March 15, 2010

Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Docket

EPA Docket Center (Mail Code 5305T)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315

Email: RCRA-docket@epa.gov

Re: Health effects in low-income communities and regulatory errors due to

International Paper’s Tire-Derived Fuel Test Burn conducted at the

Ticonderoga Paper Mill’s old utility boiler at Ticonderoga, New York

Dear Assistant Administrator Stanislaus:

Vermont residents endured an air pollution nightmare and related health problems due to a Tire-Derived

Fuel Test Burn at International Paper’s Ticonderoga Paper Mill’s old utility boiler at Ticonderoga, New

York. This example highlights the regulatory needs of communities nationwide over EPA’s rulemaking

for non-hazardous solid waste incineration in an estimated 179,000 commercial and industrial combustion

facilities that may become quasi-incinerators over night if solid waste is allowed to be burned without

stringent controls.

Health impacts of incineration in communities need to be prevented. As you know, environmental justice

communities are deeply concerned about disproportionately suffering more toxic air pollution burdens

due to EPA’s definition of solid waste since thousands of potential quasi-incinerators are already located

in these communities. Transforming the extensive universe of commercial and industrial combustion

facilities into unregulated quasi-incinerators essentially through a back door regulatory process is

completely unacceptable, particularly since existing facilities have already been permitted and built.

We are submitting supplemental information on the November 4th meeting and the August 17, 2009 letter

sent by ninety environmental justice, public health and environmental groups, since Congress intended all

facilities that burn non-hazardous solid waste to meet the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) highly protective

requirements for controlling air pollution that waste burning creates. But twenty years after those CAA

provisions were enacted, the pollution controls they require are not in place, and solid waste burns like the

New York boiler example cited below are being conducted without effective pollution controls, emissions

standards to protect public health, and more often little public input.

As emphasized November 4th and described in the August 17th letter, communities have serious concerns

about health effects of non-hazardous solid waste (tires, sludges, solvents) incineration in unregulated

boilers acting as quasi-incinerators that lack pollution controls for air toxics, because health concerns

need to play a vital role in EPA’s review of the definition of solid waste. Without stringent emissions

standards, EPA will allow excessive toxic air pollution and particles to harm families in fence line

communities, if existing facilities incinerate non-hazardous solid wastes as fuels under non-protective

CAA standards. Unless tires and other non-hazardous solid waste are defined as “waste,” toxic emissions

from sources will go unregulated and continue to harm communities, especially low income communities.

New York Case: Toxic Emissions and Health Effects in Children due to Solid Waste Burn in Boiler

A recent example in New York of public harm to families with children, including disadvantaged families
2

of low-income, demonstrates why serious health concerns exist regarding the definition of non-hazardous

solid waste that EPA’s OSWER needs to fully address to prevent such incidents. The New York case is

an air pollution episode in Vermont related to a solid waste Test Burn in a boiler at International Paper’s

(IP) Ticonderoga paper mill in 2006 that borders Vermont.

Toxic air emissions of zinc oxide, mercury and fine particles were measured at elevated levels in Vermont

during the first week of a solid waste Test Burn at IP incinerating tire-derived fuel (TDF). However, IP

did not conduct sufficient stack testing and chemical analysis to identify the higher rates of toxic zinc

oxide, gaseous mercury and fine particles from its TDF Test Burn, and, as a result, IP was ignorant of

what community health problems it had created downwind in Vermont where its TDF plume traveled.

IP had been required to conduct detailed stack testing to characterize contaminants of concern, including

metals, particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, hydrogen chloride and

polychlorinated biphenyls. But IP avoided full stack tests when a second week of stack testing was

suddenly cancelled due to serious incineration problems in the utility boiler.

IP had permission for a two-week TDF demonstration Test Burn to show its feasibility in its large boiler.

Officials with New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) and EPA Region

2 (EPA 2) are familiar with details and approval of the November 2006 solid waste Test Burn at IP’s

Ticonderoga Paper Mill. NYDEC authorized it after reviewing protest letters from members of Congress,

receiving 1,280 public comments, and resolving a Clean Air Act lawsuit filed by the State of Vermont.12 3

Vermont state officials were frustrated by the inability to have meaningful input into a flawed review

process to rubberstamp IP’s plans on the TDF demonstration Test Burn regardless of the concerns of

residents and various elected, health and environmental officials in the state of Vermont.

As a result, early in 2005 Vermont state environmental and health officials became gravely concerned

about the potential for high levels of air toxics and particulate emissions likely to be released in IP’s TDF

Test Burn, since Vermont families live close to the IP plant, who would be impacted by the tests. The

Vermont State Environmental Conservation Department (SECD) used an existing network of ambient air

monitors downwind of IP’s Ticonderoga paper mill to establish baseline air pollution levels prior to the

Test Burn and tracked pollution levels on a daily basis during the November 7-13, 2006 Test Burn.

