associated with testing are incurred beyond the 

environmental (or other) technical staff person who would be 

observing/coordinating the testing. For example, during this sort of testing, plant 

personnel are likely going to be in prep mode for 2-3 hours prior to testing (each 

day). This is very expensive. 

• Testing metals and some other identified pollutants, if there is no simple protocol, 

will be potentially very costly, entailing lab work. Even facilities with labs do 

not have instrumentation or personnel to do these types of tests, and only so many 

facilities have those resources. These factors, and the resulting bottleneck, will 

increase costs. 

• Required testing levels have not been determined, but these significantly affect 

the cost and what labs are qualified to conduct the tests. Nationwide, there are 

only approximately 20 firms with sufficient experience and resources to perform 

the full gamut of testing proposed by EPA. Additionally there are fewer than five 

laboratories capable of doing the necessary semi-volatiles analysis. These limited 

resources and a limited timeframe for testing will drive costs higher. 

EPA notes that it relied on the cost estimates for the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) testing 

to estimate the costs in this ICR. SS at 13-14. CAMR is not analogous to the testing at issue 

here, for many reasons. CAMR covered a rather homogenous boiler population – utilities – as 

compared to industrial sources, which are much more variable in boiler design, fuel and 

operating conditions. CAMR required sources to conduct mercury speciation stack tests 

sometime during a one-year period. Units selected were to run simultaneous before and after 

control device stack testing, consisting of three runs at each sampling location, as well as 

collecting and analyzing three coal samples from the coal fed during each stack test. EPA 

ICR No. 1858.01, 63 Fed Reg 17406 (April 9, 1998) (CAMR ICR) and SS at 3 (Docket ID 

No. A-92-55). EPA estimated the per-unit burden at 594 hours and $44,495. SS at 21. The 

CAMR ICR also made clear that the testing would not require units to incur capital or start-up 

costs. CAMR ICR, SS at 21. 

CAMR projected test costs do not correlate to what will be tested for here, in terms of 

pollutants, source types, timing, required lab work, cost impact relative to unit size, potential 

requirement of capital or start-up costs, and other factors that affect how much testing burden 

is reasonable for EPA to impose on sources. 

CIBO emphasizes one critical distinction in particular between the test burdens of CAMR 

and this ICR: here, sources will incur some capital costs just for testing. An upstream 

sampling port installation prior to the control device can take months, especially since a 

downtime is needed before the tie-in can be completed, with costs related to ports, 

platform, and tower. 

Attachment 3B reflects many factors that result in an underestimated burden 

estimate. All emissions test burdens and costs are low considering the number and 

complexity of testing potentially required. Some general and specific comments: 
 

9 

• Item 1 will take considerably more time than shown when multiple emissions 

tests are required and multiple fuel mixes are considered. 

• Item 2, Fuel Sampling, will take more time than the 0.5 hour estimated to gather 

representative samples of fuels burned during the emissions tests, properly mix 

and quarter the samples and prepare for shipment to a lab. Sources are likely to 

sample fuel for every single test run, which would take at least 20 minutes per 

sample at a small facility with fuel feeds close together. 

• Item 3 costs will be higher than shown. Footnote 5 indicates the costs are based 

on fuel analyses for metals from a referenced document. In order to thoroughly 

evaluate fuel characteristics and constituent levels, normal fuel analyses such as 

HHV, S, ash, moisture, etc., are also needed. Those add to the total cost. 

• Item 4 (Conduct Stack Testing) costs are low for multiple component testing over 

multiple days since some of the tests cannot be conducted simultaneously due to 

accessibility, safety, and manpower limitations. Costs for organic emissions 

testing can be extremely high and are not covered by the indicated costs. Some 

detailed estimates in Footnote 6 are quite low. Dioxins/furans and PAH testing 

could easily exceed $100K per test. Costs for dioxin, PCB and PAH and HCB 

testing are not precisely known, but are known to be much higher than the $5,000 

estimate, given the lab demands of all three pollutants. 

