Responsiveness Summary

International Paper Ticonderoga Mill

Proposed Tire Derived Fuel Test

DEC # 5-1548-00008/00081

July 2006

Prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

INDEX

Pages

Overview................................................................................................ 3 - 8

Permit Administration......................................................................... 9 - 13

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR).................................. 13 - 17

Air Pollution Control........................................................................... 17 - 42

Wastewater Management................................................................... 42 - 44

Solid & Hazardous Waste................................................................... 44

Miscellany............................................................................................. 44 - 47

Notification Requirements.................................................................. 47

Overview of Response to Comments

Page 3

Background

The applicant, International Paper Company (IP), has applied to the New York State Department

of Environmental Conservation (herein referred to as the Department, DEC and/or NYSDEC) for

a modification of the Air Pollution Control Title V Permit issued to its paper mill facility in

Ticonderoga New York, to conduct a one-time, two-week test burn to evaluate the use of tire

derived fuel (TDF) as an alternate, partial fuel source for the mill’s power boiler. The power

boiler currently burns number 6 fuel oil and bark/wood. TDF consists of scrap tires which have

been shredded into small-sized chips so that they may be readily added to the boiler’s existing

feed system, and from which the bead wire and steel belts have been removed. Due to the

significant degree of public interest in the IP facility, the Department published notice of the

complete permit application and the draft permit to afford an opportunity for public review of

and comment on the proposed test burn.

A Combined Notice of Legislative Hearing and Complete Application was issued on

October 7, 2005 and published in the Plattsburgh Press Republican, the Glens Falls Post Star

and the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) on October 12, 2005, along with Ticonderoga

Times of Ti on October 15, 2005, and Addison, Vermont's Addison Independent on October 13,

2005. The comment period ended on November 21, 2005. A Second Combined Notice was

issued on October 20, 2005 and published on October 26, 2005 in the Press Republican and

ENB, with comment period ending December 9, 2005. Legislative Hearings were held on

November 9, 2005 and November 30, 2005. At the request of the State Attorney General of

Vermont, the Department extended the public comment period to December 23, 2005, thus

providing an additional 42 days for public comment on the application and draft permit.

DEC received more than 1,280 comments on the proposed test burn. Extensive comments were
received from a Vermont group called People for Less Pollution and from the State of Vermont

Attorney General’s Office. The Natural Resources Defense Council submitted comments on

January 19, 2006, 23 days after the close of the second comment period. These comments raised

substantially the same issues that were raised in other comments submitted during the public

comment period. Because of the lateness of the NRDC submission, however, the comments will

not be considered as part of the permit record. The Department has completed its evaluation of,

and prepared responses to, the public comments. Based on its review of the application and

evaluation of the public comments, DEC now proposes to approve IP’s application for a permit

modification subject to additional review by the federal government. The Department will

provide a copy of the permit determination and responsiveness summary to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or USEPA), which will then have 45 days to review the

proposed permit.

The IP facility is located in northeastern New York in the Champlain valley. The facility

Page 4

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 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.

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, two-week 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.

The TDF loading will not exceed 3 tons per hour and the total heat input to the boiler will not

exceed 748 mmBtu per hour. TDF chips will be added to bark/wood in the mill’s wood yard and

will be conveyed with the bark/wood to the boiler. During the first five days of the test, TDF

will be added gradually while the operators adjust the boiler to achieve optimum combustion

conditions to ensure compliance with permit limits during this period. To ensure compliance

with the existing permit, particulate matter (PM) emissions will be measured using USEPA

Method 5 (40 CFR Part 60 Appendix A, Method 5) at baseline condition (0 tons per hour), and

when the TDF feed rate is at 1, 2 and 3 tons per hour (tph). Test results must be available within

24 hours. DEC will review the results and may require additional testing, if appropriate. For

example, if the results taken at 1.0 tph indicate that the permit limit might be exceeded at 2 tph,

PM would be measured for compliance at 1.5 tph. Similarly, if the results taken at 2 tph indicate

that the permit limit might be exceeded at 3 tph, PM would be measured for compliance at

2.5 tph. 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. The purpose of the first

week of the test is to establish the feed rate of TDF which the facility can accommodate at full

operating load and still operate in a manner consistent with its current operating permit. This is

the feed rate at which the facility will conduct more comprehensive monitoring during the

second week of the two-week test.

During the second week, extensive stack testing will be performed to characterize emissions of

contaminants of concern, including, but not limited to, particulate matter, metals, polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, hydrogen chloride (HCl) and polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs). In addition, whenever TDF is being burned, facility personnel will continue to monitor

the SO2 emission rate and NOx emission rate utilizing the mill’s CEMS. Stack opacity will also

be monitored by certified personnel during daylight hours. If any of these indicators exceed

permit limits, the facility will stop adding TDF until the conditions have stabilized and the

1Under the PSD regulations, 40 C.F.R. 52.21 (b) (2) (i), the term “modification” is

defined as “any physical change or change in the method of operation of a major stationary

source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to

regulation under the Act.”

Under the NSPS regulations, 40 C.F.R. 60.14 (a), a modification is defined as “any

physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission

rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies.”

Under 6 NYCRR 200.1 (aq), a modification is defined as a any physical change or

change in the method of operation which (1) increases the hourly emission rate, emission

concentration or emission opacity of any air contaminant, or ..... (5) results in the emission of

any air pollutant not previously emitted or authorized under the permit. 6 NYCRR Part 231,

which implements the NNSR program in New York State, applies to significant source projects.

A significant source includes, in part, a proposed physical change in, or change in the method of

Page 5

facility can operate in compliance with its existing permit conditions. In addition to the

safeguards provided by the already existing Title V operating permit, IP performed extensive

modeling analyses which it submitted as part of its permit application. These analyses predicted

that under a worst case scenario, emissions from the two-week test burn will not cause a

violation of any short-term ambient air quality guideline. DEC staff has reviewed these

analyses, have concluded that they were properly done and agree with predictions that the test

will not cause a violation of applicable short-term ambient air quality guidelines. In addition,

DEC has invited air emission personnel from the Vermont Department of Environmental

Conservation to observe the test burn.

The test does not involve a “major modification” under the Clean Air Act.

Many of the comments expressed appear to assume that the Department is allowing IP to

undertake a modification of its facility without undergoing required regulatory review under the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). These comments suggest that there may be some confusion with

respect to the procedural review required for a permit modification for a major project under

6 NYCRR Part 621 (the Department’s Uniform Procedure regulations), and the substantive

review required for a major facility modification under the New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS) (CAA Section 111), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (CAA Section 169),

and Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) (CAA Section 173) programs. While IP’s

permit application to conduct the one-time, two-week test does not involve a “major

modification,” as envisioned by the Clean Air Act, it is being processed by the Department as a

“major project” under the Department’s Uniform Procedures regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 621

given the degree of public interest in the application.

When used in connection with the NSPS, PSD, and NNSR programs, the term “modification”

contemplates a physical change or change in the method of operation at a facility which is of a

permanent nature and which results in a threshold increase in emissions of specified pollutants.1

operation of, an emission unit which results in an increase in the maximum annual potential of

the emission unit above certain threshold levels.

Page 6

There is no provision of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) or Environmental Conservation Law

(ECL), or any implementing regulation, which provides that a temporary, two-week test burn is a

“major modification,” nor do the circumstances of the proposed test burn bring it within the

criteria for review as a major facility modification under the NSPS, PSD, or NNSR programs.

The already existing IP Title V operating permit is being modified only to allow IP to conduct a

one-time two-week test burn, for the purpose of gathering data and making technical

determinations regarding the feasibility of the use of TDF as a fuel source. The terms and

conditions of the existing operating permit remain in effect and applicable to IP’s operations

during the test burn. The proposed modified permit does not allow IP to physically modify its

facility to burn TDF, and IP must resume burning exclusively number 6 fuel oil and bark/wood

in its boiler after the two-week test has concluded. For these reasons the Department has

determined that this temporary, two-week test burn to gather data is not a major facility

modification that triggers review under the NSPS, PSD, or NSR programs.

While the test does not involve a “major modification” under the Clean Air Act,

DEC treated IP’s application as a “major project” under the UPA.

The uniform procedures set forth under 6 NYCRR Part 621 identify the types of projects which

are to be considered major for the purpose of determining what procedural requirements –

specifically public notice and comment and the determination to conduct a public hearing –

apply to the permit application. Applications for permit modifications involving projects that do

not fall within the list of major projects set forth at 6 NYCRR 621.4 (g), shall be considered

minor and therefore not subject to public notice and comment. Nevertheless, the Department in

its discretion may subject an otherwise minor project to the public notice and comment, and to

the legislative hearing provisions of Part 621, if it believes that a significant degree of public

interest exists for doing so (see 6 NYCRR 621.6 [b]; 6 NYCRR 621.7 [c][1]). Pursuant to both

6 NYCRR 621.3 (c)(3) and 6 NYCRR 621.7 (e), if a public hearing is required for an otherwise
minor project, the permit application is thereafter to be treated as a major project for procedural

purposes under 6 NYCRR Part 621.

As is set forth above, the criteria for major projects set forth under 6 NYCRR 621.4 (g) do not

apply to IP’s application for a permit modification to allow a temporary two-week test burn at

the facility. Nevertheless, due to the significant degree of public interest that exists in the

proposed project, the Department believed that it was appropriate to hold legislative hearings on

the application, as a result of which the Department was required to treat the project as major for

procedural purposes under Part 621.

Given the request for a public hearing, and public notice and comment, DEC treated IP’s

application as a “significant modification” under 6 NYCRR Part 201.

Page 7

Having determined that the project should be treated as major for procedural purposes under

Part 621, the Department is constrained to treat the project as “significant” under Part 201, also

for procedural purposes. Under 6 NYCRR 201-6.7 (d), if a Title V permit modification is

neither administrative nor minor, as a procedural matter it defaults to being significant. The

modification of the IP Title V permit to authorize the two-week test burn is not an administrative

modification under 6 NYCRR 201-6.7 (b). Under 6 NYCRR 201-6.7 (c) (4), a minor Title V

permit modification must be subject to the minor permit modification procedures of Part 621,

which is inapplicable to the IP test burn. Therefore, due to the procedural requirements of

Part 621, the Department is constrained to treat this project as a significant modification to the IP

facility’s Title V permit, under Part 201. The proposed permit, in addition to being published for

notice and comment, will also be submitted to EPA for a 45-day review period. Significantly,

while for the purpose of review DEC has treated the application as a “significant modification”

under Part 201, the Department cannot take any final action on the permit application until the

conclusion of EPA’s 45-day review.

Classification of the project as a “significant modification” under 6 NYCRR Part 201 does

not mean that the project will have a significant environmental impact. It was therefore

appropriate to classify the project as Type II under 6 NYCRR Part 617.

The fact that the permit modification is significant under Title V does not lead to the conclusion

that the project either constitutes a major facility modification or will have any significant

environmental impact. The basis for many of the comments that the permit application must be

reviewed under the standards applicable to the Clean Air Act definition of a “major

modification” appears to be the fact that IP’s application characterizes the modification as

“significant,” and sets forth IP’s hope that the data gained during the two-week test may support

a future request for permission to use TDF as part of the mill’s fuel mix, on a permanent basis.

These concerns also appear to form the basis for comments that the proposed project is not a

Type II action under 6 NYCRR Part 617 and should be subject to review under the State

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). As is set forth fully in both this overview and the

Response to Comments, the analyses conducted as part of IP’s application predicted that under a

worst case scenario, emissions from the two-week test burn did not indicate a potential for acute
or subchronic adverse health impacts. Further, the classification of the test as a Type II study

under 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (18) is appropriate and is consistent with DEC’s previous treatment of

other data collection activities. Finally, it is the Department’s determination that this proposed

one-time two-week test burn is not a “major modification” for the purposes of review under the

NSPS, PSD, or NNSR regulations. The only permit action that is under consideration by the

Department at this time is IP’s application for a one-time permit modification to allow a 

twoweek

test burn. If, at some future date IP seeks Department approval to burn TDF on a

permanent basis, IP must submit an entirely separate permit application, which will be evaluated

pursuant to a separate administrative process.