Ambient air pollution levels were continuously monitored at the same time that Vermont residents began

to report adverse health effects and complained of noxious burning rubber tire odors downwind during the

IP Test Burn.

Air monitors in Vermont directly downwind of the IP plant measured sharp air pollution spikes in the

levels of ambient zinc oxide, gaseous mercury, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Vermont’s air quality

data underscores why EPA needs to adopt stringent regulations for burning non-hazardous solid waste in

industrial boilers such as IP’s Ticonderoga NY plant.

Vermont’s air monitoring data confirms the public’s health concerns from the incineration of solid waste

fuels in old, dirty, unregulated boilers such as IP operates at Ticonderoga, NY. The OSW staff need to

request that the Vermont SECD provide a detailed summary of its ambient air monitoring data conducted

during the November 2006 failed Test Burn at the IP Paper Mill.

 

1

 Responsiveness Summary, International Paper Ticonderoga Mill - Proposed Tire Derived Fuel Test, July 2006, DEC # 5-1548-00008/00081,

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

2

 State of Vermont vs International Paper Company, Petition for Extraordinary Writ Providing Temporary Injunctive Relief in Aid of

Jurisdiction, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, October 10, 2006.

3

 Title V Permit Appeal by State of Vermont to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Permit No. 5-1548-00008/00081, issued by

the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to International Paper Company, October 10, 2006.
3

The Vermont air pollution episode in November 2006 is generally viewed by Vermont SECD officials to

be caused by high levels of toxic air pollutants and particulate emissions coming from the solid waste fuel

Test Burn at the largest boiler at IP’s Ticonderoga mill.

EPA also needs to inquire into the flawed solid waste Test Burn at IP’s Ticonderoga plant in 2006. IP’s

Test Burn problems were so serious the whole second week of TDF trial burns were suddenly aborted and

stack tests terminated without explanation by IP. However, IP’s Test Burn case highlights a clear example

of the need for a stringent definition of solid waste, because IP’s Test Burn of TDF was a complete failure

and IP quietly withdrew a permit request to burn solid waste in the old boiler after predicting its success

for several years. Your OSW staff has not adequately considered how such flawed Test Burns of solid

waste in similar cases can create air pollution hazards in downwind communities as alleged by Vermont

residents in the IP tire-burn case.

IP’s proposed solid waste Test Burn for November 2006 drew the wrath of elected officials in Vermont

from the Governor to U.S. Senators, members of Congress, and others.4 Nonetheless, officials at NYDEC

and EPA 2 improperly concluded the IP Test Burn posed no hazards to public health in New York and

Vermont, and approved IP’s request to conduct the solid waste Test Burn. Yet if EPA had already

adopted a more stringent definition of solid waste, the outcome may have been different than what

transpired for affected Vermont residents.

IP’s Ticonderoga Mill is sited in northeastern New York in the Champlain valley on the western shore of

Lake Champlain. The Mill is less than one mile from the Vermont border and lies across Lake Champlain

from the Vermont towns of Shoreham and Bridport in Addison County (county population 39,965; 2005

estimate), and the towns of Ripton and Essex Junction. The Vermont/New York border in the Champlain

valley is downwind northeast of IP’s plant with homes within 1.0-2.0 miles. IP’s Paper Mill is sited north

downwind about two miles from Ticonderoga, NY, and upwind of towns in Addison County, Vermont.

The IP Ticonderoga Mill is isolated from large urban cities in New York and Vermont. No other major

industrial plants are sited nearby that might have contributed to the Vermont air pollution episode on

November 7-13, 2006. But if IP’s Ticonderoga Mill had an air pollution incident with excessive

emissions of fine soot particles and toxic air pollutants especially from the large boiler, the downwind

Vermont community members in nearby towns of Shoreham and Bridport and in New York state might

be impacted if wind conditions transported the IP’s boiler plume to their homes as is frequently the case.

Summary of Health Effects reported by Vermont residents from boiler TDF Test Burn

During November 7-13, 2006 shortly after IP started the TDF Test Burn by injecting TDF chips into the

boiler’s burn chamber at 1,000 pounds per hour, residents in Vermont began to complain of horrible

burning rubber tire smells and smoke in the air making them sick with several going to emergency rooms

for medical attention. People complained of horrible air pollution in the downwind communities of

Shoreham, Bridport, Ripton, Essex Junction, and Middlebury, Vermont.