• Similarly, Item 5 would be higher based on total time required to conduct the 

tests. It is assumed that unit operating data would be required during the 

emissions testing, and the table does not indicate labor and cost for gathering and 

aggregating that data. Some installations do not have control systems that allow 

data recording and trending of all parameters, so that manual data collection 

would be required, again increasing efforts and likely requiring an additional 

person dedicated to the testing. 

CIBO members estimate the cost of a stack test to be $50,000 for conventional pollutants 

alone, depending on site and unit-specific conditions. As required in this ICR, testing for 

Dioxins/Furans, PCB, HCB, PAHs and condensable particulates could easily exceed 

$100,000. Requiring paired sampling for any of these non-conventional pollutants could 

increase the stack test cost by 60 - 75% over the $100,000. CIBO estimates the total possible 

cost for the testing as described in this ICR could be over $200,000 per unit per test condition. 

Random selection for stack testing will not provide the best data. EPA states that it will 

randomly select sources to conduct stack testing. SS at 2. But EPA also makes other 

statements that would have the effect of reducing the randomness of the testing requirement. 

For example, EPA will seek to avoid requiring the same plant site to test more than one unit 

(per category). SS at 22. In addition, EPA states that "stack tests will only be obtained for a 

combination of fuel type and combustor design where there are gaps in available emission 

data." SS at 21. These factors will narrow the field of potential sites to conduct testing, and 

thereby limit randomness. 

In addition to EPA’s statements, the population of boilers to be tested have uncommon 

characteristics that will unavoidably further reduce the randomness of selecting sites for 

testing, including: 
 

10 

• If emissions control device inlet and outlet testing are required, available units for 

testing will be limited. Many installations do not have inlet test ports or access, 

and existing duct arrangements likely do not meet Method 1 requirements even if 

ports could be installed. Usefulness of data collected in such locations may be 

limited. EPA needs to consider individual unit limitations and the potential 

impact on test results in selecting test locations, as well as whether inlet testing is 

of value. 

• Prior to selecting facility and unit test locations, EPA should request information 

on availability of emissions test ports and access platforms at desired locations. 

• Some boilers share common emissions control equipment. Some boilers and 

process heaters share common stacks. Each of these cases needs to be considered 

by EPA in selecting potential test units since it may not be possible to obtain or 

determine desired results in those installations. 

Under these circumstances, truly random selection of sources to conduct stack testing is not 

likely to yield the data to fill data gaps, will produce highly variable data and may produce a 

wide variety of data that would not be representative of the sources to be regulated. Due to 

special configurations, physical limitations and inability to yield useful data, some boilers 

simply should not be randomly selected. Rather than random selection, CIBO supports 

additional pre-selection analysis, and is willing to work with EPA to identify potential 

subcategories of sources that meet specific testing needs to be identified by EPA. 

CIBO is willing to provide technical expertise to assist with the identification of a pool of 

boilers that could be tested to help fill gaps. One key foundational element for such an effort 

would need to be that no unit is singled out for testing, so that the boilers selected are truly 

representative. While this selection process would not be truly random, it should be possible 

to develop a statistically significant pool from which to select units. This also would have the 

advantage of controlling the quality of data collected. CIBO members seek to ensure that 

very expensive testing will yield data that will provide a sound basis for the standards EPA 

sets. 

No entity should be required to conduct more than one stack test. CIBO supports EPA’s 

effort to avoid overburdening small businesses, many of which are CIBO members. In 

addition, no single company – large or small – should be required to test more than a specified 

number of units at a single plant and no more than 2 (random) plants. 

The cost of testing should not be imposed disproportionately. The burden to conduct 

stack testing is significant and should not be borne by a small subset of all affected units. 

Imposing such a burden is a competitiveness matter among entities and could constitute 

arbitrary and capricious agency action. Federal Election Com'n v. Rose, 806 F.2d 1081, 1089 

(D.C. 1986)("an agency's unjustifiably disparate treatment of two similarly situated parties 

works a violation of the arbitrary-and-capricious standard")(citations omitted). See also, 

Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 872 (9th Cir. 2003). (upholding 

the challenged EPA action, the court noted that "an agency does not act irrationally when it 

treats parties differently, unless the parties are similarly situated.") 
 