In summary, the Department believes it is both appropriate and necessary for IP to conduct a test

Page 8

burn prior to submitting any application for a permanent permit modification. Importantly, the

test burn is expected to provide valuable information with respect to: (1) whether the power

boiler can handle TDF under its current configuration; (2) whether the use of TDF will require

the installation of additional pollution control measures or equipment; (3) the maximum feed rate

at which the boiler can burn TDF without causing an exceedance of applicable emission limits or

violating air quality standards; and (4) the type and quantity of pollutants that will be emitted as

a result of including TDF in the fuel mix. Given the absence of information regarding the

combustion of tire chips in a wood fired boiler like IP’s, Department staff determined that the

brief, rigorously controlled test is appropriate. The data generated from the test burn will enable

the Department, IP, and the public to more effectively evaluate the feasibility, practicability, and

environmental impacts of using TDF at the IP facility, and would therefore inform future permit

determinations should IP decide to submit a permit application to add TDF into the fuel mix on a

permanent basis. The Department’s approval of IP’s application to modify the existing permit to

allow a one-time, two-week test does not set any precedent for its review of any future permit

application that may be submitted by IP, nor is the Department committing itself to any future

course of action by virtue of the approval of this temporary two-week test.

The IP Facility is in compliance with all National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants.

Some comments expressed concern that the facility will not comply with the National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The IP facility is subject to three different

NESHAPs, however, the one at issue here is the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters - 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart DDDDD. Subpart DDDDD

establishes notification requirements and imposes emission standards on new and existing

industrial, commercial and institutional boilers, such as IP’s power boiler, depending on the size

of the boiler and the type of fuel combusted and establishes dates by which the boilers must

comply with these standards. IP has already complied with the notification requirements of

Subpart DDDDD. The substantive requirements for existing emission units greater than

10 mmBtu/hr solid fuel, such as IP’s power boiler, do not take effect until September 13, 2007,
which is after the expiration of the current Title V permit. Accordingly, Subpart DDDDD

requirements will be included in the renewed Title V permit.

Page 9

Responses to Comments

DEC has thoroughly evaluated the scientific arguments and studies cited by Vermont and

other commenters. As a result of that review DEC has determined that those studies and

arguments are inapplicable to the two-week test burn of TDF. DEC has further determined that

the test burn will not result in a significant environmental impact, nor will it violate applicable

air quality or water quality standards or guidelines. DEC’s exercise of discretion in reaching this

determination is entitled to deference (see e.g. City Council of Watervliet v. Town Bd. of Colonie,

3 NY3d 508 [2004] ["DEC is entitled to deference in its construction and application of

environmental conservation statutes"]; Flacke v. Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355,

363 [1987] ["where the judgment of the agency involves factual evaluations in the area of the

agency's expertise and is supported by the record, such judgment must be accorded great weight

and judicial deference"]; see also Chemical Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n v. Jorling, 85 NY2d 382,

395-96 [1995] [the legislature has vested DEC with significant discretion over environmental

matters and to evaluate scientific studies]; accord Brodsky v. Zagata, 222 AD2d 48

[3d Dept. 1996] [DEC is entitled to judicial deference even where the record contains conflicting

scientific evidence]; Town of Preble v. Zagata, 263 AD2d 833 [3d Dept. 1999] [in situations

entailing technical and specialized expertise, great weight and deference are accorded to an

agency's determination, even in situations involving conflicting evidence]).

The Department has prepared the following responses to public comments, both written

and oral, that were received by the NYSDEC through the close of the public comment period.

That comment period ended on December 23, 2005, after being extended for at the request of the

State of Vermont.

Comment 1: The commenter contends that the application is incomplete because it is for a

significant modification and does not include all information required in 40 CFR 70.7 (e)(4)(ii)

and 6 NYCRR 201-6.7(d), including:

• information needed to determine NSR;

• a statement of all applicable requirements;

• a statement of the methods for determining compliance with each applicable requirement

upon which IP’s compliance certificate is based;

• any estimate of potential emissions from the modification;

• emissions data adequate to assess applicability of NSPS or NESHAPS;

• emission calculations showing the emissions increase projected to result from the

proposed modification.

2Under the PSD regulations, 40 C.F.R. 52.21 (b) (2) (i), the term “modification” is

defined as “any physical change or change in the method of operation of a major stationary

source that would result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act.”

Under the NSPS regulations, 40 C.F.R. 60.14 (a), a modification is defined as “any

physical or operational change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the emission

Page 10

The commenter also states that application is for a major project under 6 NYCRR 621.4 (g) (2)

and ECL § 70-0119(1). According to the comment, the missing information has the potential to

require permit denial or major modification of the proposed permit or imposition of significant

additional permit conditions.

Response to Comment 1: The permit application seeking authorization for a temporary

twoweek

test burn does contain all the information required pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 201 and

other regulatory requirements and, thus, is a complete application.

According to 6 NYCRR 201-6.3(d), applications for Title V facility modifications and revisions

generally need only supply information related to the proposed change. In this case the proposed

change is to authorize a two-week test burn pursuant to the terms and conditions of the existing

Title V permit and with additional requirements for reporting, monitoring and record keeping

during the two-week test burn. There are no additional substantive requirements which apply to

the two-week test burn, other than those requirements that are included in the proposed permit.

Thus, the permit application accurately reflects the subject of the modification and meets all

regulatory requirements, and the proposed permit appropriately contains all applicable

requirements. The Department disagrees with the statement that pertinent information has been

omitted from the permit application and that the permit could only be issued with significant

additional permit conditions.

The commenter appears to be confused with respect to the review of a permit modification for a

major project under 6 NYCRR Part 621 (the Department's Uniform Procedure regulations), and

the substantive review required for a major facility modification under the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) (CAA Section 111), Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) (CAA Section 169), and Non-attainment New Source Review (NNSR) (CAA

Section 173) programs. IP's permit application is being processed by the Department as a "major

project" under the Department's Uniform Procedures regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 621. However,

the permit application does not involve a major facility modification, as envisioned by the Clean

Air Act and thus does not trigger additional applicable requirements under its implementing

regulations.

When used in connection with the NSPS, PSD, and NNSR programs, the term “modification”

contemplates a physical change or change in the method of operation at a facility which is of a

permanent nature and which results in a threshold increase in emissions of specified pollutants.2

rate to the atmosphere of any pollutant to which a standard applies.”
Under 6 NYCRR§ 200.1 (aq), a modification is defined as a any physical change or

change in the method of operation which (1) increases the hourly emission rate, emission

concentration or emission opacity of any air contaminant, or ....... (5) results in the emission of

any air pollutant not previously emitted or authorized under the permit. 6 NYCRR Part 231

regulations, which implements the NNSR program in New York State, apply to significant

source projects. A significant source includes, in part, a proposed physical change in, or change

in the method of operation of, an emission unit which results in an increase in the maximum

annual potential of the emission unit above certain threshold levels.

Page 11

There is no provision of the CAA or ECL, or any implementing regulation, which provides that a

temporary, two-week test burn is a major modification. More importantly, the circumstances of

the proposed test burn do not bring it within the criteria for review as a major facility

modification under the NSPS, PSD, or NNSR programs. The existing IP Title V operating

permit is being modified only to allow IP to conduct a one-time, two-week test burn for the

purpose of gathering data and making technical determinations regarding the feasibility of the

use of TDF as a supplemental fuel source. The terms and conditions of the existing operating

permit, including all applicable emission limits and standards, remain in effect and applicable to

IP's operations during the test burn. The proposed modified permit does not authorize any

increase in an applicable emission limit or standard or allow IP to physically modify its facility

to burn TDF. IP must resume burning exclusively number 6 fuel oil and wood chips/bark in its

boiler after the two-week test has concluded. For these reasons the Department has determined

that this temporary two-week data gathering exercise is not a major modification that triggers

review under the NSPS, PSD, or NSR programs.

Accordingly, the permit application is complete, and the proposed permit is in full compliance

with all statutory standards and regulatory requirements and can be issued without the imposition

of significant additional conditions.

Comment 2: The draft permit fails to include standards, emission limits and requirements of all

applicable programs, including NSR, NSPS and NESHAPS.

Response to Comment 2: See Response to Comment 1.

Comment 3: Because a variety of issues have been raised which are substantive and

significant, an adjudicatory hearing is required.

Response to Comment 3: 6 NYCRR 624.4(c) (“Legislative Hearing and Issues Conference -

Standards for Adjudicable Issues”) establishes the standards for determining whether an issue is

adjudicable. An issue is adjudicable if "it is raised by a potential party and is both substantive

and significant" (6 NYCRR 624.4[c][iii]).

Page 12
An issue is “substantive” if sufficient doubt exists about the Applicant's ability to meet the

applicable statutory or regulatory criteria such that a reasonable person would inquire further.

To determine whether an issue is substantive, the Department must consider the proposed issue

in light of the application and related documents, the draft permit, among other things (6

NYCRR 624.4[c][2]; see Matter of Adirondack Fish Culture Station, Interim Decision [August

19, 1999], aff’d In the Matter of Upper Saranac Lake Association, Inc., et al. v. Cahill, Slip Op.,

Index No. 6027-99 [Supreme Court, Albany Co., March 24, 2000]). To be substantive, an issue

cannot be based merely on speculation, but rather must be grounded on facts that can be

subjected to adjudication (Matter of Concerned Citizens Against Crossgates v. Flacke, 89 AD2d

759 [3rd Dept. 1982], aff’d 58 NY2d 919 [1983]).

An issue is “significant” if the outcome of a hearing could result in permit denial, a major

modification to the proposed project, or the imposition of significant conditions in addition to

those proposed in the draft permit (6 NYCRR 624.4[c][3]; see also Matter of Jay Giardina, DEC

Interim Decision [September 21, 1990]). Where the DEC staff and the applicant agree on the

terms and conditions of the proposed permit, Part 624 expressly provides that the burden of

persuasion to show an adjudicable issue shifts to the party proposing the issue to demonstrate

that the issue is both substantive and significant (see 6 NYCRR 624.4[c][4]).

There is no substantive issue that requires an adjudicatory hearing. The Department has

explained in responses to other comments that the two-week test burn does not constitute a major

modification and, consequently, does not itself trigger additional substantive regulatory

requirements under the CAA or the ECL. Rather, the two-week test burn is in the nature of a

study or data gathering exercise, the purpose of which is to provide data on the potential air

pollution impacts from burning TDF in the power boiler at the IP mill. The proposed permit

neither relaxes applicable regulatory requirements, nor does it authorize the emission of new air

pollutants. The IP facility will continue to be subject to the terms and conditions of its existing

Title V operating permit, including pollution control, record keeping, reporting, and monitoring.

In addition, IP and the Department have utilized conservative assumptions and established

additional rigorous monitoring and stack testing protocol to ensure that the short-duration test

burn will not result in a violation of any term or condition of IP’s existing Title V operating

permit or an ambient air quality standard. During the first week of the two-week test burn, IP

will rely on its existing CEMS and stack testing to assure compliance with the permit terms and

conditions and will stop adding TDF if the CEMS or stack tests show levels of pollutants in

excess of allowable limits. The results from the first week of the test burn will establish the

parameters pursuant to which IP will conduct more extensive stack emission testing during the

second week.

Page 13

Under the circumstances, including the fact that the existing permit does not relax existing

standards or emission limitations, that IP will be subject to strict testing protocols during the

two-week test burn, and that no new regulatory requirements will be triggered, Department staff
do not believe sufficient doubt exists about IP’s ability to meet statutory or regulatory standards

to warrant further inquiry – the standard for a substantive issue.

Even assuming the existence of a substantive issue, the commenters have failed to meet the

standard for a significant issue, namely that adjudication of any issue raised would result in a

denial of or significant modification to the proposed permit. The proposed permit already

incorporates extensive safeguards to assure compliance with applicable regulatory standards and

the protection of the environment and public health during this one-time, two-week test of TDF

at the IP facility. Any suggestion that IP should undertake the irrevocable step of installing an

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) before being allowed to conduct a two-week test burn is both

unreasonable and unfounded as a matter of law. When the DEC Staff and an applicant agree on

the terms and conditions of the proposed permit, the permit application and the draft permit

prepared by the DEC Staff are prima facie evidence that a proposed project will meet all of the

relevant statutory and regulatory criteria (see ECL §70-0119[1] and 6 NYCRR 624.4[c][4]; see

also Matter of Sithe/Independence Power Partners, L.P., DEC Interim Decision

[November 9, 1992]). In this case, DEC and IP have agreed on the terms of the permit

modification for a two-week test, and the potential parties – members of the public who

commented on the draft permit – have not raised an issue which meets the 6 NYCRR Part 624

standard for an adjudicable issue. An adjudicatory hearing is, therefore, not required under

6 NYCRR Part 624.

Comment 4: The test burn is not a Type II action, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality

Review Act (“SEQRA”) and 6 NYCRR 618.2(b)(e). The project is an unlisted action that should

require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, the NYSDEC’s own

regulations, 6 NYCRR 618.2 (e) state that the claimed exemption is in error.

Response to Comment 4: DEC has previously classified the proposed test burn as falling

squarely within the information collection provision under 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (18) (see e.g.

October 7, 2005 notice). The application of the Type II provision to the facts of this matter is

entirely consistent with the Department’s prior interpretation of this provision of the SEQRA

regulations, including a recent classification of a 30-day test burn of TDF at a facility in western

New York as a Type II action.