• Shoreham health issues November 7-11 reported by four individuals. Healthy person had symptoms

reported as onset of cough, squeaky voice, mouth irritation on November 7th. Symptoms got worse and

finally had to go to the Emergency Room at Porter on November 11th and was treated with albuterol.

Person has never had asthma before and has never needed to take albuterol before either. Another healthy

 

4

Elected officials and others in New York and Vermont included Governors, Lt. Governor, U.S. Senators, members of Congress, members of

the Vermont legislature, the Vermont Department of Public Health, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Vermont Attorney

General, local officials, public health officers, medical doctors, and numerous residents and organizations
4

person in the family is a one-year old infant who also became sick with a cough and had to take the baby

to the Emergency Room. Two other children experienced red eyes due to irritation from air pollution.

• Bridport resident had health issues November 7th reported. Healthy person had symptoms reported as

tightness and cough in chest, difficulty breathing on November 7th when she could smell the smoke

emissions from IP. She took her son’s inhaler, but she had not had an asthma attack in over six months.

Called family doctor to get prescription for inhaler.

• Essex Junction health issues on Friday November 10th. Parent reported their nine-year old had

difficulty breathing today. The nine-year old boy has asthma that is treated as needed using an inhaler, but

he had not used his inhaler for several weeks or month; normally he uses his inhaler just when he has a

cold or when pollen counts are high. But on November 10th, he had difficulty breathing and he required

frequent use of his inhaler. Due to his breathing difficulties, he has been inactive at home in bed or on the

couch.

• Ripton health issues on Saturday November 11th. Individual reported moderate to severe asthma that is

very well controlled. Person reported that they had not had any significant asthma symptoms since last

May [nearly 6 months], when a neighbor’s house burned down. Smoke is definitely a trigger for this

person’s asthma. On Saturday November 11th, in the evening in Ripton, people said they could smell IP.

This person didn’t notice the smell. But this person did have an asthma attack suddenly out of the blue it

seemed. The person reported that their peak flow dropped from 450 to 300 in a matter of hours and they

became severely congested and was coughing and wheezing. They needed to use an inhaler for the first

time in years.

• Report of another apparent asthmatic attack on Tuesday November 7th. First time this person has ever

had asthma before and was at the point which required one to gasp for air to breathe. Person was able to

treat the episode by closing doors and sitting in an upright position.

• Middlebury during first week of the burn. Two of three sons have had terrible coughs for a whole

week. These boys rarely ever get sick.

• Cornwall person reported symptoms such as fatigue, dizziness, loss of brain clarity, and increased

allergic reactions.

• Middlebury health issues reported. Since Monday November 6th, person had persistant tightness and

pain in the chest and lung area when they breathe; also constant teary eyes while outside walking which

they do every day and had increased in nasal drip and tightness in the sinuses and throat area.

During the TDF Test Burn, community people in Shoreham, Vermont went to a local hospital for

emergency medical treatment for serious respiratory symptoms and other health effects that appeared

suddenly at the beginning and during three days of the Test Burn.

Serious adverse health effects have persisted since the 2006 TDF Test Burn including one young, an

infant, who has continued to suffer seizures ever since November 6-10, 2006 that may be attributed to

exposure to zinc oxide and gaseous mercury pollution. Zinc oxide and gaseous mercury are both highly

toxic air pollutants capable of causing the seizures the infant child is now suffering from.

Many residents filed air pollution complaints with the state of Vermont, but the TDF Test Burn tests at IP

Ticonderoga continued for several more days and yet regulatory officials in New York appear to have

completely ignored the fact that Vermont residents were complaining of TDF-related air pollution and

seeking medical attention for various adverse health effects.

The state of Vermont, concerned citizens and others filed numerous protest comments alleging that

adverse health effects would occur considering IP’s old boiler that did not possess sufficient pollution

controls to protect public health. While NY DEC and EPA 2 considered these comments, they did not

take them seriously enough and made errors in the review process.

A lack of regulatory standards, due diligence and adequate public input into the TDF Test Burn planning
5

and oversight highlight a glaring failure by NY DEC and EPA 2 to protect public health of residents in

northern New York state and western Vermont from the stack emissions during the period of November

7-13, 2006.