11 

By the same token, requiring all units to conduct testing would be even more burdensome 

across industry, and could constitute arbitrary agency action because, depending on what 

is being tested for and what is being burned on, tests may not be justified by the data 

needs for standard setting or by the cost to conduct the tests. EPA has determined to use 

its authority under §114 to collect this data. In the past, EPA has typically used §114 

authority to collect information uniformly across affected sources (CAMR being the 

exception), or to collect information from specifically targeted entities to enforce 

standards EPA believed to have been violated. This ICR is the first time EPA has used 

§114 authority to selectively impose a highly costly testing burden on industrial sources. 

EPA’s randomly imposed mercury speciation stack testing on utility sources in the 

CAMR rulemaking is not analogous to this situation, and the burden impact is not 

analogous, for the reasons described above. 

In order to minimize disproportionate burdens, EPA needs to find some mechanism to spread 

the cost among all potentially affected units. CIBO strongly urges EPA to take a more 

programmatic approach to conducting testing to improve the quality of data. With this 

approach, EPA can select contractors, provide protocols and obtain fully comparable data that 

will be defensible and one-time-only. CIBO members are concerned not only with the cost of 

less-than-programmatic stack testing, but also with the highly disruptive nature of conducting 

the tests measured against the lack of certainty that EPA will have the data it needs to defend 

its standards. CIBO urges EPA to establish a government-funded testing program and 

conduct testing at the necessary units. If EPA decides to proceed and impose the burden on 

only some units, another possibility would be to provide tested units with a period of 

enforcement discretion or certification of compliance of a specified duration. 

EPA must provide an opt-out for units selected for testing. Under the proposed ICR, 

all units subject to Subpart DDDDD will submit Survey data. Based on that data, EPA 

will identify a subset of units that may be redesignated as §129 incinerators, and from 

among that subset, EPA will require selected units to conduct stack testing. It is unclear 

whether this random selection will occur before EPA has determined how it will define 

“solid waste” for §129 purposes, but based on standard rulemaking timelines, it is 

unlikely that a final rule on that issue will precede EPA’s random selection. Ideally, 

sources would know that important information before being notified of their random 

selection. In any event, in some cases, a facility may determine that rather than being 

redesignated as a §129 source and undertaking the expense of the stack test, it would 

simply cease utilizing the non-fossil materials as fuel. EPA must provide some process 

for those units to make those determinations prior to imposing a test burden on selected 

units. Such a decision presumably would be made on the basis of fuel cost, test cost, 

§129 compliance cost and other relevant factors. The decision would be made at a high 

level of an organization and require some analytic time. The §114 process must provide 

time for facilities to make these decisions. 

EPA should not use data from §112 units to set §129 standards. If EPA collects data 

from units as part of its §129 standard setting, and those units determine data from units 

that decide to cease burning alternate solid fuels, that data should not be used to set 

standards because that data will no longer be representative of the source subcategory 
 

12 

EPA will be regulating. It will be very important for EPA, in order to set defensible 

standards, to firmly establish the populations of the source categories in advance, and to 

ensure that the data sets it relies on for those standards fully correspond to the population 

of units regulated. Before EPA can establish the categories, it must first define “solid 

waste” for purposes of §129, to provide potentially covered units the opportunity to 

analyze the impact of that definition on their operations. 

Testing both before and after control device is duplicative. Based on the description 

in the SS of the stack test, a unit will be required to do 3 runs before the control device 

(CD) and another 3 runs after the CD for a total of 6 runs per boiler. If a source might 

opt to comply or operate without a CD, then it is logical to require testing before the CD, 

but otherwise, for sources using a CD for compliance, testing only after the CD would 

seem necessary. In addition, the feasibility of pre-control device testing is severely 

limited for some boilers due to many factors beyond the control of the source. Where 

reduction efficiency is not anticipated across a control device, outlet testing alone should 

be sufficient. For example, it is not likely that NOx will be reduced inside an ESP 

(assuming no sorbent injection), so outlet testing should suffice.