The Type II provision is routinely applied to those cases where, as here, some type of

government approval "is necessary to enable preliminary data collection activities * * * [for the]

development or application of mathematical or statistical models to support more detailed and

sophisticated site-specific analyses of proposed projects." The provision is legitimately applied

to, among other things, data collection activities that will help to develop or refine a future

proposal, and/or a reviewing agency's assessment of that proposal. Section 617.5(c)(18)

Page 14

therefore also has been applied to several research and development permits issued by the Solid

Waste program where "staff could not evaluate or comment on the potential of advancing to full

scale [use of various types of wastes] without the data proposed to be collected under the RD&D
approval." In terms of the relationship of the test burn to International Paper's future goals, the

critical issue for determination is not, as Vermont argues, the fact that International Paper may

be considering the potential use of TDF on a long-term basis. Indeed, if that were the case, DEC

would have to require the development of a full-blown Environmental Impact Study in any

situation where there existed the possibility of future action that was in any way related to or

even potentially dependent on a preliminary study or data gathering exercise. There is nothing in

either SEQRA's legislative history or the case law that supports such an interpretation.

Rather, the appropriate focus with respect to this issue is whether the preliminary data gathering

action will "commit the agency to undertake, fund or approve any Type I or Unlisted action,"

6 NYCRR § 617.5(c)(18), which is simply not the case here. Under the facts and the applicable

law, the classification of this action as a Type II study under SEQRA falls squarely within the

purposes and intent of that exemption, and DEC's decision in this regard is entitled to deference

(see e.g. New York City Coalition for Preserv. of Gardens v. Giuliani, 246 AD2d 399, 400

[1st Dept. 1998] ("municipal respondent agency's determination that the action is Type II has a

rational basis"); Matter of We Stay/Nos Quedamos Comm. v. New York City Dept. of Citywide

Admin. Servs., 240 AD2d 302 [1st Dept. 1997] [acknowledging court's limited review function

and deferring to agency's Type II classification because it had a rational basis]); Jamaica

Chamber of Commerce v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 159 Misc2d 601 [Sup. Ct. Queens County

1993] [giving deference to agency’s Type II classification and concluding that experiment with

temporary traffic conversion fell squarely within the scope of that exemption]).

Finally, 6 NYCRR 618.2 (b) has no relevance to this matter since that regulation applies only in

a case where DEC is the entity planning and designing a proposed project. On its face 6

NYCRR 618.2 (b) applies only where DEC is the entity undertaking the action, and is seeking

authorization for a regulated activity for one of its own facilities such as a DEC-operated fish

hatchery, ski trail, or regional office. Moreover Part 618 is merely an expression of DEC’s own

Type II list; pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617.5 every State agency has the opportunity to promulgate a

list of agency actions it considers Type II. This provision does not apply where DEC is

exercising a regulatory function in reviewing a project of the type proposed by IP. As such,

6 NYCRR Part 617, not Part 618, is the applicable regulation for determining whether IP’s

proposed test burn is a Type II action.

Comment 4A: The Type II study provision of the SEQRA regulations, 6 NYCRR

Part 617.5 (c) (18), applies only to existing environmental conditions.

Page 15

Response to Comment 4A: The commenter misunderstands either the language or application

of the Type II study exemption set forth at 6 NYCRR 617.5 (c) (18). There is no wording or

restriction in the text of Item 18 that limits its application to “existing environmental conditions”,

nor would any such limitation make sense, as there are instances where the critical data needed

to reliably predict full-scale operating impacts must be samples taken under operating

conditions. One example of such an application of Item 18 would be a well yield test, where a

test well is drilled and water pumped, with the key observations being the volume pumped, water

quality, and, often, effects on nearby wells or aquifers, with the observations subsequently used

to more accurately predict and model wider-range and longer-term impacts. Significantly, the
key observations and data relate to changes induced, and are not limited to existing conditions.

In addition, DEC’s classification of the two-week test burn as a Type II, Item 18 study is

consistent with DEC’s previous treatment of other data collection activities. For example, the

DEC Long Island office (DEC Region 1) has classified a number of “Research, Development

and Demonstration” (RD&D) permits under the Solid Waste program as Type II based on Item

18, at least as early as the Ward Melville High School project in 1995, which investigated

fabrication of building components from incinerator ash, asphalt or other related wastes.

Specific, detailed data collection protocols are a fundamental component of those RD&D

permits, and part of the rationale for the Type II classification in those cases was that staff could

not evaluate or comment on the potential of advancing to full scale without the data proposed to

be collected under the RD&D approval.

Notably, the DEC Buffalo office (DEC Region 9) classified a modification to a Title V permit to

conduct a 30-day operational test burn of increased proportions of TDF at the Niagara

Generating Facility as a Type II Item 18 study. Much like IP’s proposed two-week test, the

Niagara test burn protocol includes stack testing parameters as well as specific triggers for

halting testing if certain emission parameters are exceeded during the trial burn. The existing

Title V permit for the Niagara facility already allowed up to 30% TDF in the fuel mix. The

authorized test examines several higher proportions of TDF, added in gradual increments over

several days. The test was designed to determine the maximum percentage of TDF which could

be present in the fuel mix and still allow the facility to maintain stable boiler operation. As with

IP’s pending application to modify its Title V permit to permit a two-week test, the Niagara test

burn protocol includes specific stack test standards to detect emissions parameters. Also, as with

IP’s application to conduct a two-week test at the Ticonderoga mill, the air emissions limits of

the existing permit for the Niagara facility continue in effect throughout the test burn period.

Comment 5: Exemption of the test burn from SEQRA review constitutes impermissible

segmentation of the environmental review process.

Response to Comment 5: By classifying the test burn as Type II under 6 NYCRR

617.5(c)(18), DEC has explicitly acknowledged the existence of a potential link between the

information to be generated by the test burn and any possible future application for the

Page 16

permanent use of TDF at the Ticonderoga mill. However, consistent with 6 NYCRR

617.5(c)(18), that nexus does not foreclose or presuppose the outcome of any future

environmental review of such a possible future application, nor does approval of the test burn

commit DEC to approving any possible future application for further use of TDF at the mill. On

the contrary, the results of the short-duration test burn would substantially inform and improve

the environmental and technical reviews of any future application, should one be submitted by

IP.

DEC's SEQRA Handbook sets forth a number of factors based on accumulated case law that can

help determine if proposed environmental reviews of separate projects are actually segmented
reviews of a larger action. These factors include: (1) whether there is a common purpose for

each project; (2) the timing of the projects; (3) the location of the projects; (4) whether the

projects (although each insignificant) will together have significant cumulative impacts;

(5) common ownership; (6) inclusion in an overall plan; (7) independent usefulness of each

project or element; and (8) whether approval of one project induces or commits the reviewing

agency to approve the other project.

Application of these factors confirms that no segmentation took place here. First, the two-week

test has a separate purpose from any future action by IP. Its objective is to collect air emission

data, rather than to provide an alternative fuel to power the manufacturing of paper products on a

medium or long term basis (see IP Application at pp.1-2). Second, any possible future action by

IP will not occur at the same time as the two-week test, particularly where the possible permit

modification involved in this case will not address any future actions beyond the two-week

window. Third, the impacts of the test would not be common with those of any possible future

action. The impacts of the test will be temporary, and IP has committed that the emissions from

the test shall not violate any Vermont or New York air quality standard. Therefore, the results of

the test are different from that of any future activity in both time and scope. Similarly, any

future action is not "functionally dependent" on the test. The one-time, two-week test, and any

emissions resulting from it, will long be over before any future activity occurs. Fourth, the test is

not a component of an overall plan, but merely provides information for International Paper to

consider in making a determination as to whether to add TDF to its fuel mix, and to assist in any

future permit application should it decide to do so. Likewise, the test will provide information to

DEC, EPA, and Vermont essential to evaluate a potential future application should IP later elect

to seek approval for using some amount of TDF in the mill's fuel mix. Finally, the approval of

the permit for the test in no way "commit[s] the agency to approve other phases." This is a

limited test that is not determinative of any future action by either IP or DEC.

Equally important, the frequently stated policy concern regarding segmentation, i.e., that both

aspects of an alleged overall project may fall below the threshold necessary for any review under

SEQRA, is simply not present in this proceeding (see generally Matter of Concerned Citizens for

the Envt. v Zagata, 243 AD2d 20, 22 [3d Dept 1998]; Matter of City of Buffalo v New York State

Dept. Envtl. Conservation, 184 Misc2d 243, 254-55 [Sup. Ct. Erie County 2000]). Approval of

the two-week test will not curtail review of any further applications. It is quite likely that any

Page 17

future application by IP for permission to add TDF to the mill’s fuel mix will be subject to

review under SEQRA (as well as other statutes). Here, the information gathered from the 

onetime,

two-week, rigorously-controlled test burn will be used by DEC, EPA, and perhaps

Vermont to make an informed, scientifically-objective decision on any such future application.

DEC’s classification of the two-week test as a Type II study under 6 NYCRR 617.5(c)(18)

certainly is not “practically determinative” of any regulatory action regarding any subsequent

proposed action – a second policy concern informing the judiciary’s analysis of segmentation

claims (see generally Matter of Concerned Citizens for the Envt. v Zagata, 243 AD2d at 22;
Matter of City of Buffalo v New York State Dept. Envtl. Conservation, 184 Misc2d at 254).

Authorization to conduct a one-time, two-week test burn does not inexorably commit

International Paper to requesting authorization to use TDF at some unspecified future time at the

Ticonderoga paper mill. International Paper may ultimately decide not to use TDF at the mill.

Nor would such an authorization obligate DEC to authorize the permanent use of three tons – or

even one pound – of TDF at the Ticonderoga mill should International Paper ultimately submit

an application for such authorization.

Comment 6: DEC has failed to properly evaluate and minimize the adverse environmental and

potential public health impacts, especially on children, of PM2.5. DEC must evaluate PM2.5

impacts as required by law.

Response to Comment 6: The Department has properly evaluated the environmental and

potential public health impacts of PM2.5. In April 2005, EPA designated PM2.5 attainment and

non-attainment areas. The area around Ticonderoga where the IP facility is located was deemed

to be in attainment of the PM2.5 standards. Federal and State regulatory programs for

implementing the PM2.5 standard, along with source specific PM2.5 pollution control

requirements, are still in development. There are presently no federal regulations which impose

specific requirements with respect to PM2.5 emissions on sources located in attainment areas.

EPA’s regulations and policy currently only require for proposed and modified sources the

assessment of PM10 impacts as a surrogate for PM2.5 until such time as EPA finalizes its PM2.5

Implementation Rule.

Pending the implementation of the federal PM2.5 standard and the promulgation of source

specific regulations, DEC adopted Commissioner’s Policy CP-33: Assessing and Mitigating

Impacts of Fine Particulate Matter Emissions, on December 29, 2003, to provide interim

direction to Department Staff for evaluating the impacts of fine particulate matter from proposed

facilities that require a permit from the Department. CP-33 establishes procedures for the

project-specific assessment of fine particulate matter impacts and when mitigation of such

impacts may be necessary. As a threshold matter, a project specific assessment is required only

if the proposed project will result in emissions of fine particulate matter (or PM10 as a surrogate)

in an amount greater than 15 tons per year. The 15 tons per year threshold corresponds to the

existing de minimis threshold under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program

Page 18

for PM10 in attainment areas and the significant source project threshold in non-attainment areas

under current 6 NYCRR Part 231-2 (New Source Review in Non-attainment Areas and Ozone

Transport Regions). According to CP-33, if primary PM2.5 or PM10 emissions from the project

do not equal or exceed 15 tons per year, the PM2.5 impacts shall be deemed insignificant and no

further assessment is required.

It is important to emphasize that the test burn will not result in significantly increased levels of

PM2.5 emissions. The proposed permit does not authorize IP to increase its emissions above

maximum allowable levels. The PM emission limitations in the current Title V permit will
remain in effect during the test burn. In fact, the proposed permit restricts the emissions of

particulates to the current maximum allowable level of 0.1 lb/mmBtu at all times. Moreover,

during the first week of the test burn, IP will be monitoring PM emissions after each addition of

TDF to the boiler to determine the amount of TDF the boiler can handle, and still operate in

compliance with emission limits and standards contained in the Title V permit. The second

week of testing will be conducted using the amount of TDF that was shown during the first week

not to have caused a violation of a permit term or condition. Thus, there are several safeguards

in place to ensure that IP will continue to comply with its existing particulate emission limit in

the Title V permit during the test burn. Since the IP test burn is only two-weeks long and the

emissions of particulates are limited by the existing Title V permit, the potential increase of

PM2.5 emissions is far below 15 tons per year. The PM2.5 impacts from test burn are, therefore,

insignificant and do not merit further review under CP-33.