IP’s Ticonderoga Paper Mill 1970 Main Power Boiler – Large Air Emissions Source

The Vermont air pollution episode in November 2006 involved stack emissions from the large old

industrial boiler built in 1970 at IP’s Ticonderoga Mill, and is a major source of air pollution. The boiler

is rated at 855 MMBtu/hr maximum heat input and serves as the Mill’s main power boiler. The main IP

power boiler is the size of a large electric utility boiler in MMBtu/hr heat capacity and was built prior to

NSR review. The boiler is rated at approximately 68%-75% particulate matter removal efficiency rather

than 95% efficiency required of new sources.5 The boiler is only equipped with multi-clones and an

Entoleter wet-alkaline scrubber designed to capture up to 50% of large particulate matter and none of the

fine particulates including PM2.5. The Entoleter wet scrubber removes about 76% of the particulates and

emits at the rate of approximately 0.06 pounds/MMBtu an hour. Yet officials at NYDEC and EPA 2

thought this was completely sufficient to address potential air emissions from the boiler during the Test

Burn of solid waste, but this turned out to be grossly incorrect and basically a surprise to the agencies.

A primary concern with the IP Test Burn Protocol is the boiler was going to run at far below its maximum

heat capacity of 855 MMBtu/hour, since the Test Burn Protocol was to operate the boiler at only 452

mmBtu/hr to 748 mmBtu/hr (only 53% - 87%) of capacity during the solid waste fuel emissions test. The

problem with the Test Burn boiler firing mode is it’s far less than the permitted maximum capacity and

way below the Potential-To-Emit under the Clean Air Act. Test Burns and related stack sampling need to

be performed at 100% of a combustion unit’s design capacity and compare such emissions to the

permitted maximum allowables, but this was not the case in the solid waste Test Burn of the IP boiler.

The fact that NYDEC and EPA 2 allowed IP to start the Test Burn at such a rather low fuel load in the

boiler appears to indicate a regulatory concern about the potential for problems with such a large old

boiler burning solid waste. Using small amounts of solid waste fuel in the Test Burn seems to be an

attempt to circumvent the protective provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Lack of PM2.5 fine particulate matter pollution controls on IP’s old boiler is egregious from a public

health standpoint, since numerous peer-reviewed studies have associated exposure to fine particles with

adverse health effects in communities and is the basis for EPA adopting PM2.5 National Ambient Air

Quality Standards in 1997. EPA is certainly familiar with the hazards of PM2.5 emissions and why

stringent stack pollution controls and emissions standards are necessary. Another critical public health

concern is that IP’s main power boiler does not possess a stack system to continuously monitor for

particulate matter, since it was not required by NYDEC or EPA 2. The NYDEC stated on p. 4 in a July

2006 Responsiveness Summary for the Proposed Tire Derived Fuel Test: “In addition, the facility

maintains and operates continuous emission monitors (“CEMS”) for SO2 and NOx, which provide real

time data from which the facility can immediately determine if emission limits for these pollutants are

being exceeded.” However, solid waste fuels like TDF can have higher emissions of PM2.5 fine soot

particles compared to fuel oils, and more consideration should have been given by NYDEC and EPA 2 to

require IP to temporarily install and operate a PM2.5 CEMS at least during the pre-test and Test Burn

periods. This represents a serious regulatory oversight especially in view of the failed Test Burn.

NYDEC stated on pp. 3-4 in a July 2006 Responsiveness Summary for the Proposed Tire Derived Fuel

Test: “The facility currently holds a Title V operating permit and is subject to emission limits for sulfur

dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and particulate matter (PM), among other applicable

requirements. Prevailing winds in this region are predominantly from the South, which means that the

 

5

 Modern boilers equipped with Best Available Control Technology can meet 95% particulate removal control efficiency.
6

emissions from the plant typically travel north and into both New York State and the State of Vermont.

Accordingly, not only is the Department concerned that it not take any permitting action which will result

in emissions that cause significant adverse environmental impacts in neighboring states, the Department

has a parallel concern with ensuring that New York’s environment and citizens are also protected.”

Nonetheless, numerous problems indicate that the Test Burn Protocol was apparently flawed, although IP

appears to have deviated and violated the conditions of the Test Burn Protocol.

Concerning the amended Title V permit needed by IP for the solid waste incineration testing, the NYDEC

stated on p. 4 in a July 2006 Responsiveness Summary: “At issue is an application to modify IP’s existing

Title V operating permit. The modification to the existing Title V permit would authorize a one-time, twoweek test burn during which TDF will be combusted in the mill’s power boiler along with number 6 fuel

oil and bark/wood. Department staff believe that the test, which as is explained below will be conducted

under a rigorously controlled protocol, is necessary due to the lack of data regarding the combustion of

tire chips in a wood fired boiler like IP’s.” However, the “rigorously controlled protocol” turned out to

be a complete failure, and NYDEC and EPA 2 still need to fully investigate what went totally completely

wrong in the IP Test Burn.