Except for the rare instances when sources must comply with a % reduction efficiency, it 

is unclear why EPA seeks inlet data. Inlet data will provide only data on the CD itself, 

and will not assist in determining compliance. Absent some justification for the 

additional cost, CIBO asserts that testing both before and after the CD is unnecessary, 

overly burdensome and arbitrary. 

In addition, to ensure apples-to-apples comparison of pre- and post-control emissions, 

there must be a means to ensure that the same parameters are in place in order to have 

any scientific validity. This may not be practically feasible considering 6, 1-hour runs 

(plus 2 parallel sampling trains for HAPS per run) would almost certainly require more 

than 1 day of testing. To meet those conditions, facilities may need to hire two stack test 

teams, one to measure the pre-CD emissions and one to simultaneously measure the postCD emissions. This of course would significantly and exponentially increase the cost of 

testing beyond CIBO’s estimates and is unnecessary and overly burdensome. 

EPA should either require testing only after the CD or give sources that intend to comply 

with a CD the option to test without a CD. 

Requiring paired sampling trains is duplicative in most cases. The use of paired 

sampling trains should be considered only for testing of semi-volatile organics. The 

remainder of pollutants can be measured with sufficient precision and accuracy with 

single sampling trains. Data from installed NOx, SO2 and CO continuous emission 

monitors should suffice for testing at installations with such certified CEMs. Further, 

EPA could simplify the test planning and protocol drafting by specifying stack exit 

detection limits for each HAP of interest. 

Electronic submission of test results should not be based on the ERT. EPA is 

requesting that stack test results be submitted using a “standardized electronic format.” 
 

13 

SS at 11. It is unclear whether EPA is referring here to the spreadsheet Attachments 2B – 

2D or to the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) that is now undergoing “beta” testing. The 

ERT has been criticized for its serious flaws including difficulty of use, content problems 

and inaccessibility. Until these are resolved, the ERT is not ready for wide use. CIBO 

urges EPA not to use the ERT for this §114 information collection given its current 

condition and in light of the tight timeframes EPA is setting for this information 

collection. 

A process for QAPP modifications is needed. For QAPP modifications sought by 

facilities, EPA should establish a process with deadlines for EPA response and complete 

resolution of any disagreements, so facilities that need modifications do not risk missing 

completion deadlines. 

Units cannot complete stack testing requirements in 60 days. Sixty days is 

inconceivably short to carry out stack testing that EPA plans. Just going through the 

process of developing a scope of work, reviewing the proposals, and getting the 

purchasing mechanisms in place can take several weeks alone. Typically, a stack test 

contractor is contacted at least 2 months prior to conducting tests. A test notification is 

submitted to EPA at least 30 days prior to the test date to allow the agency to observe the 

tests. In addition, sources will need to submit site-specific test protocols for approval by 

EPA, State or local oversight agencies prior to a test (e.g., 35 days notice is required in 

Indiana and up to 60 days in other states). Time for submission and then a negotiation 

process to obtain approval from the oversight agencies will introduce additional delay. 

EPA should clarify what approvals will be required and which agencies will have 

responsibility to approve protocols that account for site-specific circumstances. EPA 

should dedicate personnel resources to ensure expeditious approvals. 

It is unclear from the ICR whether EPA will want to have inspectors available to observe 

some of these tests or whether EPA expects State personnel to be present. Next, there is 

significant planning to ensure the individual production units will be operating at high 

enough levels to allow the boilers to run at representative rates. Test ports will need to be 

cleaned out due to coal ash build-up that sets up like concrete (especially at the inlet ports 

since these are rarely used) and this requires an outage to do this. An outage may be 

every Fall or every other year during this same time frame. This request could be a 

significant economic burden. 