With respect to ambient air quality impacts associated with the two-week test burn, IP’s permit

application included an air dispersion modeling analysis which was conducted using

conservative worst case assumptions to predict the potential maximum impacts. The analysis

took into account PM emissions from the entire facility (four other sources in addition to the

boiler) and a regional background level of PM10. The PM10 impacts were compared and

showed compliance with the corresponding 24-hour national ambient air quality standard. In

addition, the impacts of zinc oxide (including in particulate form) were compared to both New

York State and Vermont short-term guideline concentrations and standards, respectively, to

demonstrate compliance. These comparisons did not indicate a violation of air quality standards

or guidelines in either Vermont or New York as a result of a two-week test burn.

On the issue of health impacts, the available monitoring data in the vicinity of the IP facility in

Vermont shows that current levels of PM2.5 in the area surrounding the IP facility are well

within the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), greatly minimizing the

potential for adverse health consequences. The State of Vermont has operated PM2.5 monitors

in Addison County - across Lake Champlain from the IP facility - for almost 2 years. These

monitors have indicated compliance with the NAAQS and have, in fact, consistently measured

levels at less than half of the corresponding 24 hour NAAQS of 65 ug/m3, and are well below the

15 ug/m3 annual standard. The 24 hour PM2.5 standard is based on the 98% of the observed

values which means that the daily observations can exceed the 65 ug/m3 level seven times, if

observations are taken every day, and still meet the standard. NYSDEC uses these and other

Page 19

ambient air quality standards to determine the regulatory acceptability of potential health effects

associated with observed levels or predicted impacts of PM2.5 from individual or combined

projects. These observed levels of PM2.5 provide an indication of the regional concentrations to

which persons downwind of the IP facility and other sources of pollution are exposed. Based on

its careful evaluation of the data, the Department does not expect the brief, rigorously controlled

test burn, to significantly affect these levels. Accordingly, there should be no adverse health

impacts from the two-week test burn.
Finally, with respect to the comment that the test burn would violate ambient air guidelines, we

note that the referenced July 2000 DEC Division of Air Resources Air Guide 1 tables for toxic

air contaminants contained an error. In December 2003, the Department revised Air Guide 1 to

include the NAAQS for PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant instead of a toxic air guideline

concentration level.

Comment 7: Conversion to burn TDF will result in violations of the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide

and particulate matter.

Response to Comment 7: Burning TDF during the two-week test burn, as described in the

proposed permit, will not cause a violation of the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide and particulate

matter. Sulfur dioxide is controlled by the wet scrubber to ensure emissions do not exceed the

authorized pounds per hour emission rate. If there is an increase in sulfur dioxide in the exhaust

gas, the caustic concentration of the scrubber liquid is increased to treat the gas. Therefore, there

will be no increase in sulfur dioxide emissions.

Under the proposed permit, particulate matter emissions cannot exceed the permit limit of

0.10 pounds per million BTU contained in the current Title V permit. For the PM10 standard,

the test burn application has conservatively modeled the PM10 emissions from the whole

facility, including four other sources than the boiler (assuming the power boiler emits PM10 at

the 0.10 lb/mmBtu limit) and has conservatively added a regional background level, to

demonstrate that the impacts of all emission sources at the facility will be within the

corresponding standard.

Comment 8: With respect to modeling of PM10, the Guideline for Air Quality Models

(Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51) requires that boilers should be modeled at 100% of load. If

this modeling was performed with design heat input, the modeled concentration would likely

exceed the NAAQS for PM10.

Page 20

Response to Comment 8: As correctly noted, EPA and NYSDEC modeling guidelines

require the modeling of maximum allowable emissions, in addition to other possible operating

loads to assure that maximum expected impacts have been calculated. The Air Dispersion

Modeling Analysis in Appendix B of the July 2005 revised application notes that, although the

maximum boiler capacity is 855 mmBtu/hr, the expected loads during the test burn range from

452 to a maximum of 748 mmBtu/hr. Six scenarios covering this range were modeled as noted

in Table 3-1 of the modeling report and showed compliance with all applicable standards and

thresholds, including the PM10 standards. To assure that the maximum heat input rate will not

be exceeded, the proposed permit limits the boiler operations to 748 mmBtu/hr, corresponding to

the maximum allowable emission rate modeled for particulate matter.

Comment 9: The scrubber does not efficiently remove particles equal to or smaller than

2.5 microns so the emissions will endanger the health of Champlain Valley residents.

Response to Comment 9: See Responses to Comments 6, 10 and 21.
Comment 10: How will burning TDF affect PM2.5 emissions and how will PM2.5 be

measured?

Response to Comment 10: IP is performing the two-week test burn to help determine the

emissions profile of adding TDF to the mill’s overall fuel mix. It is important to recognize that

the IP facility currently uses an effective wet scrubber which removes a significant amount of

particulate matter and that during the test burn, IP is not allowed to exceed the limits for PM that

are in the facility's existing Title V permit. To assure compliance with its existing permit

requirements, during the two-week test burn IP must stack test for PM emissions while it

gradually increases the TDF feed to the boiler. IP must test at baseline conditions, when the feed

rate reaches 1 ton per hour (tph), then again at 2 tph and then again at 3 tph. Those stack tests

will measure PM emissions using EPA Method 5, which measures filterable PM emissions, and

the test results will be made available within 24 hours of the time that the stack test samples are

collected. Once IP has reached the maximum feed rate at which it can demonstrate compliance,

total PM emissions will be measured using EPA Methods 5 and 202, which will measure both

filterable and condensible PM. This includes all PM2.5 plus any larger PM. Following the

testing using TDF as part of the fuel mix, testing will be done using only oil/wood. This will

allow a comparison between the worst case TDF and baseline emission conditions. This data

will then be used to inform any future permitting decisions, if IP submits an application to burn

TDF as fuel on a permanent basis.

Comment 11: Emissions of fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5, will increase and

there is no method to monitor for PM fines during the test.

Response to Comment 11: See Responses to Comments 6 and 10.

Page 21

Comment 12: Off-Site monitors are needed for PM2.5 and other air contaminants.

Response to Comment 12: The State of Vermont has operated two (2) ambient monitoring

stations directly across Lake Champlain from the Ticonderoga Mill for the past two years.

Vermont has indicated that they intend to operate at least one of these stations during the test.

Vermont has collected background/baseline data for the past two years and will collect data

during the test for comparison to baseline. See Response to Comment 6.

Comment 13: There may be health impacts from short term exposure of PM fine on

children, seniors, and persons with respiratory illnesses.

Response to Comment 13: See Response to Comment 6.

Comment 14: EPA has proposed regulatory changes which would reduce by half the

allowable background levels of PM2.5. The test burn may not meet the background limits for

PM2.5.
Response to Comment 14: EPA proposed revisions to the PM2.5 and PM10 standards (coarse

particles in the 2.5 to 10 micron range) on January 17, 2006 and provided an opportunity for

public comment beginning on February 9, 2006. These proposed changes are to the allowable

ambient levels of PM2.5 and will lower the 24 hour standard to about half of the current value.

Notably, EPA’s adoption of these revisions will take considerable time. The public comment

period closed very recently on April 17, 2006. Even if EPA does promulgate a final rule, the

implementation of the revised PM standards is expected to take several years. EPA only

published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for implementing the fine PM standards

on March 29, 2006. The comment period on that notice was extended to July 10, 2006. EPA

and DEC will continue to implement the current PM2.5 standards until such time as EPA

promulgates final rules with revised standards and a schedule for implementation of those

standards. It is important to recognize that the test burn is not expected to alter the currently

monitored PM2.5 levels since the emissions during the test burn will be limited to the particulate

emission limits authorized in the current Title V permit. It is noteworthy that under the existing

permitted PM levels imposed on the Ticonderoga Mill, the PM ambient air levels observed at

two air monitors in Addison County Vermont have always been well below EPA’s current 24-

hour standard.

Comment 15: The test burn is flawed for the following reasons: 1) It is not designed to

test for the PM that would be removed by an ESP and 2) PM2.5 will not be monitored, but will

be emitted. The test should be redesigned to better assess PM2.5.

Response to Comment 15: See Responses to Comments 6 and 10.

Page 22

Comment 16: NYSDEC needs to fully evaluate options that would decrease emissions of

PM2.5 during the Test.

Response to Comment 16: Testing for particulate matter (PM) must be performed when the

TDF feed rate reaches 1 ton per hour (tph), 2 tph and 3 tph. During this “ramp up” period PM

emissions test results will be available within 24 hours. If any of the results show PM emissions

in excess of the current permit limit, the feed rate of TDF must immediately be reduced to a level

that has been tested and shown to comply with the existing permit limit. Stack opacity must be

monitored by a certified visible emissions evaluator. If opacity exceeds 20% the facility must

stop adding TDF until the situation is corrected. In addition, a slightly more stringent SO2 limit

for the boiler will be imposed, to provide a means to more quickly detect any scrubber

malfunction should one occur. See Responses to Comments 6 and 10.

Comment 17: It can be expected that hourly emissions of particulate matter and SO2 will

increase and trigger NSPS regulations.

Response to Comment 17: See Overview and Response to Comment 1.

Comment 18: It is probable that a change in operations would be necessary to burn TDF
in the IP boiler.

Response to Comment 18: No change in operations is authorized by this modification. Firing

TDF chips will not require a modification to the boiler. The TDF chips will be added to the

wood and fed to the boiler with the same pneumatic conveyor feed system that currently feeds

wood to the boiler.

Comment 19: The control efficiencies in the modeling appear to be greater than values

given in previous tests of the unit.

Response to Comment 19: The control efficiency in the modeling is not higher than was

demonstrated in previous stack tests. The commenter is using a control efficiency (86% for

particulate) from the original submission and that information is obsolete. The current modeling

is based on a control efficiency of 73%.

Comment 20: Based on information that the powerhouse boiler is a dry bottom, wall

fired design, it is uncertain if the boiler is capable of handling semi-volatile materials such as

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which is one of the major components of TDF.

3Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory/Department of Energy (UCLLNL/DOE). 1996.

Effects of Waste Tires, Waste Tire Facilities and Waste Tire Projects on the Environment. (Under

contract for California Integrated Waste Management Board;

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/default.asp?pubid=433

4Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental

Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Distributed within the Federal Government as an Electronic Document (Projected public availability on

the internet or NTIS: 1998).

Page 23

Response to Comment 20: PAHs are a group of naturally-occurring substances formed during

the incomplete burning of coal, fuel oil, gas, wood, or other carbon-containing compounds. The

exact concentrations and identities of PAHs vary among petroleum products. Softeners and

extender oils used in processing tires may include a wide variety of oils, tars, resins, pitches, and

synthetic organic materials. PAHs are found in the oils, tars, resins and pitches used to

manufacture tires.3 However, residual fuels, including Fuel Oil No. 6 currently being used in

IP’s power boiler, also contain appreciable concentrations of PAHs.4

As stated, incomplete burning or poor combustion leads to the formation of PAHs. Previous

stack tests conducted at IP indicate the power boiler is well-maintained and operated and

achieves good combustion. The combustion of TDF is not expected to be largely different from

Fuel Oil No. 6; both fuels have adequate Btu content. Fuel Oil No. 6 will be fired from nozzles

along the walls of the boiler above the bottom grate where most of the TDF and wood

combustion will occur. Although TDF will be temporarily replacing some of IP’s Fuel Oil No. 6

usage on a heat input basis, during the two-week test, adding TDF chips directly to the wood

should enhance the combustion of the wood which has a lower Btu and higher moisture content

than TDF and Fuel Oil No. 6.
As demonstrated in a previous, limited test, the IP power boiler is capable of adequately

combusting TDF. The proposed test burn will further evaluate the boiler’s operational ability to

use different TDF amounts or feed rates within the current permit limits. In addition, stack tests

for PAH emissions will be conducted to compare to the baseline conditions (wood/bark/oil

firing) conditions. Measures of adequate combustion and boiler operating parameters will also

be recorded. Since both fuels (TDF and Fuel Oil No. 6) contain PAHs, the test burn will provide

the essential data to determine, at the maximum TDF feed rate attained, if there is a significant

difference in PAH emissions during baseline and TDF firing conditions.

Comment 21: The test burn application did not include the values necessary to determine

the efficiency of the scrubber unit for removing particles such as zinc oxide which measure less

than 3 microns in size.