Since the IP boiler normally uses number 6 fuel oil and bark/wood as fuels, mixing additional solid waste

fuels like TDF chips has a potential to alter the combustion conditions and chemistry in the old boiler,

since TDF is not the same in its physical characteristics compared to number 6 fuel oil or even small

wood chips. TDF consists of scrap tires shredded into small-sized chips to allow readily adding to the

boiler’s existing feed system, and the bead wire and steel belts had been largely removed (yet chards of

visible metal bead wire were observed in many tire chips).

Like other companies seeking to use solid waste as cheaper fuels, IP Ticonderoga was evaluating ways to

cut fuel costs and burn solid waste as a partial fuel replacement using 72 tons tire chips per day (144,000

pounds at 3 tons per hour), or about 10% of the boiler’s total fuel. If the TDF plan worked out in the IP

boiler, one public concern is 80 cubic yards of sludge might be test burned as a solid waste fuel. But

sludge was not approved for the November 2006 Test Burn.

Another troubling aspect of the International Paper plant case is, while the power boiler was state-of-theart in 1970, it was clearly antiquated by 2006 air pollution control standards and permitted by NYDEC at

a higher, far less protective particulate matter pollution limit of 0.10 pounds/MMBtu per hour. The notion

of EPA Regions and states authorizing such a large old 1970 boiler, that was not required to use modern

air pollution controls or meet clean Air Act emissions standards to protect public health having to meet

antiquated emissions standards, highlights the exceptionally weak regulatory review involved. The IP

case high lights an agency policy failure by NYDEC and EPA 2 on the solid waste Test Burn.

The solid waste Test Burn with TDF was scheduled to take place over a two-week period starting

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 without first installing additional air pollution controls to keep fine

particulate matter emissions (PM2.5) better controlled and protect public health. Regarding the issue of

adding more stringent particulate pollution controls, IP officials persistently refused to consider installing

additional particulate pollution controls on the 1970 boiler, and NYDEC and EPA 2 supported IP’s

position. Yet tires and sludge each can significantly increase fine PM2.5 particulate matter emissions due

in part to their solid waste characteristics.

Serious TDF Chip Combustion Chaos in IP’s Boiler – People Complain Downwind

November 7, 2006, IP began to experience problems immediately on starting the Test Burn by feeding 0.5

tons per hour (1,000 pounds) of TDF chips of the 3.0 tons it hoped to burn hourly if testing went as

expected. Preliminary stack test data of particulate matter (PM) measured 0.089 pounds/MMBtu per hour
7

and showed the boiler close to exceeding its PM hourly permit allowable limit of 0.10 pounds/MMBtu.

Refined PM data later revealed the boiler was over the PM hourly permit limit at 0.109 pounds/MMBtu

per hour in the first phase of the Test Burn—at the lowest TDF feed rates and 16% of its goal of 3.0 tons

an hour. The measured PM rate of 0.109 pounds/MMBtu per hour is 82% higher than the normal boiler

PM emissions rate of 0.06 pounds/MMBtu per hour using the fuel oil/wood chip mixture, and indicates

significantly higher rates of harmful soot particles being emitted by the boiler’s stack into the ambient air.

At approximately the same time on November 7, 2009 that IP plant personnel began to note problems

with the boiler near the start of Test Burn, residents in nearby Vermont began to notice increasing

nuisance levels of burning rubber tire smells in the air and some began to rapidly experience adverse

health effects; several people filed health effects complaints, since very young children were suffering

respiratory problems and becoming ill. It’s not surprising that downwind Vermont residents were

suffering from an air pollution episode given the serious problems at the IP plant with the boiler’s

combustion process apparently choking on 1,000 pounds/hour of TDF chips.

IP’s large old boiler appears to have undergone a condition of combustion chaos inside the burn chamber

in which the 1,000 pounds of TDF chips an hour were not properly burning, were partly melting together

into unburned chunks falling to the bottom grating with ash residues, and producing large quantities of

combustion soot and toxic gases from significant incomplete combustion problems. Yet IP keep adding

TDF chips to the boiler and onsite regulators from NY DEC, EPA 2 and Vermont took no action to

inform IP to immediately cease the TDF Test Burn.

What produces so much PM and burning tire odors when TDF is poorly combusted? Tires possess a

major structural component in the synthetic rubber called aromatic extender oils that come from tank

bottoms at oil refineries, and these compounds produce thick black smoke and oily residues when open

burning of tires occurs. Aromatic extender oils are benzene-containing compounds that refineries have

difficulties cracking into products because they consist of large, complex, multiple benzene-ringed

structures such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that do not combust as easily as smaller, nonaromatic compounds. Aromatic extender oils are considered to be carcinogenic due to the benzene

structures they contain.