Stack testers will need to be qualified to conduct these specialty parameters such as PAH, 

HCB, PCB, Dioxins and Furans as well as HAPs. Once the tests are complete there is a 

significant amount of analysis time 21-30 days for some of these parameters. The facility 

will need 7-14 days to review these reports and time to prepare a final report. EPA will 

have to allow 60 days to submit this report from the time the tests are complete. A 

problem in the past has also been lab delays due to being overwhelmed with business. 

There are only so many labs that can do some of these analyses. Requiring these tests in 

a short time frame creates a bottleneck at these labs. If a facility requests a rush on the 

analysis it could double or triple the costs. 
 

14 

Scheduling of unplanned testing can take additional time, and the need for many tests to 

occur in a short time will exacerbate the situation. In addition, in many cases it is likely 

EPA will focus on specific fuels, which may not be readily available in quantities 

required when EPA requests the testing to occur. More time may be needed to 

accumulate the materials and to allow boiler lineups to provide operational latitude. 

Seasonal operations in particular would have problems meeting the 60-day requirement. 

Seasonal load limitations might also prevent operation at required steam loads within the 

desired time frame. 

To comply with standard testing requirements, at least 120 days are needed if there are no 

complicating factors. Worst case timing might require 6 months for submission of the 

test reports following initial notification if there are problems with fuel material, boiler, 

and site steam load availability on top of emissions testing issues. Shutdowns and other 

unusual circumstances must also be accounted for in the plan. 

V ATTACHMENTS 

CIBO provides these specific comments on the Attachments: 

• Attachment 2A, Overview- Part II, IIA. EPA does not provide a description of 

the qualifications as a natural gas fired boiler or process heater. This appears to 

exclude units firing other gaseous fuels and units using Distillate Oil as a backup 

fuel, but that should be clarified. 

• Attachment 2A- Part I, 4. EPA seeks, “if not the same as question #1, provide 

legal name of the business enterprise that owns this facility.” Does EPA also 

need the name of the operator if that is different? 

• Attachment 2A- Part I, 10. EPA should revise the question to read: “alternative 

disposition method if materials are generated on-site and not brought in from 

another location.” The word “disposal” presupposes a type of activity that may 

not be applicable; the materials may not be wastes. The question really only 

applies if the materials are generated on-site and would need to go somewhere. If 

a facility brings in materials from some other off site source, then those could 

simply not be brought in and the generator would need to do something with 

them. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1. EPA should provide separate listing for boilers versus 

process heaters for all sections. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II. What is the meaning of the asterisk at the header? 

• Attachment 2A- Part II. CIBO recommends that the title be amended to “Unit 

Design, Operation, and Air Pollution Control Device Data For all Non-natural 

Gas Fired Boilers and Process Heaters.” 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1b. EPA should replace the word “conduct” with 

“receive.” 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1bc. Providing a short explanation or definition of tuneup and examples of other good combustion practices would help minimize 

respondent time determining what is meant and minimize randomness of 

responses. 
 

15 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, 1d. EPA should provide a spot for the basis of the CO 

limit, e.g., 30-day rolling average, hourly average. EPA should also note what 

fuel(s) the CO limit is based upon. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 1j. Under unit design, most process heaters are what 

would be considered a watertube design, with the process material or heat transfer 

medium being heated inside tubes. EPA should provide that as a choice to 

minimize effort in describing the “other” category for most units. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3. EPA should include a new question under question 

a2 regarding whether the control device was installed to comply with 40 CFR 63 

Subpart DDDDD. This would allow differentiation of emissions test data based 

on whether or not the control equipment was installed in order to comply with 

Subpart DDDDD. 

• Attachment 2A- Part I. EPA asks sources to identify the most likely alternative 

disposal method for wastes if not burned. This question is not likely to yield useful 

data because until a facility faces a decision regarding how to dispose of certain 

materials, and does a study, it is impossible to know the most likely disposal methods. 