Page 24

Response to Comment 21: The control efficiency for zinc oxide is estimated at 73%. This is

the control efficiency achieved for metals during a previous stack test. As was explained in the

overview, stack testing will be conducted at different feed rates, which will provide data on the

emissions profile that results from using different TDF percentages in the fuel mix. During the

test burn, IP must comply with the existing limit in the Title V permit for PM, and results from

the stack testing will be provided within 24 hours of each increase in the amount of TDF, so that

any increase in emissions that do occur will be measured, and known almost immediately, for

comparison to that permit limit. Emissions would only be expected to exceed the existing permit

limit if the control efficiency achieved is significantly less than 73%. In that event, the TDF feed

rate will be reduced immediately to the level at which IP can operate in compliance with the

limit in its permit. See Responses to Comments 6 and 22.

Comment 22: The State of Vermont has recommended a new annual exposure standard

for zinc oxide within the State. This standard would most likely be violated during the test. The

current air pollution control equipment will allow these contaminants to pass through during the

TDF test.

Response to Comment 22: The predicted, short-term ambient impacts did not exceed either

Vermont’s or New York’s existing short-term ambient guideline concentrations. The proposed

test burn at IP is only two weeks in duration, of which the first week will be an incremental

increase of the tons of TDF chips, fed until the maximum (not to exceed three [3] tons/hr) is

reached. This two-week period does not involve chronic exposure, and comparison of the

predicted ambient impacts to the current Vermont short-term standard of 12 μg/m3 (24-hr) or the

NYSDEC SGC of 380 μg/m3 (1-hr) is a more appropriate approach for assessing the potential

public health impacts of the test burn. Use of the TDF will cease after the two-week period. If

further evaluation of the usage of TDF on a long-term basis is necessary, the Department will use

appropriate annual ambient guideline concentrations to assess the public health impacts of any

such project.
The Vermont Health Department’s proposed zinc oxide standard is an annual average of

1 μg/m3. The current Vermont 24-hr standard for zinc compounds will be vacated when the

proposed annual standard for zinc oxide is final. The Vermont proposed, annual HAAS

(Hazardous Ambient Air Standard) for zinc oxide may be classified as overly conservative

because the occupational syndrome of metal fume fever is considered the critical health endpoint

of concern for the derivation.

The derivation of a standard or guideline should be representative of the exposure that is

expected to occur. Metal fume fever is an acute allergic condition mainly experienced by

welders and foundry workers who suffered occupational overexposure to zinc/zinc oxide fume

from welding, burning or brazing galvanized steel. To derive their annual standard, Vermont

referenced the 1997 study by Fine et al. that demonstrated mild fever, but not a significant

increase in symptoms, in a controlled inhalation exposure to zinc oxide for two (2) hours at

5Fine, J.M.; Gordon, T.; Chen, L.C.; Kinney, P.; Falcone, G.; Beckett, W.S. Metal fume fever:

characterization of clinical and plasma IL-6 response in controlled human exposures to zinc oxide fume at

and below the threshold limit value. JOEM, Vol. 39, No. 8. (August 1997).

6New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH), Bureau of Toxic Substance

Assessment. Ambient Air Criteria Document: Zinc (August 1989).

7CRC Press. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 80th ed, 1999-2000.

Page 25

2500 μg/m3. Exposure to 5000 μg/m3 for two (2) hours produced fever and symptoms. The

zinc oxide was furnace-generated fume and the subjects were 13 healthy, nonsmoking volunteers

who inhaled zinc oxide while at rest for two (2) hours through a snugly fitted mask around their

face.5 Vermont used uncertainty and modifying factors totaling 3000 to derive an annual

standard of 1 μg/m3 from the 2 hour exposure period at 2500 μg/m3. These factors are used to

account for information gaps and usually range from 10 to 1000. The use of higher values

reflects a lower degree of confidence in the information used to derive the guideline or standard.

The DEC contends that Vermont’s development of an annual standard for zinc oxide based on an

acute health endpoint induced after a short (2 hours) high concentration exposure is overly

conservative. In any event, the occupational conditions experienced by the welders and foundry

workers, as well as the subjects in the Fine study, differ markedly from the conditions during the

two-week test burn of TDF.

Currently, the NYSDEC short-term or 1-hr guideline concentration (SGC) of 380 μg/m3 for zinc

oxide is an equivalent standard derived from the Federal 24-hr PM10 standard of 150 μg/m3.

While NYSDEC recognizes metal fume fever in the occupational setting, in the ambient air zinc

oxide fumes are rapidly altered to form aggregates which do not produce the same symptoms

that are associated with freshly generated, zinc metal fume inhalation in the work place. In the

ambient air, the respiratory effects elicited by particulate matter containing zinc and/or zinc

oxide are the same as those elicited by particulate matter which does not contain zinc.
Therefore, control of particulates in ambient air should adequately protect the public health from

exposure to zinc and zinc oxide.6

Zinc oxide is inherently bound in the rubber of the tires and is the main metal compound found

in TDF. Zinc metal is also found in the coating of the steel belts and bead wire which are mostly

removed during TDF chip processing. However, some residual zinc metal from the steel belts

and bead wire may remain in the TDF. Based on the melting points of zinc and zinc oxide, the

boiler chamber temperature, and the exhaust gas temperature, most of the zinc from TDF should

be emitted in the air in the form of insoluble zinc particles. With a melting point of 3587° F,

zinc oxide will not become a metal fume in IP’s boiler chamber. When TDF is combusted at

2000° F (IP’s maximum boiler temperature), zinc oxide will be emitted as a particulate. As a

particulate, some of the zinc oxide may also be entrained in the fly ash and bottom ash. The

residual zinc with a melting point of 787° F will become a metal fume when subjected to high,

boiler chamber temperatures (2000° F). As combustion gases cool, zinc fume forms zinc oxide.

Based upon the above melting points of zinc and zinc oxide and the IP boiler chamber

temperature, most of the zinc from TDF should be emitted as zinc oxide, not zinc fume.7

8United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of research and Development, National

Risk Management Research Laboratory. Primary Particles Generated by the Combustion of Heavy Fuel 

Oil and Coal. EPA-600/R-02-093. (November 2002).

Page 26

In conclusion, there are multiple mechanisms involved in the formation of particulate matter

from combustion sources like the IP boiler. The design and operation of a source can result in

significant changes in the particles generated. The formation mechanisms that generate these

particles govern both size and composition.8 Some residual zinc metal from the bead wire and

steel belt coating may be present in the TDF chips, but the majority of the zinc measured in TDF

is zinc oxide in the rubber which, given its physical properties, is not expected to vaporize,

condense and combine with other chemical compounds like sulfates. Some of the zinc oxide

may be entrained in the fly ash and bottom ash. The larger particles of fly ash will be controlled

by the multi-clone and wet scrubber. The stack testing conducted during the test burn will

indicate the amount of total particulate that is emitted with TDF. During the proposed test burn,

IP must meet the current particulate permit limits. If the particulate limits are exceeded, the test

burn must stop. Also, continuous emissions monitoring for sulfur dioxide (SO2) will be

conducted as an overall indicator that the power boiler and scrubber are performing properly

during the test burn. Based on DEC staff’s review of the application, the public comments, and

staffs’ extensive experience the Department believes that the test burn can be conducted safely

with the conservative ambient guidelines and monitoring requirements that are currently in

place.

Comment 23: The fly ash reinjection process which is employed at the powerhouse

boiler increases the particulate load on the scrubber which is likely to reduce the control

efficiency of the scrubber and cause increased particulate emissions.

Response to Comment 23: See Response to Comment 21.
Comment 24: Although IP is authorized to burn biosolids, clarifier solids, digester wood

knots and non-condensable gasses, these fuels will not be used during the trial burn. Not

including these wastes during the trial raises questions concerning the ability to burn them with

TDF and remain below permitted emission levels or hazardous air pollutant levels.

Response to Comment 24: The proposed permit does not allow the facility to burn digester

wood knots or clarifier solids (biosolids) during the two-week test burn of TDF. These

alternative fuels may be burned under IP’s current Title V Air Permit, but are not burned on a

regular basis. Since they are not consistently fed to the boiler, use of these fuels during the test

would introduce variables which may lead to inconclusive results. The primary purpose of the

trial is to determine the effects of adding TDF to the normal fuel mixture (No. 6 fuel oil and

wood/bark), on the boiler’s operation and emissions profile. To accomplish this, it is best to

eliminate as many variables as possible. Non-condensible gases will be burned during the trial,

as these are always fed to the boiler for odor control and are considered a constant.

Page 27

Comment 25: The refined modeling analysis did not use five consecutive years of

meteorological data as required by air quality guidelines.

Response to Comment 25: The comment correctly noted that EPA and NYSDEC modeling

guidelines recommend the use of the consecutive years from the most recent, readily available

5 year period in the analysis. The comment also references the EPA webpage where data up to

1992 is noted to be available, but it fails to recognize that more recent data is also noted at the

webpage to be available from National Climatological Data Center (NCDC). In fact, the original

May 2004 modeling protocol submitted by ENSR consultants for the test burn proposed to use

data from 1987-1991. However, based on DEC and EPA comments to ENSR to update the

database, the most recent available years were used, in addition to the 1991 data which was

associated with modeled maximum impacts in a previous permit action. As noted in Section 2.4

of the Modeling Analysis report (Appendix B of the June 2005 revised application), the years

1999 to 2003 were originally obtained for use, but the year 2001 did not meet the required 90%

data recovery and was therefore replaced by the year 1998. The recommendation to use a

consecutive 5-year period is to assure a long enough meteorological data record, in addition to

avoiding the selection of individual data years by consultants. The modeling analysis performed

by ENSR met and exceeded the DEC recommendation for the choice of the meteorological data.

Comment 26: In support of Vermont's opposition to the proposed permit, Vermont relies

on a private Consultant's report entitled, "Quantitative Assessment and Emissions Estimation of

TDF Burning Operations of the Ticonderoga Mill," which projects hourly emissions increases

over an annual period, and concludes that there could be significant increases in SO2, PM,

PM10, and zinc emissions from the project, triggering the need for PSD permitting.

Response to Comment 26: The "project" which was evaluated by Vermont’s consultant

involves the permanent use of TDF at the IP facility. In reality, the test burn is of a limited, two 

week duration. Moreover, IP's Title V operating permit will remain in effect during the test

burn, and emissions during the test burn cannot exceed permitted limits. The report, therefore, is

based on a flawed set of operating parameter and permitting assumptions and is not appropriate
to address the emissions impacts of a two-week test burn, that will occur under the strict

operating conditions that will be imposed here. The Department disagrees with Vermont and the

conclusions of Vermont's consultant that the potential emissions increases from the two-week

test burn will be significant and will trigger the need for PSD permitting. See Overview and

Response to Comment 1.

Comment 27: Key toxic chemicals are not adequately addressed. The draft permit is

inadequate in that it does not adequately address testing of contaminants such as PM2.5, dioxin

compounds, zinc and other toxics including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium,

silver, thallium, and vanadium.

9New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR-1

Guidelines for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants (formerly Air Guide-1). Issued

November 12, 1997. Available on-line at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/dar1.pdf.

10New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR3 Solid Alternatives Fuels Permitting. Issued January 5, 1998. Available on-line at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/dar3.pdf.

11New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR1 AGC/SGC Tables. Issued December 22, 2003. Available on-line at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/agcsgc03tables.pdf.

12National Research Council (NRC). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National

Academy Press. Washington, D.C. (1994).

Page 28

Response to Comment 27: IP’s risk analysis relied on two well-established tools developed by

the DEC Division of Air Resources (DAR) to assess potential public health risks from air

pollution. These sources are commonly known as “Air Guide-1" or “DAR-1"9 and “DAR-3".10

DEC developed DAR-1 in the early 1980's and it was updated in the 1990's. The risk assessment

screening procedures and concepts used in DAR-1 are also used by EPA and other State

governments to evaluate the public health impacts of air pollution. It involves a comprehensive

evaluation of the predicted emissions and modeled impacts of those emissions, which are

compared to guidelines and standards that were developed to be protective of public health. A

DAR-1 analysis is a conservative public health risk screening tool created and used by the DEC

for the assessment of the risk posed from the inhalation of ambient air toxics. The DAR-1

process involves the identification and determination of the emission rates of air toxics from the

source under review, the air dispersion modeling of the air toxic emissions to predict annual and

short-term impacts, and the comparison of these predicted impacts to numerical guidelines which

were developed to be protective of public health. These numerical guidelines are termed health

based guidelines and are published in DAR-1.11

As part of the review for the proposed two-week test burn and related Title V permit

modification, IP conducted a DAR-1 analysis to assess the potential for adverse public health

impacts specifically related to the proposed two-week test. IP made assumptions that, based on

the available information, are conservative. Conservatism is one way to generate risk estimates
that allow risk management decisions to be made under conditions of uncertainty and

variability.12 As reflected in IP’s application, the air dispersion model included conservative

factors and assumptions with respect to the compounds cited by the commenter. For example,

with respect to the metals cited by the commenter, since there is limited data regarding the

amount of metals in TDF, IP used data from several TDF samples, and data from literature

sources. In each case IP assumed that the metals in the TDF were at the highest levels found in

samples or, when the metals were not detected in the samples, assumed that the metal was

present in TDF at the maximum detection limit. In some cases the result of these conservative

assumptions may be to significantly over-predict the metal content of the TDF fuel. Other

conservative assumptions made in IP’s modeling included boiler operations at very near to the

Page 29

potential maximum boiler capacity, worst-case meteorological conditions, a 73% removal

efficiency rate for the scrubber, and the evaluation of worst-case scenarios for air dispersion

modeling.