On November 7, 2006 at the same time odors were a downwind problem, IP plant personnel and agency

observers reported excessive stack particulate matter emissions of visible soot particles landing on the

observers present around the based of boiler at ground level. This resembles an outdoor open tire burn,

but was not supposed to happen in the large IP boiler, according to IP and agency officials who for

months had claimed that no serious problems were expected to occur.

A major problem and public health concern raised frequently with IP as well as the NYDEC and EPA 2 is

that the old 1970 boiler lacked 2006 state-of-the-art pollution controls, such as an Electrostatic

Precipitator to better control stack soot emissions, including fine particulate matter (PM2.5). However,

Vermont regulators were concerned that even an ESP would not be sufficient to properly control PM2.5

emissions from the large dirty boiler.

Use of IP’s old boiler lacking adequate soot-PM2.5 pollution controls resulted in serious adverse health

effects to numerous residents downwind, and demonstrates a prime example of why EPA needs to adopt a

stringent definition of solid waste to prevent these problems from occurring: dirty old boilers burning

dirty fuels with a lack of state-of-the-art pollution control technology and stringent emissions standards.

EPA issued a 1997 report on use of tires as fuel and noted that a paper mill boiler that burned 2% tires in

its fuel composition had increases in mercury (20%), benzene (20%) and hexavalent chromium (179%)

emissions. IP had been approved by NYDEC and EPA 2 for 5 times that fuel replacement rate at 10% as
8

tires and in a large old industrial boiler that obviously posed a serious concern about the potential for

exceeding its maximum allowable emissions rate for particulate matter during the Test Burn with solid

waste fuels.

Summary of Test Burn Protocol Flaws and Problems during the Boiler TDF Test Burn

Problems that occurred during the TDF Test Burn are used to illustrate how a weak definition of solid

waste could severely and adversely impact local communities unless EPA addresses these concerns.

1. Failure to follow the prescribed Stack Test Protocol throughout major portions of the TDF Test

Burn. One requirement in the Stack Test Protocol approved by NYDEC is IP had to comply with

all the special conditions when it was feeding TDF to the boiler and IP failed to follow these

conditions when a Title V permit was issued. IP violated the protocol in several ways, and the

NYDEC never cited IP for applicable violations.

2. Failure to conduct continuous stack air monitoring and stack sampling for regulated particulate

matter (PM10 and PM2.5) throughout the TDF Test Burn when TDF was being added to the

boiler. PM10 and PM2.5 stack monitoring and stack sampling were not conducted during the

early hours of the TDF Test Burn when IP first began adding TDF to its old boiler, and no

particulate matter stack emissions data is available for the first hours of the TDF test despite what

appears to have been a harmful increase in stack particulate matter emissions and corresponding

downwind community impacts. It was critical to require PM10 and PM2.5 stack monitoring

throughout the TDF Test Burn to demonstrate if the boiler was in continuous compliance with its

stack PM emissions permit limitations. TDF should not have been placed in the boiler unless

continuous PM stack monitoring was online and measuring the PM emissions.

3. Failure to conduct stack testing throughout the TDF Test Burn while TDF continued to be added

to the main power boiler. Stack testing for criteria and toxic air emissions was only conducted

during the day and not at night, even though the boiler continued to burn TDF at the rate of 0.5

tons per hour. While 1,000 pounds of TDF per hour seems like a small Test Burn, it resulted in

several tons of TDF being burned during the Test Burn.

4. Exceedance of the permit maximum allowable emission rate for hourly PM of 0.10

pounds/MMBTU for the boiler. Stack PM concentrations were measured during the first part of

the TDF Test Burn that exceeded the permit's PM hourly limitations.

5. Failure to require the old boiler to install additional air pollution controls such as an electrostatic

precipitator (ESP), which would have better controlled and decreased the PM stack emissions that

were measured during the TDF Test Burn.

6. The failure by the NY DEC and EPA Region 2 to require the additional PM air pollution controls

on the old boiler demonstrate why communities have such serious concerns about EPA allowing

use of solid waste through a weak definition.

The above example supports why community health concerns with the definition of solid waste need to be

taken seriously by EPA and the underscores that OSWER needs to propose more stringent Clean Air Act

standards for use of solid wastes as fuels.

Vermont citizens whom I have interacted with since 2006 on this case asked me to add the following

comments.
9

Attached are public documents in chronological order reflecting breakdown in regulatory, legislative,

judicial and corporate conduct in the 2006 International Paper Tire Derived Fuel trial at their Ticonderoga

NY Paper plant.