For example, if a material is defined as a waste, a facility may look at sales outlets or a 

range of disposal methods not now known, or known to be the “likely” method. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 2c. EPA should provide a definition of “seasonal” to 

provide commonality of responses. Most boiler facilities have some inherent 

degree of seasonality in operation due to weather related loads, and that is not 

believed to be EPA’s desired interpretation for this item. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3c. EPA should provide definition or explanation of 

“tune-up” for consistency of responses. CIBO recommends the following text: 

Tune-up means to check the unit’s combustion process and adjust as needed. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, B, 3d. EPA should provide examples of other good 

combustion practices to help minimize respondent time determining what is 

meant and minimize randomness of responses. CIBO recommends the following 

text: 

Good combustion practices (GCP) include these examples, which may or may 

not be applicable to specific facilities/units: 

• Operator practices including use of up-to-date operating procedures, 

training, recordkeeping. 

• Maintenance knowledge including training on applicable equipment and 

procedures. 

• Maintenance practices including maintenance procedures, recordkeeping. 

• Fuel/air ratio periodic checks or automatic O2/CO trim control systems. 

• Furnace residence time, temperature for applicable materials. 

• Proper liquid atomization. 

• Fuel quality and proper fuel handling including monitoring quality, 

periodic sampling and analysis, fuel supplier certification if used. 

• Proper fuel sizing with specifications and periodic checks as appropriate. 

• Combustion air distribution based on observations with periodic or 

continuous adjustments. 

• Proper fuel distribution in the combustion zone. 
 

16 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, C1. Is stabilization fuel to be included with startup fuel 

or listed separately as a fuel even though it is typically of limited capacity and 

use? EPA should explain the desired approach for consistency of responses. 

• Attachment 2A- Part II, C5. It should be noted whether the test report is for 

emissions dedicated to the unit or from a common emissions control device with 

other units in operation or in a common stack with other units operating. 

• Attachment 2B. A dropdown should be provided to indicate whether the test is 

conducted upstream or downstream of a control device. 

• Attachment 2B/2C. EPA should clarify which units are to be reported with 2B 

versus 2C. Is 2B intended for units firing any gaseous fuel? Firing natural gas 

only with or without another fuel? Is 2C for all others or does 2C include gaseous 

fuels other than natural gas? 

• Attachment 2B/2C. Emissions should be noted to be on a wet or dry basis as 

appropriate. Moisture determined during the emission test should also be 

provided. 

• Attachment 2B/2C. Since most boilers use Degrees F for flue gas exhaust 

temperature, CIBO recommends the insertion of a drop-down box to use either C 

or F. 

• Attachment 2B/2C. In most cases, O2/CO2 are determined as part of the 

emission test for individual pollutants. The way O2 and CO2 are listed may limit 

the usefulness of the data. It is very likely that testing for all listed emissions 

cannot be done simultaneously and length of test runs differ, so that the O2/CO2 

levels would be different for each pollutant’s test. EPA should provide the ability 

to give O2/CO2 for individual tests by emission test so that the data can be 

properly evaluated. 

• Attachment 2B/2C. For CEM data, note the basis of the data, e.g., 30-day rolling 

average or other. Only the basis typically used by the facility should be required. 

• Attachment 2B/2C. O2 and CO2 will likely be reported as percent by volume on 

a dry basis, so those units need to be included in the drop down menu. 

• Attachments 2B-2D. CIBO recommends the insertion of a column to identify the 

methodology used (i.e., Method 3A, 3B, 5, 7, 202, etc.) For example, Method 3A 

(Orsat) or 3B (instrumental) must be used for determining oxygen concentration 

from a boiler, to ensure sources do not inappropriately use Method 3 (Fyrite). 

• Attachments 2B-2D. Typically, in a stack test, the results show a sample run 

average, however, in Attachments 2B – 2D, the form appears to be requesting the 

data from each individual run. CIBO recommends the insertion of a column for 

the “test average.” Does the lack of a column for test average indicate that EPA 

will potentially discard data, and if so, under what (statistical) rules? 