The DAR-1 analysis is conducted in accordance with DAR policy, DAR-3 Alternative Fuels

Guidance, to assess the potential public health impacts associated with the proposed test. The

DAR-3 Alternative Fuels Guidance is used for making permitting decisions involving

contaminants that might not be present in conventional fossil fuels.

Using the DAR-1 and DAR 3 analyses, together with the highly conservative assumptions

described above, resulted in a very conservative estimate of ambient impacts of the proposed

two-week test - in other words, an over-prediction of the impact of emissions. Predicted 

shortterm,

ambient concentrations or impacts were calculated for aluminum, antimony, arsenic,

barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury,

molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc an zinc oxide. The largest

impacts were predicted for zinc/zinc oxide. Notably, however, DAR-1 modeling results for any

of these compounds, including zinc/zinc oxide, did not exceed either DEC’s or Vermont’s

health-based guidelines (short-term guideline concentrations or Hazardous Ambient Air

Standards Category III).

In sum, the test protocol has thoroughly and adequately addressed all potential contaminants of

concern that are expected to be emitted as a result of the two-week test burn. See Responses to

Comments 31 and 35.

Comment 28: According to unnamed IP officials, the test will utilize a higher grade of

TDF than would be used on a long term basis.

Response to Comment 28: The Department cannot respond to unsubstantiated hearsay. In any

event, the permit modification at issue is limited to the one-time, two-week test of TDF and not

the permanent or long-term use of TDF as fuel.
Comment 29: Burning low grade TDF will affect the quality of emissions and ash

because it contains more metal that higher grade TDF.

Response to Comment 29: See Response to Comment 28.

Comment 30: The metals removal efficiency for the scrubber is falsely based on 1999

stack test results for nickel removal (73%) from fuel oil.

13Leclerc D., Duo W., and Vessey M. (PAPRICAN). Effects of Combustion and Operating

Conditions on Dioxin Emissions from Power Boilers Burning Salt-Laden Wood Waste.

Uloth V., Duo W., Leclerc D., Karidio I., Kish J., and Singbeil D. (PAPRICAN). Investigations

into the Variability and Control of Dioxins Formation and Emissions from Coastal Power Boilers.

Page 30

Response to Comment 30: The expected control efficiency for metals based on past testing is

73%. Further, permit condition 5-22 requires that the facility perform stack testing for

particulate matter during the period when the amount of TDF being fed to the unit is gradually

being increased. The control devices must achieve approximately 73% control to stay below the

permit particulate emission limit (0.10 pounds per million BTU). If the particulate emissions

exceed the permit limit they must immediately reduce TDF feed rate to a level that has

demonstrated compliance with the permit limit.

Comment 31: There is speculation that burning TDF will cause incomplete combustion,

resulting in more dioxin emitted and public health being affected. Toxic chemicals that can form

from the combustion of TDF include chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, PCBs, and PAHs.

Incompletely combusted organics (PICs) may form on or adsorb onto, and volatile metals

(e.g., mercury or lead) may become attached to, fine zinc oxide or other particles. The emissions

of PIC’s should be measured during the test burn. Temperature in the post-combustion region of

the boiler should be measured frequently and at several locations during the test to help

determine the potential for PIC formation.

Response to Comment 31: There are several mechanisms and variables affecting combustion

and boiler operating conditions that influence dioxin and furan emissions. Good combustion

performance is a key element for reducing dioxin formation. Poor combustion conditions with

lower oxygen concentrations lead to the formation of high levels of precursors, such as

chlorinated benzenes and chlorinated phenols, and other products of incomplete combustion

(PIC) such as fly ash carbon and PAHs. Stack testing performed in 1999 at IP measured dioxin

emissions (TCDF toxic equivalents) during baseline (wood/bark/oil firing), while firing biosolids

with the wood/bark/oil and while firing rejected wood knots with the normal fuels. The test

results showed lower emissions of dioxins when firing the alternative fuels than during baseline

operations. This shows that the unit is well maintained and operated and achieves good

combustion.

Low temperature mechanisms in post-combustion zones and stack temperature are also

contributing variables and high temperature combustion alone will not necessarily result in low

dioxin emissions.13 The specific temperature range for dioxin formation is between 392 and

842N F with maximum dioxin formation occurring around 662N F. Previous stack testing
conducted at IP indicated the maximum boiler temperature was 2000N F with a stack exhaust

temperature of 150N F. This significant reduction of temperature, caused by the rapid quenching

14Duo, W., Leclerc, D. Thermodynamics and kinetic studies of dioxin formation and emission

from power boilers burning salt-laden wood waste. PAPRICAN. Thermal Process. Organohalogen

Compounds. Vol. 66, pp. 1008-1016 (2004).

15Leclerc D., Duo W., and Vessey M. (PAPRICAN). Effects of Combustion and Operating

Conditions on Dioxin Emissions from Power Boilers Burning Salt-Laden Wood Waste.

Uloth V., Duo W., Leclerc D., Karidio I., Kish J., and Singbeil D. (PAPRICAN). Investigations

into the Variability and Control of Dioxins Formation and Emissions from Coastal Power Boilers.

Page 31

effect of the wet scrubber on the boiler, is a beneficial factor in minimizing dioxin formation.14

Overall, PAH, dioxin and furan emissions test data, specifically for pulp and paper mills using

TDF, are very limited and variable. A study by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada

(PAPRICAN) of power boilers at eight different mills burning salt-laden wood waste concluded

that the extent of the effects of combustion on stack dioxin emissions appears to be mill-specific,

particularly at low temperatures. Dioxin/furan and PAH emissions were found to generally

increase with lower oxygen concentrations at the boiler exit. Higher oxygen concentrations (four

to six percent at the boiler exit) facilitated carbon burnout whereas lower oxygen concentrations

favored the formation of PICs. PAPRICAN research also indicated that, “the additional sulfur

from TDF co-firing helps suppress the formation of dioxins/furans by reducing chlorine (Cl2) to

hydrogen chloride (HCl) even when poor combustion conditions favor the formation of PAHs

and dioxin/furan precursors.”15

While the introduction of TDF is expected to improve combustion in IP’s power boiler, note that

the draft permit contains provisions to help assure rapid detection of upsets relative to the

combustion process and to assure that the scrubber is operating properly. For example,

continuous monitoring of SO2 and NOx, stack testing of PM emissions as the 1, 2 and 3 tons per

hour TDF feed rates are reached, and periodic monitoring of stack opacity are required by the

draft Title V Air Permit.

Finally, although stack testing does not include measurements of dioxin precursors, such as

chlorobenzene and chlorophenol, measurements of dioxin/furans, PCBs and PAHs emissions,

will be performed while burning TDF at the maximum feed rate attained and at the baseline

(wood/bark/oil firing) conditions. Also, measures of adequate combustion (CO, CO2, and O2),

filterable and condensable particulate levels, stack opacity, steam flow from the boiler, boiler

steam pressure, boiler steam temperature, generating bank oxygen, wind box oxygen and other

parameters will be recorded. This data will help monitor boiler operating conditions and

determine the potential for increased PIC and dioxin formation with TDF usage. As stated, the

proposed trial burn will not be allowed to have increased emissions exceeding the currently

permitted particulate levels.

Comment 32: During the test, zinc emissions may increase 17 times.
Page 32

Response to Comment 32: It is misleading to discuss potential increases in terms of multiples

of the baseline. The issue of concern is the actual emission rate of zinc/zinc oxide while burning

TDF. Worst-case zinc/zinc oxide emission rates for this test burn have been estimated using

acceptable methods and impacts from these emissions have been conservatively modeled. Those

impacts fell below NYSDEC’s short-term guideline concentration and Vermont’s Hazardous

Ambient Air Standards. Therefore, zinc emissions during the test have been fully evaluated

using the most conservative methodology and have been found to be acceptable as measured

against applicable environmental and health-based standards.

Comment 33: NOx emissions might increase.

Response to Comment 33: IP will be held to the terms and conditions of its existing Title V

permit. That permit contains an emission limit for NOx and a condition which requires IP to

operate and maintain a CEMS to assure compliance with those limits. These conditions will

continue to be in effect during the test burn, and the CEMS will continue to operate. Permit

condition 5-16 requires IP to stop adding TDF if the NOx limit is exceeded, providing an

additional safeguard to ensure compliance with the Title V permit.

Comment 34: IP should switch from # 6 fuel oil to # 2 fuel oil because it is lower in

sulfur.

Response to Comment 34: Comment noted. However, it should be noted by the commenter

that there is no such requirement under the regulations, and the facility has a scrubber to control

SO2 emissions.

Comment 35: Some medical experts including William Bress, Vermont State Health

Department Toxicologist, and Jack Mayer, MD, MPH, have said that the TDF test will create

human health hazards, especially in children. Fine particulates and zinc are cited as hazards,

with specific reference to a University of Washington study that correlated increased hospital

visits and asthma, with exposure to particulates, and in particular to zinc.

Response to Comment 35: The Department has evaluated the potential public health impacts

associated with the test burn. Contrary to the conclusions of Dr. Bress and Dr. Mayer, emissions

cannot be construed to have adverse impacts on public health unless a risk assessment

evaluation, as described below, is performed. The potential adverse impacts of chemicals

released into the air depend on a number of factors, including the amount of the release, the

manner in which the chemicals move and transform in the environment, the length of time

people are exposed, and the toxic properties of the chemical. All of these factors need to be

considered if one wishes to conduct an objective assessment of the risk of exposure to chemicals,

16Claiborne, C., Larson, T., Sheppard, L. 2002. Testing the metals hypothesis in Spokane,

Washington. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 110, Supplement 4, August: 547-552.

17Norris, G., Larson, T., Koenig, J., Claiborne, C., Sheppard, L., Finn, D. 2000. Asthma

aggravation, combustion, and stagnant air. Thorax, (June) 55: 466-470.
18New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR1 Guidelines for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants (formerly Air Guide-1). Issued

November 12, 1997. Available on-line at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/dar1.pdf.

19New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR3 Solid Alternatives Fuels Permitting. Issued January 5, 1998. Available on-line at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/dar3.pdf.

Page 33

and this critical analysis is absent from the analysis of Dr. Bress. Both Dr. Bress and Dr. Mayer

overlook the fact that the one-time, two-week test burn was subjected to an extremely

conservative risk assessment analysis prepared by IP and reviewed by the DEC.

Further, the circumstances surrounding the University of Washington study that is referenced in

Dr. Bress’s comments, have no relevance to the circumstances of the IP test. The association

between emergency room visits for asthma and zinc particulate air pollution are more strongly

associated with air stagnation events in Spokane.16 Stagnation episodes are characterized by low

wind speeds and thermal inversions, which limits the dispersion of air pollution. These

stagnation episodes occur in densely populated areas where air pollution sources are abundant.

At the time of the cited study, Spokane had a population of 300,000, and the major sources of

particulate air pollution include motor vehicles, unpaved road dust, wood burning, wind blown

dust storms, agricultural burning, a municipal waste incinerator, an aluminum smelter and

numerous other smaller air pollution sources. Stagnation of the ambient air was shown to be a

surrogate for the accumulation of products of incomplete combustion, including carbon

monoxide and fine particulates of organic and elemental carbon, and was more strongly

associated with asthma aggravation than any one of the measured pollutants.17 The study also

indicated that it was not known if the fine particulate zinc associated with agricultural burning

represented a health risk, or whether zinc served as an indicator for other pollutants that build up

during air stagnation episodes in Spokane. In addition, during the study period Spokane was

classified by the USEPA as a “non-attainment area” for PM-10 and carbon monoxide. This

means the area has exceeded the NAAQS on one or more days. In contrast, the Essex County,

NY and Addison County, Vermont area has long been in compliance with the NAAQS standards

for PM-10 and carbon monoxide.

IP’s risk analysis relied on two well-established tools developed by the DEC Division of Air

resources (DAR) to assess potential public health risks from air pollution. These sources are

commonly known as “Air Guide-1" or “DAR-1"18 and “DAR-3”.19 DEC developed DAR-1 in

the early 1980's and it was updated in the 1990's. The risk assessment screening procedures and

concepts used in DAR-1 are also used by EPA. The risk assessment process embodied in DEC’s

DAR-1 is used by the Federal and State governments to evaluate the public health impacts of air

20National Research Council (NRC). Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:

Managing the Process. National Academy Press. Washington D.C. (1983a); National Research

Council (NRC). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 

(1994).
21New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Resources. DAR1 AGC/SGC Tables. Issued December 22, 2003. Available on-line at

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dar/boss/agcsgc03tables.pdf.

