SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

 A-1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

APPENDIX A

 

Summary of Significant Comments and Responses 

For Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

December 15, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

 A-2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

This page intentionally blank. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR RULE 4352 

 (SOLID FUEL FIRED BOILERS, STEAM GENERATORS AND PROCESS HEATERS) 

FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

No comments were received from EPA. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

No comments were received from ARB. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

No comments were received from stakeholders. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

FINAL DRAFT STAFF REPORT FOR RULE 4352 

(SOLID FUEL FIRED BOILERS, STEAM GENERATORS AND PROCESS HEATERS) 

DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2011 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: The District should define the terms in the six-tenths equation, used for 

the first time on page seven of the staff report.

RESPONSE: The terms of the six-tenths equation have been defined in Section IV.D. 

of the staff report. 

2. COMMENT: The District should explain why it uses a 10-year life and a 10% interest 

rate to determine the annualized capital costs for retrofit equipment.

RESPONSE: Refer to Section IV.D. of the staff report for this discussion.

3. COMMENT: The District should consider including PM2.5 and SOx emission limits in 

the SIP in response to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

RESPONSE: District staff will explore setting limits on PM2.5 and its precursors, 

including SOx, when creating the next attainment plan.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

No comment letter has been received from ARB. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

No comments have been received from stakeholders. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FOR THE 

DRAFT STAFF REPORT FOR RULE 4352 

(SOLID FUEL FIRED BOILERS, STEAM GENERATORS AND PROCESS HEATERS) 

DATED OCTOBER 18, 2011 

EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: The District should provide an analysis of how the requirements in the 

rule fulfill the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) regarding technical and economic feasibility. The analysis 

should consider currently available options for NOx controls and their associated 

costs. 

RESPONSE: District staff have addresses this comment; further information 

regarding the technical and economic feasibility of additional NOx control 

technology has been added to the staff report. Please see Section IV in the staff 

report for this discussion. 

2. COMMENT: The definition of "shutdown" should be revised to eliminate "solid" 

from the first sentence of the definition. Additionally, the District should provide 

further information to support the inclusion of zero steam flow as the end of a 

shutdown. Additional information should include the temperature of the boiler when 

steam flow reaches zero and average amount of time between the start of a 

shutdown and when zero steam flow is reached. 

RESPONSE: The definition of Shutdown has been modified to remove the 

language referring to “zero steam flow” and “solid fuel”. Another definition, Hot 

Standby, will be added to address a concern that was called to our attention by 

stakeholders. When maintenance is needed a boiler begins the Shutdown process. 

The boiler that may not actually reach ambient temperature before the maintenance 

is complete and is able to be fired back up. Under the existing definitions, a boiler 

qualifies for the startup exemption from the rule limit only if it begins startup from a 

shutdown condition, but a boiler that does not reach ambient temperature has not 

actually reached a shutdown condition. In that case, the rule definitions would force 

facilities to wait additional hours, such as overnight, to reach ambient temperature. 

Even if they could burn auxiliary fuel without being in Startup, they would 

immediately be subject to the emission limits (which apply during startup and 

shutdown) even though the exhaust gas temperature is far too low still for SNCR to 

be effective. By including the hot standby provision, it provides a way to transition 

from shutdown to startup without cooling to an ambient temperature as that can 

vary dramatically on external conditions. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

3. COMMENT: Our final action on the previous version of this rule identified concerns 

with Section 5.4 (see 75 FR 60626, October 1, 2010) and we understand that this 

provision has never been used by any sources. The District should remove Section 

5.4 or revise it to clarify that any alternate RACT limits must go through the SIP 

rulemaking process. 

RESPONSE: District staff verified that since the provision in Section 5.4 is not 

being utilized by stakeholders, it has been removed from rule language.

4. COMMENT: The District should consider including EPA Methods 201a and 202 to 

test for filterable and condensable PM2.5 emissions in Section 6.4. Inclusion of 

such testing will help the District gather needed data to include adequate emission 

limits on future revisions of this rule. 