• Attachments 2B-2D. The second to the last row reports the flow rate in “acfm” 

(actual cubic feet per minute), however emission rates (lbs. NOx/hr.) are reported 

based on “dscfm” (dry standard cubic feet per minute). EPA should request the 

information in acfm or dscfm units, as available, as long as the parameters of % 

moisture and temperature are also reported. 

• Attachments 2B-2D. CIBO recommends the insertion of a row for “steam 

output” (thousand lbs/hr) as a simple metric for determining adequate loading or 

process operation conditions. 
 

17 

• Attachment 2D. To minimize reporting burden, EPA should allow for other 

available spreadsheets summarizing fuel test data to be provided as long as they 

include similar identifying data so that data does not need to be simply transferred 

to another form. 

• Attachment 2E Definitions. The materials list should be expanded to cover materials 

that do not fit well in the existing categories. Two examples are paper fines and 

distillers' dried grains (DDG), which CIBO recommends be added to the list of NFF. 

If the list is expanded, the “other” category will not become unwieldy and there will be 

greater uniformity in reporting. Attached is a list of materials burned by CIBO 

members. 

VI CONCLUSION 

CIBO strongly urges EPA to seek additional input from the regulated community as EPA 

develops testing requirements, processes for information collection and other next steps in 

these ICR and rulemakings. CIBO requests formal notice and comment to conduct data 

corrections on EPA Survey data. CIBO also requests formal notice and comment on EPA's 

identification of data gaps and plan for testing, prior to determining which sources should test 

and requiring sources to undertake any testing. If you have questions or need clarification, 

please contact me at 703.250.9042. 

 Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Robert D. Bessette

Robert D. Bessette 

President 

Attachment 
Page 1 All Non Fossil Fuels

List of Non-Fossil Fuels/Materials

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Agricultural residues X

Agricultural waste-cotton and corn X

Alcohol (ethanol) X

Alcohol solvent X

Almond shells X

Almond tree prunings X

Animal Fats X X

Ash pile char X

Bagasse X

Balsa wood X

Bark X

Barley dust & chaff X

Barley needles X

Bio liquids X

Biogas X

Biomass X

Bitumen X X

Black liquor X

Blast furnace gas X

Blond fiber X

Cardboard X

Carpet scrap X

Clarifier residuals- primary X

Clarifier residuals- secondary X

Coal tar oil X

Coal tar plus soil X

Coating residues X

Coke oven gas X

Composite water X

Compressed paper X

Conforming waste materials X

Construction/demolition wood/debris X

Corn fiber X

Corn Gluten Feed X

Corn mill dryer off-gas X

Corn starch residue X

Corn stover X

Cotton gin residues X

Cotton stalks X

Cottonseed hulls X

Cow manure X

Crankcase oil X

Deinking residuals X X

Dewatered combustable residues X X

Diaper scraps X

Digester gas X

Distillers Dry Grains X

Distillers grains (DG) X

Distillers grains stillage (DGS) X

Engineered wood plant scrap X

Envirofuel Pellets X

Filters X

Foam residues X

Fruit pits X

Physical Form

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xls
Page 2 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Fuel cubes (paper diaper clippings/refuse) X