1) Lack of Regulatory Process to Monitor Citizen Complaints and Health Effects in Real Time in New York

by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) and in Vermont by the Vermont

Department of Natural Resources (VDNR)

There was no New York state or Vermont (VT) state regulatory protocol to monitor downwind health

effects in real time. Yes, the VT Agency of Natural Resources Air Quality Division provided for ambient air

monitoring in Vermont and the VT Department of Health issued advisories outlining surveillance activities

which were insufficient to the task. These were uncoordinated activities which lacked clear protocol to

address a public health emergency created by a source in a neighboring state. Ambient air monitoring

data was not monitored in real time and the VT air monitoring agency had no regulatory authority to

impact the conduct of the actual test. VT had an 'observer' status within the test site, but did not provide

expert observers. Irregularities in permit guidelines and failure to follow proper test protocol was not

reported or acted on by any authority. The final VT report was not published for nearly two years

following the conclusion of the test. International Paper, a private corporation was allowed to withhold

data and test results from public view claiming the test was abandoned.

2) Governmental Failure to Address Vermont Citizen Adverse Health Effects

VT Dept. of Health and VT executive branch of government, including the Governor's office did not act on

citizens complaints and reports of adverse health effects downwind. VT did not exercise regulatory or

police powers to protect the health and safety of its citizens. No legal action was taken to bring a halt to

the test resulting from timely and urgent reports of adverse health effects to the Dept. of Health and

through news media as well as extensive internet activity resulting from communications posted and

received by Environmental activists and forwarded to authorities. Direct and urgent communications

reporting adverse health effects during the test to International Paper corporate executives, agency

executives within the EPA, VT State Government, and NY DEC.

3) Lack of Procedure to Address Public Grievances by NY DEC and VDNR

No direct method to address grievances resulting from harmful effects of this open air test trial were

provided by law within the confines of the regulatory and legal process leading to permitting. As a result,

downwind residents harmed by toxins had no direct method of having their grievances vetted and

redressed in a timely manner. Downwind residents harmed have been left to their own limited resources

to recover damages directly from International Paper, Inc. with no help whatsoever from the State or

Federal regulatory authorities. The Lee Family Claim filed in November 2009 in Addison County Superior

Court has been vigorously denied by International Paper although the claim is entirely based on fact,

current science and demonstrates harm in keeping with the expected and predicted results from toxic

exposure from tire derived fuel combustion without proper pollution recovery systems in place. The claim

languishes in legal process with no trial date offered until January 2011, five years after the fact.

4) Flawed Air Permitting Process at NY DEC and Oversight by EPA Region 2 New York City

The State and Federal Permitting process was open to abuse, lack of oversight and poorly administered

by New York DEC and EPA New York Region 2 officials. As an example, the state public hearing in

Ticonderoga, NY - where public comment was to be taken 'of the record' - was time limited, with

comments accepted on a 'first come, first serve' basis. International Paper employees were reportedly

encouraged by their superiors to 'get there early' to register for comment slots, therefore limiting

comments from opposition groups or individuals. More broadly, extensive scientific and legal arguments
10

against the permitting were ignored by regulators, judges and administrators. No timely appeal process

was allowed by the courts, therefore denying due process.

Post-Test Burn Mistakes

5) Lack of Regulatory Follow up by New York Officials at NY DEC and Vermont Officials at VNDR

No thorough follow up to the test burn conduct and resulting data was conducted by EPA Region 2, NY

DEC, VT Dept. of Health or any regulatory body responsible for environmental protection or public health

and safety. Irregularities in permit protocol, test protocol, elevated toxic effluent, and over limit exposures

have not been acted upon. Legal claims by neighboring residents demonstrating harm consistent with

those predicted by 'of the record' submissions within the confines of the permit process as well as within

extra judicial proceedings before the test have not been investigated by any regulators even though the

pending civil action alleges negligent and gross negligent conduct by International Paper Corporation and

company officials, misconduct which carries criminal implications.

Sincerely,

Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.

former Texas air quality official

Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter

1201 San Antonio street

Austin, Texas 78701

Attachments: submissions to the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315

A. Responsiveness Summary, International Paper Ticonderoga Mill - Proposed Tire Derived Fuel

Test, July 2006, DEC # 5-1548-00008/00081, New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation.

B. Final Title V Permit Modification and associated conditions for the IP Ticonderoga Mill, Tire

Derived Fuel Test Burn, September 20, 2006, DEC # 5-1548-00008/00081, New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation.

C. Affidavit of Dr. William C. Bress, toxicologist for the State of Vermont, February 6, 2006.

D. State of Vermont vs The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and

International Paper Company, New York State Supreme Court.

E. State of Vermont vs International Paper Company, Petition for Extraordinary Writ Providing

Temporary Injunctive Relief in Aid of Jurisdiction, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,

October 10, 2006.