RESPONSE: District staff will explore this option when creating the next attainment 

plan, but will not incorporate additional testing in rule language at this time.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

No comment letter has been received from ARB. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Covanta Energy (CE) 

Covanta Stanilaus (CS) 

Covanta Delano (CD) 

Rio Bravo Fresno (RBF) 

Rio Bravo Poso (RBP) 

Rio Bravo Jasmin (RBJ) 

Association of Irritated Residents (AIR) 

Madera Power (MP) 

Dinuba Energy (DE) 

Thermal Energy Development Partnership (TEDP) 

5. COMMENT: Covanta appreciates the considerations of District staff to set a 

reasonable limit. Covanta facilities could potentially meet a lower limit on an annual 

basis but the draft limit for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) can be reasonably 

achieved with 24-hour averaging. Covanta facilities are fully offset for NOx. (CE, 

CS) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

6. COMMENT: The definition for Flame Stabilization is restrictive when referring 

specifically to power outrages. (CE) The definition should allow facilities to burn 

clean alternative fuels to stabilize when a potential exceedance could occur for 

another pollutant. The following language could be added to definition to address 

this concern: “in instances including control of one or more pollutants, stabilization 

of the combustion process, process upsets, wet fuel”. The current definition does 

not address the start-ups and controlled shut-downs, specifically the minimum 

temperatures that can be reached with regards to each process. There has to be a 

minimum temperature of 900 degrees F to start burning coal or 1100 degrees F to 

start burning petroleum coke. This is achieved by burning start-up fuel (natural gas 

or propane) before coal can be introduced to the boiler. On a controlled shutdown 

the boiler would trip at less than 1200 degrees F unless the start-fuel was in service. 

This is allowed by our current Title V permit and the PSD permit. (RBF, RBP, RBJ) 

RESPONSE: The definition for Flame Stabilization has been modified. Please see 

Section 3.0 in the rule and Section IV.B. in the staff report for more information. 

7. COMMENT: Rio Bravo would like to propose the following language to define a unit 

shutdown: "A shutdown starts when fuel feed is curtailed and the unit begins cooling 

from the unit's normal operating temperature, as specified by the manufacturer, and 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

ends when combustion emissions are essentially zero. The shutdown time period 

may vary depending on specific boiler technology." (RBF, RBP, RBJ) 

RESPONSE: The definition for Shutdown has been modified. Please see Section 

3.0 in the rule and Section IV.B. in the staff report for more information. 

8. COMMENT: The proposed rule tightens NOx limits without achieving actual air 

quality improvements since the limits are already achieved in practice. The NOx 

limits should be lowered to the minimum of the range indicated by EPA and to at 

least, the lowest level found elsewhere. It does not matter if there is a significant 

cost when the health effects are considered. Nothing else takes into account the 

seriousness of our air quality problem and the cost this problem represents to the 

economy and to the health of valley residents. (AIR) 

RESPONSE: While evaluating EPA’s concerns with RACT, the District conducted a 

detailed analysis and did not find any cost effective options lower than those 

proposed in the amended rule. Further reductions from this source category will 

continue to be evaluated under subsequent attainment plans. 

9. COMMENT: The proposed limit of 65 ppm corrected to 3% O2 for NOx from Other 

Fuels will cost us more in ammonia usage costs to be able to achieve that limit. 

(RBP, RBJ) 

RESPONSE: District staff evaluated the possible need for increased ammonia 

usage and determined that it may be needed by some facilities to consistently reach 

the proposed draft NOx emission limits. District staff expect the need for increased 

ammonia usage will be minimal based on CEMS data. 

10. COMMENT: Both facilities are clean burning power plants with selective 

noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) NOx control system. Based on historical emissions 

data, these facilities will be able to meet the NOx and CO emission limits as 

specified in the draft Rule 4352. However, with these proposed limits, the margin 

for plant upsets which will result in exceeding these limits is very limited. (MP, DE) 

RESPONSE: District staff have reviewed CEMS data for every facility and propose 

a draft NOx limit that not only meets RACT standards but has a small buffer 

between the 24-hour average facilities are currently meeting and the proposed NOx 

emission limit. Breakdown relief may be granted under Rule 1100 for qualifying 

process upsets. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

11. COMMENT: Any further reduction of the proposed emission limits will require major 

facility retrofits. Significant process reconfiguration and installation of emission 

control equipment will be needed to be in compliance with a more restrictive District 

Rule 4352. Capital costs associated with these modifications are in the range of 

$10 to $20 million dollars. There will also be loss of revenue due to downtime 

during installation of this equipment and the additional operating cost for the control 

devices. (MP, DE) 

RESPONSE: Staff has estimated the cost of emission controls required for more 

substantial reductions and concluded that the cost effectiveness goes beyond 

RACT. Please refer to the Staff Report Section IV. for that information. 