Fuel oil solids (tank clean-out residue) X

Fume filter oil X

Gear oil (virgin & used) X

Gluten feed pellet X

Gluten feed pellets X

Glycerol distillation byproduct X

Hardboard dust X

Hardboard residues X

Hardwood pellets (hammer-milled, dried, pellitized- sold as fuel) X

Heavy recycle X

High caustic fuel X

Hog fuel- hard wood X

Hog fuel- soft wood X

Hog fuel- urban X

Hogged bark X

Hydro pulper refuse X

Industrial plastics X

Ink solvents X

Knots and knotter rejects X

Laminate production scrap dust X

Laminated wood X

Lamination finishing plant residues X

Lamination plant residues X

Landfill gas X

Latex paint water X

Light weight asphalt X

Lignin X

Liquefied chicken fat X

Livestock manure, bedding and yard residues X X

Log yard cleanup X

Low carbonate corn fiber (LCCF) X

Lube oil (virgin & used) X

Lumber refuse (hogged pallet boards/other non-treated scrap) X

Malt sprouts X

Manure X

Mechanical pulp mill rejects X

Medium density fiber board sander dust X

Medium density fiber board trim (some with water based primer) X

Mill trash X

Millfeed X

Mixed liquid residues X

Mixed wood residues X

Municipal sewage residues X

Neutralene X

New and used solvent- Acetone X

Noncondensable gas (includes stripper offgas) X

Nonhalogenated solvent X

Nonhazardous byproduct solvent X

Nut shells X

Oat hulls X

Oil booms X

Oil residues/excesses/byproducts -- #6, asphalts X X

Oil seed (Rape, Canola) X

Oil spill cleanup residues X X

Oilseeds – canola, corn, beans X

Oily rags X

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xls
Page 3 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Old corrugated container rejects X

Olive cake X

Olive kernel X

Orchard prunings X

Oriented strand board trim/dry residuals X

Other biomass X

Paint rags X

Paint residues X

Palm oil plantation byproducts (palm kernel exfoliate, fiber, shell, EFB) X

Paper X

Paper broke X

Paper cores X

Paper fines X

Paper- office waste X

Paper wrapper and packaging trimmings X

Particle Board sander dust X

Particle Board trim X

Paunch Manure X

Peat X

Pecan hulls X

Pine and cedar trees, chipping and residues X

Pine and fir X

Pine tar X

Pitch/wood waste X X

Plywood trim X

Post harvest biomass residues X

Poultry litter X

Process derived liquid fuel X

Process gas X

Pulp liquor X

Pulp mill gas X

Railroad ties X

Railroad ties chipped X

Reclaim ink solvent X

Recovered gaseous butane X

Rectified methanol X

Red oil (steam stripper steam condensate, incl terpenes, terpenoids, methanol, TRS) X

Redwood and fir X

Refinery gas X

Refuse X

Refuse derived fuel (RDF) X

Reinjection char X

Reprocessed oil X

Resin solid X

Restaurant oils & greases X

Rice hulls X

Sander dust X

Sawdust X

Sawmill scrap X

Scrap X-ray film X

Screen rejects X

Sewage gas X

Shredded cloth X

Silvicultural wood X

Sludge X X

Sludge without water X

Solid parrafin X

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xls
Page 4 All Non Fossil Fuels

Non-Fossil Fuel/Material Burned Gaseous Liquid Solid

Solvents X

Soybean hulls X

Spent coffee grounds X

Spent oxide X

Straw X

Stripper condensate X

Sulfur free organic byproduct X

Sunflower hulls X

Sunflower husks X

Sunflower pellets X

Sunflower seed hulls X

Sunwax- Diatomaceous earth with sunflower oil wax X

Switchgrass X

Tall oil, tall oil derivatives X

Tallow X X

Tar X X

Tire chips X

Tire derived fuel (TDF) X

Tires (whole) X

Toluene X

Turkey brood woodwaste X

Turpentine X

Used hydraulic oil X

Used motor oil X

Used oil X

Used thermal oil X

Vegetable oil X

Virgin hydraulic oil X

Waste alcohol X

Wastewater treatment residues X X

Wax and cellophane wrapper and packaging trimmings X

Wet distiller grains X

Wheat fiber (WF) X

Whole tree chips/harvest residue X

Wood X

Wood bark X

Wood briquettes X

Wood char X

Wood chips X

Wood chips- fines X

Wood chips- old X

Wood fuels bark X

Wood pallets X

Wood shavings X

Wood waste-clean X

Woodex pellets X

Woodworking residuals (cabinet mfg) X

Yellow grease (used cooking oils- sold as commercial fuel) X

Number of Non-Fossil Fuels/Materials

216 12 58 158

(Some materials are listed in more 

than one column)

Non Fossil Fuel List R5B.xls