22National Research Council (NRC). Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National

Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1994.

Page 34

pollution. The process of inhalation risk screening is well documented, and embodied in

numerous risk assessment guidance documents prepared by the EPA, as well as the States.20

This process, as described below, involves a comprehensive evaluation of the predicted

emissions and modeled impacts of those emissions, which are compared to guidelines and

standards that were developed to be protective of public health.

A DAR-1 analysis is a conservative public health risk screening tool created and used by the

DEC for the assessment of the risk posed from the inhalation of ambient air toxics. The DAR-1

process involves the identification and determination of the emission rates of air toxics from the

source under review, the air dispersion modeling of the air toxic emissions to predict annual and

short-term impacts, and the comparison of these predicted impacts to numerical guidelines which

were developed to be protective of public health. These numerical guidelines are termed health

based guidelines and are published in DAR-1.21 As part of the review for the proposed two-week

test burn and related Title V permit modification, IP conducted a DAR-1 analysis to assess the

potential for adverse public health impacts specifically related to the proposed two-week test

burn. IP made assumptions that, based on the available information, are conservative.

Conservatism is one way to generate risk estimates that allow risk management decisions to be

made under conditions of uncertainty and variability.22 As reflected in IP’s application, the air

dispersion model included the following conservative factors and assumptions:

1. Metals: Since there is limited data on the amount of metals in TDF, IP used data from

several samples of TDF that were analyzed for metals and data from literature sources.

In each case, IP assumed that the metals in the TDF were at the highest levels found in

samples or when the metals were not detected in the samples, assumed that the metal was

present in TDF at the maximum detection limit. In some cases, this may over-predict the

metal content significantly.

2. Heat Input/Steam Output: IP assumed that the boiler heat input rate, the amount of

energy in the fuels fed to the boiler, and the steam output rate (i.e., the amount of energy

the mill requires from the boiler), were very near to the potential maximum boiler

capacity. The draft permit includes a condition that prohibits the operations of the boiler

Page 35

from exceeding the assumed maximum rate(s). Air dispersion modeling was performed

to evaluate the predicted emission impacts over the entire range of expected boiler loads.
3. Weather Conditions: In order to calculate the impacts of stack gases emitted from the

boiler stack (and other stacks on site) the range of meteorological conditions that effect

the dispersion of the gas need to be known. Usually this information is obtained from

climatological data collected at National Weather Service stations at representative

nearby airports. The modeling guidance required hourly data for 5 consecutive years to

assure all expected conditions are represented. IP used 6 years of data from Burlington,

Vermont which included all necessary meteorological parameters. The additional year

was used because it was associated with maximum impacts previously modeled for a

permit application per EPA requirements. When the calculations are performed the air

concentrations for each hour in the 6-years are calculated and the highest concentrations

at any location are averaged for a given time period associated with the ambient standard

or guideline level. There is a level of conservatism in this modeling analysis because the

test burn will only occur for 14 days and it is more than likely that the worst-case

meteorological conditions (from 6 years) will not occur during the testing.

4. Pollution Control Efficiency Rate: IP used a removal or efficiency rate (73%) that is

representative of the low end of the removal range for PM control by the caustic wet

scrubber. This figure is based upon past stack testing performed on this source.

5. Worst-Case Emissions Impact Analysis: IP used all of the above conservative

assumptions and considered 6 possible burning scenarios by varying the relative amounts

of TDF/oil/bark to be combusted. Each scenario has a different emissions profile

because each fuel has a different metal content. IP assessed the maximum air

concentration impacts for each of these 6 burning scenarios. IP then chose the 4 worstcase

burn scenarios to be used in a refined air dispersion model to assess risk. This was

done to ensure that the worst-case scenarios were evaluated. This is conservative

because some metal impacts could be higher for some scenarios than others.

This DAR-1 analysis was conducted in accordance with the Division of Air Resources (DAR)

policy, DAR-3 Alternative Fuels Guidance, to assess the potential public health impacts

associated with the proposed one-time, two-week test burn of tire derived fuel at the

Ticonderoga mill. The DAR-3 Alternative Fuels Guidance provides guidance for making

permitting decisions involving contaminants that might not be present in conventional fossil

fuels. These two combined analyses resulted in a very conservative estimate of ambient impacts

of the proposed two-week test. In other words, the DAR-1 and DAR-3 analyses tend to 

overpredict

the impact of the emissions.

Using those analyses, predicted short-term, ambient concentrations or impacts were calculated

for aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,

lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, zinc, and

zinc oxide (see IP Application at pp. 1-3 to 1-5). The largest impacts were predicted for

Page 36

zinc/zinc oxide. Notably, however, DAR-1 modeling results for any of the above parameters,
including zinc/zinc oxide, did not exceed either DEC’s or Vermont’s health based guidelines

(short-term guideline concentrations or Hazardous Ambient Air Standards (HAAS) Category III)

(see IP Application at pp. 1-3 to 1-5).

In sum, the test protocol has adequately addressed any potential for human health risks due to

emissions from the two-week test. See Responses to Comments 27 and 31.

Comment 36: There were a variety of comments submitted regarding concerns over:

whether the test adequately addresses dioxins and fine particulates; the effects of those

compounds on children, pregnant women, and adults with asthma or heart disease, immune

disorders or other health problems; the potential for the test to result in a violation of an air

pollution standard recommended by the State of Vermont for zinc oxide, if carried out without

an ESP; the lack of any requirement to install an ESP prior to conducting the test; and the

concern that IP’s application does not consider the potential effect of TDF on water quality.

Response to Comment 36: The issues raised in this comment have been largely addressed in

the responses to other comments, in particular Responses to Comments 6, 10, 21, 22, 27, 30, 31,

and 35. It is important to understand, however, that the existing IP operating permit is being

modified only to allow IP to conduct a one-time, two-week test, for the purpose of gathering data

and making technical determinations regarding the feasibility of the use of TDF as a fuel source.

The terms and conditions (i.e., pollutant emission limits, etc.) of the existing operating permit

remain in effect and applicable to IP’s operations during the test burn. On this basis, the

Department has evaluated the potential public health impacts associated with the trial burn and

found no potential for human health hazards and no need for additional or alternative control

equipment. This evaluation included an air dispersion analysis using conservative worst case

assumptions, coupled with facility-specific information, to predict the potential maximum

impacts. These impacts were compared to health based guidelines used by New York and the

EPA to assess the potential for public health impacts. In addition, the impacts were compared to

health-based standards developed by Vermont to assess the potential for public health impacts.

While it may be possible to find data from other facilities that have burned TDF to contradict

this conclusion, the use of such data is highly speculative due to the many variables involved

(e.g., boiler size and configuration, emissions control system, fuel mix, test methods employed,

etc.). For these reasons, absent data from this two-week test burn of TDF at this facility, it is

premature to draw conclusions regarding the predicted performance of the current controls at the

plant relative to other control systems, or to require the installation of an ESP.

Comment 37: There is concern about the potential for burning TDF along with sludge.

Response to Comment 37: The permit will not allow this. See Response to Comment 24.

Page 37

Comment 38: The applicant requests that the draft permit be revised so that the term

“two week” test be clarified to reflect 14 operating days in a twenty one day period. The request

is made so that in the event of an equipment failure, the entire test could be completed.
Response to Comment 38: Agreed. Condition 37 in the Proposed Permit has been changed to

reflect the comment.

Comment 39: The applicant requests changes in the SO2 monitoring outlined in

Item 5-11.2 of the draft permit. Specifically the emission rate limit for SO2 during the test, of

309 pounds per hour, based on a one-hour average, should be changed to 435 pounds per hour

based on a one- hour average. This is in line with the mill’s current three hour limit of

435 pounds per hour, and would allow IP power boiler operators to most closely maintain

normal scrubber operations during the test. The mill will continue to meet its 24-hour rolling

average of 309 pounds per hour of SO2 throughout the test.

Response to Comment 39: The condition as written in the draft permit represents good

scrubber performance and will remain unchanged.

Comment 40: Are the cost savings at the mill worth the increases in potential risks to

human health?

Response to Comment 40: The Department does not believe there will be adverse impacts to

human health as a result of this two-week test burn. See Responses to Comments 6, 31, 35 and

36.

Comment 40-B: Installation of an ESP or other control represents a long-term investment

at the facility which could mean the plant would be less likely to close.

Response to Comment 40-B: It is premature for the Department to make any

determination with respect to requirements for new pollution control equipment at this time.

Following the completion of the one-time, two-week test of TDF, IP will evaluate the test

results. Thereafter, if IP decides to submit an application seeking authorization to add TDF

chips on a permanent basis to the mill’s fuel mix, DEC will undertake the required regulatory

reviews and make the findings and the determinations required by law, and will take into account

all applicable requirements and guidelines as well as the results from the facility- specific 

twoweek

test.

Comment 41: Some commenters stated that there could be unknown future health effects

from PM2.5 and other air contaminant emissions which may take years or decades to manifest in

people. Examples include respiratory illnesses in Veterans of the Gulf War, and ailments in

Veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

Page 38

Response to Comment 41: This two-week test burn is not equivalent to the examples

presented by the commenter. Rather, the proposed TDF test burn is a limited duration, heavily

regulated test, at a facility which has modern air pollution control equipment and emissions
monitors. See Responses to Comments 6 and 35.

Comment 42: Contaminant fallout from air emissions, especially heavy metals, will have

long-term environmental effects on several receptors including Lake Champlain, and crop land

including organic farms and apiaries.

Response to Comment 42: The Department does not expect any long-term environmental

effects from the test burn. If necessary, the Department will evaluate any long-term effects from

heavy metal deposition if IP submits an application to modify its Title V permit to allow the

permanent use of TDF. See Responses to Comments 27, 35 and 63.

Comment 43: Dioxin emissions to air will increase during the test and, as a result, public

health will be affected.

Response to Comment 43: See Response to Comment 31.

Comment 44: Zinc emissions to air will increase during the test and, as a result, public

health will be affected.

Response to Comment 44: Zinc oxide is used as a rubber curing agent in the manufacture of

tires and zinc is found in the steel belts and bead wire which are mostly removed during TDF

processing. Tires contain approximately 1.5% zinc by weight. The concentration of zinc in fuel

oil is less than this amount. Therefore, the available data indicate that zinc emissions will

increase with the use of TDF. Some of the zinc is expected to be entrained in the fly and bottom

ash. In 1997, IP conducted a limited, two-day test burn to investigate the potential for using

TDF as a supplemental fuel, but a comprehensive air emissions test was not included. Fly ash,

grate ash, and scrubber blowdown were tested for metals and the results indicated an increase in

zinc. Zinc oxide is inherently bound in the rubber and may be emitted as a fine particulate, but

actual quantification of the fine particulate emissions can only be estimated during the test burn

by stack testing for total particles. See Responses to Comments 10 and 11.

Although zinc emissions will increase, the ambient impacts are not expected to present adverse

public health effects. As stated, the predicted, short-term ambient impacts meet both Vermont’s

(12 μg/m3) and New York’s short-term ambient guideline concentrations (380 μg/m3) (see

Response to Comment 22). A recent human inhalation study comparing inhaled ultrafine

(<0.1 μm) versus fine (0.1 to 1.0 μm) zinc oxide particles concluded that healthy subjects

inhaling, (by mouthpiece), 500 μg/m3 for 2 hr showed no measured response in symptoms or

23Beckett, WS; Chalupa, DF; Pauly-Brown, A; Speers, DM; Stewart, JC; Frampton, MW; Utell

MJ; Huang, LS; Cox, C; Zareba, W; Oberdorster, G. Comparing inhaled ultrafine versus fine zinc oxide 

particles in healthy adults; a human inhalation study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine, Vol. 171:1129-1135 (2005).

Page 39

physiologic, hematologic, or cardiac electrophysiologic parameters, 24-hr post-exposure. This

exposure was below the threshold for acute systemic effects previously demonstrated in other

human inhalation studies.23
Comment 45: If the TDF burn proposal was for a new facility, an ESP would be

required.

Response to Comment 45: The Department cannot agree with this conclusion without

undergoing a full and complete permit review. However, this test involves an existing power

boiler at an existing facility. Department staff have determined that a carefully controlled test

burn, like the one proposed by IP, provides a reasonable means for testing the performance of

existing equipment.

Comment 46: An ESP must be installed prior to the test because it is the best technology

and most other plants burning TDF at the proposed volume have them. The test burn is

acceptable only with the ESP in place.