F. Title V Permit Appeal by State of Vermont to the United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Permit No. 5-1548-00008/00081, issued by the New York State Department of

Environmental Conservation to International Paper Company, October 20, 2006.

G. Health effects reported to Vermont officials in November 2006.

H. Summary of violations of the IP Testing Protocol of the boiler in November 2006.
11

I. Vermont SECD summary of IP Test Burn activities.

H. Summary of violations of the IP Testing Protocol of the boiler in November 2006

Investigation of the IP Testing Protocol indicates specific violations occurred during IP’s Tire Test Burn.

According to Section 2-6 Power Boiler, page 5 of the IP Tire Burn Test protocol the text reads as follows:

“Particulate emissions from the boiler are controlled with multi-clones and an Entoleter wet-alkaline

scrubber. The scrubber removes approximately 76% of the particulate and emits approximately 0.06

lbs/MMBTU particulate, with a NYSDEC permit limit of 0.10lbs/MMBTU.

IP will conduct a two-week TDF test program. During the first week IP will ramp the TDF feed up from

0 tons per hour to 3.0 tons per hour in 1/2 ton increments to ensure stable boiler operations. During the

one-week ramp-up and shake down period, testing will be performed to determine emissions of PM at

1tph TDF, 2 tph TDF and 3 tph TDF. Testing will be performed to ensure that the current permitted PM

emission rate is not exceeded. It is anticipated that triplicate 60-minute tests will be performed at each

firing rate over a three-day period. Analyses will be performed on-site for a timely quantification of test

results (same day preliminary, next day final results).

The actual TDF emissions testing will be conducted during the second week of feeding TDF to the boiler.

During this second week, emission measurements will be performed with the Power Boiler firing

bark/wood and fuel oil with up to 3 tons per hour TDF. The boiler will be operated close to its normal

maximum neat input rate of 748 MMBtu/hr which produces 550,000 lb/hr of steam. As per request by

US EPA, test days will be limited to 12 hours in duration. 

After the TDF test is completed, additional testing will be devoted to measuring emission under

baseline/normal conditions (i.e.. bark/wood and fuel) without TDF.

Boiler parameters to be continuously monitored and continuously recorded (1-minute averages) by the

facility during the emissions test are present in Table 2-1.”

I. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation summary of IP Test Burn activities

Daily summary of IP Ticonderoga Tire Burn Test Report for 11/6-9/2006 prepared by Doug Elliot, VT

DEC Air Quality Division:

11/6/2006 - International Paper spent most of today, the first day of the tire burn test, setting things

up. Under the permit they are required to carry out a baseline particulate test at the beginning of the

process, but this test was held up for much of the day due to a non-tire related problem with the wood

bark feeding system. (Wood is necessary for the particulate test). Because of the delay with the wood bark

feeding system no tire derived fuel (tdf) was burned today. We expect that they will begin with a 1/2 ton

per hour rate of tdf tomorrow morning.

11/7/2006 - Following completion late yesterday of the baseline particulate test, IP introduced tire

derived fuel (tdf) into the solid fuel mix at 8:30 am this morning and the tire chips actually got to the

boiler around 9:30 am at the rate of 0.5 ton per hour, throughout the day this was increased to 1 ton per

hour and the boiler has now been stabilized at this level. A particulate test will be required to confirm that

IP is still within their permit limits before the tdf can be increased in the next phase to 2 tons per hour. A

meeting was still going on at 4:30pm to set the schedule for tomorrow when IP will carry out the first

particulate test with tdf in the fuel mix. In other activities today time was spent ensuring the calibration of

the tdf percentage - to confirm that the tire chips are being fed at the rate described. VT DEC staff report
12

that the calibration went well and they are satisfied it is an accurate number.

11/8/2006 - International Paper continued firing TDF at the rate of 1 ton per hour throughout the

day today. They did not begin particulate compliance testing at this rate today as we had expected. This

was in order to give their boiler operators additional experience at this firing level. They are expected to

continue at 1 ton per hour through the night tonight, with a short interruption for normal maintenance.

Particulate matter testing at the 1 ton per hour rate is expected to begin Thursday morning. Preliminary

results may be available later in the day. Provided the results demonstrate compliance with their permit

limit, IP is expected to increase the firing rate to 2 tons per hour late tomorrow. Because of the delay with

the wood bark feeding system no tire derived fuel (tdf) was burned today. We expect that they will begin

with a 1/2 ton per hour rate of tdf tomorrow morning.

11/9/2006 - International Paper conducted the particulate compliance testing at the one ton

per hour rate today. The testing consists of three individual measurements, after each

measurement, the resulting sample is analyzed. IP has decided to remove tire derived fuel from

the fuel mix until these test results are available. We expect IP to have these test results

tomorrow.