12. COMMENT: SCR requires the use of fossil fuel to condition the flue gases to 

capture the emissions. Aside from the additional cost of fossil fuel, it will also 

increase the greenhouse emission from our facility. The catalyst for an SCR control 

system is susceptible to fouling by ash which is inherently a control issue. Any 

breakthrough of ash will not affect opacity or visible emission but also could result in 

catalyst fouling resulting in increase of NOx emission. Replacement cost of the 

catalyst and the required downtime will be additional burden to our facilities. (MP, 

DE) 

RESPONSE: The cost of additional fuel for a duct burner has been included in the 

cost analysis in Section IV of the staff report. Additional greenhouse gas emissions 

resulting from any revised proposed amendments to the rule would be evaluated in 

the CEQA process but will not be considered at this time since SCR is not required. 

The fouling by ash concern is specifically for a hot-side SCR, whereas the cost 

effectiveness evaluated in Section X of the staff report cold-side SCR. A cold-side 

SCR would be located downstream of the unit’s baghouse and would, therefore, be 

shielded from potential ash issues. 

13. COMMENT: District staff should take into consideration the impact on open burning 

when setting the biomass NOx limit since it is another major concern for Valley air 

quality. As facilities permitted to burn biomass, if our operation was shut down due 

to costs and time needed to retrofit to meet a lower limit, the biomass would then be 

destined for open burning or would be diverted to landfills, using up much of their 

valuable space available. (CD, MP, DE, RBF, RBP, RBJ, TEDP) 

RESPONSE: District staff recognizes the importance of biomass power generation 

facilities and the role they play in reducing the open burning of agricultural 

materials. In the Staff Report, District staff has carefully evaluated the feasibility of 

achieving lower NOx emissions and has proposed rule limits that staff believes are 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

reasonably achievable. Please refer to the Staff Report Section IV. for additional 

information. 

14. COMMENT: It is not technologically or economically feasible for the plants to be 

retrofitted with SCR to gain more NOX reductions. The respective plants already 

achieve NOx levels that represent 60-66% reduction from uncontrolled levels, so 

the cost effectiveness of adding SCR to reduce NOx is impractical. A one year 

minimum variance would have to be obtained to maintain efficient operating 

conditions of a retrofitted system without violations. The only type of particulate 

collection device that works at the temperature needed is a “hot side” ESP, which 

would also need to be purchased in addition to the SCR equipment. Any increase 

in downtime due to forced unit outages, because of SCR pluggage, could render the 

plant(s) not economically feasible. The entire back half of each facility would have 

to be completely reworked as part of the retrofit equaling a total budgetary cost of 

$15 million per plant. In addition, the facility would be off-line for at least twelve 

months resulting in lost revenue from electricity sales which pay for the plant 

operation and maintenance costs. Given the extreme downtime required to retrofit, 

the loss of revenue needed to pay for plant loans and employees, would result in 

having to lay off all employees, file for bankruptcy and permanently shut down 

affecting numerous jobs directly and indirectly. (RBF, RBP, RBJ, TEDP) 

RESPONSE: District staff have evaluated the cost effectiveness and determined it 

is not cost effective to require a retrofit at this time. Please refer to the Staff Report 

Section IV. for that information. 

15. COMMENT: Combustion modifications typical of the methods used to prevent the 

formation of thermal NOx are already in place, but the effectiveness is naturally 

limited by the very low operating temperatures in the bubbling fluidized beds. 

Excess O2 is limited as part of the combustion and temperature controls in the bed 

and aids in restricting thermal and fuel bound NOx formation. Add-on NOx controls 

are necessary to meet the present and proposed NOx emission limits. SNCR is 

already installed at the facility, which is common for use in wood- and biomass-fired 

plants. SCR is not a feasible technology to retrofit to since being upstream of 

particulate controls in a wood-fired power plant could significantly degrade catalytic 

surfaces in a short period of time due to the presence of compounds resulting from 

wood and biomass combustion. However, Regenerative SCR (RSCR) has been 

demonstrated at several plants and has found favor in plants qualifying to generate 

Connecticut and Massachusetts RECs for sale. RSCR locates the SCR 

downstream of the particulate control device where the catalytic surface can be 

protected. Assessing the incremental cost effectiveness of retrofitting RSCR on the 

facility’s two units, demonstrates that RSCR is not cost effective. To retrofit and 

install RSCR, the cost effectiveness of controlling from 0.1 lb/MM Btu over the 10-
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

year project life is $80,500/ton and the cost effectiveness of controlling from 

0.09 lb/MM Btu is $161,000/ton. Clearly, RSCR is not cost effective for installation 

on our two units. (CD) 

RESPONSE: Please see response to Comment 14. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 Appendix A: Significant Comments and Responses December 15, 2011 

A-12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

 Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4352 

This page intentionally blank.