Response to Comment 46: The emissions information currently available for facilities burning

TDF represents a wide variety of boiler size and configuration/fuel mixture/control system

combinations, none of which are the same as the boiler size and configuration/fuel

mixture/control system combination being proposed at the IP Mill. It is, therefore, premature to

determine the appropriateness of the current controls or to require the installation of an ESP prior

to having the data from the test burn.

Comment 47: Would an ESP make PM emissions more acceptable?

Response to Comment 47: See Responses to Comments 40 and 46.

Comment 48: The results of the 1997 TDF test burn have never been publicly released.

Page 40

Response to Comment 48: A report containing the results of the 1997 TDF test burn is on file

with the Department, Region 5, Division of Air Resources. This report was released to the State

of Vermont in late 2003 in response to a Freedom of Information Law request by the Office of

the State Auditor, Elizabeth Ready. It was also sent to the Adirondack Council as a result of a

FOIL request. No stack testing was performed during that test.

Comment 49: Two weeks is not long enough for an effective test.

Response to Comment 49: The TDF testing will be conducted over a two-week period, which

the Department believes is an appropriate length of time to obtain meaningful data. Since the

current configuration of the boiler will accommodate the fuel without the need for modifications,

one week should be ample time for the facility operators to optimize combustion. The testing

during the second week is comprehensive and thorough, and is designed to provide the

information Department staff need to evaluate the emissions from the use of TDF at the facility.

The schedule has been approved by both NYSDEC and EPA after extensive discussion and

review of IP’s proposal.

Comment 50: A paper mill boiler does not burn at consistent temperatures necessary for
clean combustion of TDF.

Response to Comment 50: The Department disagrees with this comment. Prior stack tests

results conducted at the Ticonderoga mill indicate the facility’s power boiler is well-maintained

and operated, and achieves good combustion. The results obtained from the two-week test will

allow DEC to determine whether TDF can achieve clean combustion. DEC expects that IP will

maintain relatively stable and constant combustion temperatures during the one-time, two-week

test. IP’s staff has extensive experience in closely monitoring and controlling the operation of

the mill’s boilers to ensure complete combustion is achieved, and will do so during the test.

Comment 51: A Chester, Pennsylvania paper mill experienced a 40-fold increase in

dioxin emissions when burning only 8% TDF.

Response to Comment 51: The commenter has provided no data to support this assertion other

than a link to a website (see www.energyjustice.net). Research by Department staff have not

produced enough information about that facility to allow comment on the emissions of TDF that

the commenter claims occurred there. However, dioxin and furan emissions are variable and

may depend upon several variables including facility-specific fuel mix, boiler configuration,

operating parameters and post-combustion temperature zones. However, the boiler type and fuel

mix at the Chester facility is very different from that of the IP facility. The Chester facility has a

fluidized bed boiler and was permitted to burn mainly waste anthracite coal with 8 percent 

tirederived

fuel during a very limited three day test burn. As such, the Chester facility is not

Page 41

comparable to that of IP. Given those significant differences, a 40-fold increase in dioxin

emissions at the Chester facility (assuming that is what occurred), does not mean that the same

emissions increase will occur at IP. It is only through conducting a test at the IP facility that the

Department can conclusively determine what emissions scenario will result from the use of TDF

at the specific power boiler located at IP’s Ticonderoga Mill. See Response to Comment 31.

Comment 52: IP’s proposal represents 10 times the TDF that is burned anywhere else in

the United States.

Response to Comment 52: The Department disagrees with this comment. The proposed 

twoweek

test does not represent the highest amount of TDF burned anywhere else in the country.

For example, the WPS Niagara Generation in Niagara County, New York is permitted to burn up

to 8.5 tons/hour or 204 tons/day of TDF. The Bucksport, Maine IP facility is capable of using

3.5 tons/hour or 84 tons/day. By contrast, IP is proposing to burn up to a maximum of 3.0

tons/hr or 72 tons/day of TDF for a period of time not to exceed 14 days. In addition, if stack

testing reflects that by using 3 tons/hour of TDF, IP would exceed any of its existing permit

limits, IP will stop increasing the amount of TDF in its fuel mix. Therefore the proposed

maximum of 3 tons/hour at the IP facility, during the two-week test, may not be reached.

Comment 53: Burning TDF may decrease PM emissions.
Response to Comment 53: Comment noted.

Comment 54: TDF has not been sufficiently analyzed to allow accurate predictions of

the emissions that will result from its combustion.

Response to Comment 54: It is unclear whether this comment is directed at the chemical

analysis of the TDF performed in support of the test or the analysis of burning TDF in general.

To the extent that it is the former, it should be noted that the analysis performed in support of

this test was extensive. IP collected seven samples of TDF from two different suppliers and had

five of them analyzed for heavy metals. In addition, they conducted a literature search and

obtained several more sets of data relative to metals concentrations in TDF. Average metals

concentrations in the TDF from each supplier were developed and evaluated along with data they

had gathered from their literature search. The highest of all of these concentrations was taken

for each metal and used to develop the metals emissions estimates contained in the permit

application.

Page 42

With respect to other contaminants of concern, and to the extent that this comment was directed

at the analysis of burning TDF in general, the Department has carefully evaluated the application

and other available information relative to emissions from burning TDF. As described in

Responses to Comments 27 and 31, and in the Overview, Department staff acknowledge the

difficulties involved in attempting to predict the emissions from combusting TDF. It is for this

reason that Department staff believe the test burn is necessary prior to considering any

application to burn TDF permanently. The extensive stack testing planned during the test will

provide actual measured emission rates both with and without TDF being fed and enable any

future permitting decisions to be based upon emissions data obtained from the test.

Comment 55: IP’s air pollution limits are outdated.

Response to Comment 55: The emission limits contained in IP’s current Title V Air Permit

reflect current New York State and Federal applicable requirements. The Department disagrees

with the statement that the permit is outdated.

Comment 56: This action represents a segmentation issue relative to NSR.

Response to Comment 56: The Department disagrees with this comment. See Overview.

Comment 57: The test burn is a fair test.

Response to Comment 57: Comment noted.

Comment 58: The DEC is in violation of SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System) regulations and Clean Water Act because it did not require a modification of IP’s
SPDES Permit for discharges of new or increased pollutants.

Response to Comment 58: DEC consulted with the State of Vermont Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP) and incorporated Vermont DEP’s suggestions regarding the

protocol for the wastewater component of the test. While the loading levels of zinc to the waste

water system may increase, there is no indication that the discharges will exceed the 17.0 lb/day

action level (AL) contained in the mill’s SPDES permit. In fact, the level of zinc in IP's

Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) discharge is not expected to exceed the AL’s in IP’s

existing SPDES permit. This determination is based on DEC’s review of available data

regarding zinc levels in the scrubber wastewater and other conditions, including enhanced

wastewater monitoring, proposed by the mill during the two-week test burn. IP’s

August 17, 2005 letter served as the required notification under ECL § 17-0815, as specified in

6 NYCRR 750-1.2 and 750-2.6, that the wastewater treatment system may accept additional

Page 43

pollutant loading. The same IP letter also committed to undertake extensive analysis of the

wastewater stream as it proceeds through the facility. Following a review of that letter and the

conditions for increased monitoring of the discharge from the IP wastewater treatment system

during the two-week test burn on September 14, 2005, the Department determined that the

proposed activity does not require a SPDES permit modification. The existing SPDES permit

terms and conditions along with the requisite notification from the permittee provide the

regulatory authorization for the wastewater discharge during the proposed two-week test burn.

Also, in October 2005 Vermont made additional suggestions regarding the wastewater testing

protocol, which were accepted by IP.

Comment 59: Water pollution is not adequately addressed in the application, and testing

of wastewater discharge will be inadequate. Zinc mass balance calculations are alluded to but

not included in IP’s correspondence. It is essential to have priority pollutant and whole effluent

toxicity testing before, during and after any test burn in order to be able to relate any observed

changes in the water quality due to the test burn.

Response to Comment 59: The Department does not agree with these comments. Water

pollution is adequately controlled by IP’s wastewater treatment permit in accordance with a

valid, effective SPDES discharge permit. Also, the zinc levels in IP’s discharge are well under

the 17.0 lb/day action level, and during the test burn it is expected that the zinc levels should

remain below the SPDES permit action level. For these reasons, the two-week test burn can be

authorized under the existing SPDES permit.

The Department accepted the mill’s proposed monitoring plan as being adequate to provide the

necessary data for such a zinc mass balance calculation. The proposed monitoring plan will

generate zinc data that will establish the baseline conditions in the wastewater treatment system

prior to the test, determine the actual impact of the test on the wastewater treatment system and

account for the time lags associated with the residence times in the different parts of the

wastewater treatment system. The zinc data from this comprehensive sampling will be used to
perform mass balance calculations to determine the wastewater treatment zinc inputs,

accumulation and discharges during the test. A complete acute and chronic whole effluent

toxicity (WET) test will be performed during the second week of the test when TDF is being

burned at the maximum test rate. The mill is currently required to perform monthly chronic

WET testing.

The August 17, 2005 letter from IP indicates a priority pollutant scan will be performed during

the period when TDF is being burned at the maximum 3 ton/hour rate. This scan includes testing

for all the priority pollutant metals. The mill's SPDES permit requires that an annual priority

pollutant scan be performed. See also Response to Comment 58.

Comment 60: Impacts on wastewater and solid waste management have not been

Page 44

adequately addressed in the Title V application. The wastewater treatment plant monitoring is

only going to address zinc. There is no discussion about the increased ash disposal from burning

TDF.

Response to Comment 60: See Responses to Comments 58 and 59 for information regarding

wastewater issues. With respect to solid waste, IP operates an on-site landfill permitted in

accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Management regulations. The maximum

additional amount of ash that may be generated during the two-week test burn will total about

123 tons (372 cubic yards). This can easily be handled at the landfill which currently handles

over 330,000 cubic yards/year. As stated in a September 2, 2005 letter by Christopher Mallon

and Stephen Regan of IP, the ash will be tested for zinc and to determine that it is nonhazardous.

All of the fly and bottom ash generated during the TDF test burn will be deposited in

separate locations in the landfill isolated from other waste disposal operations. These ash will be

covered with sand to prevent fugitive air emissions. The isolation will remain in effect until

testing results are completed and show the waste materials to be non-hazardous. If the wastes

were to be found hazardous, the material will be disposed of in an appropriate manner as

required by the relevant regulations.

Comment 61: IP Ti’s environmental record is poor, odors from the plant are offensive,

the sight of the stack and plume and other visual impacts are an eyesore on the area.

Response to Comment 61: Over the past decade, the mill has been the subject of five

enforcement actions brought by the DEC. Two of these actions involved air emissions, one

involved a fuel spill and two involved the mill’s industrial landfill. The problems that led to all

five enforcement actions have been resolved. Department staff continue to conduct routine

inspections of the mill’s landfill, air emissions sources, chemical and petroleum bulk storage

tanks and wastewater treatment facility. The visual issues raised by the commenter will not be

affected by the proposed two-week test burn.

Comment 62: IP should consider other alternative sources of energy such as biofuel

combustion and wind energy.
Response to Comment 62: Comment noted.

Comment 63: As pollinators, honeybees are critical to our ecosystem. Honeybee

populations are in decline, in part due to an increase in airborne contaminants. The test will

exacerbate this situation.

Response to Comment 63: The domestic honeybee population has declined by approximately

50% over the past 50 years. This decline has been attributed primarily to diseases spread as a

24EHP, The truth about the birds and the bees. Environmental Health Perspectives 106 (9),

September 1998. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Health

(1998).

National Geographic. Bee Decline May Spell End for Some Fruits, Vegetables, John Roach,

National Geographic News, (October 5, 2004),

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1005_041005_honeybees.html.

25Alstadt, D.N., G.F. Edmunds, Jr., and L.H. Weinstein. Effects of Air Pollutants on Insect

Populations. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 27:369 - 384 (1982).

Page 45

result of mites and other parasites as well as the spraying of crops with pesticides.24 With respect

to honey bees, the primary emissions of concern would likely be metals. There are very few data

available regarding the toxicity of metals to terrestrial insects. Low metal toxicity levels for

other insects also suggest that metals are not highly toxic to honeybees. The limited availability

of data in this area reflects the limited concern that air emissions contribute in any significant

way to this population decline.

Little, if any, support can be found in the scientific literature attributing the decline of honeybees

to an increase in the presence of airborne contaminants. In fact, during the period of honeybee

population decline (1950s to present), air quality throughout the United States has generally

improved because of requirements of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act. This

inverse relationship suggests that the honeybee decline is not associated with conventional air

pollutants. Alstadt et al., describes only one documented incident of an impact related to

honeybees.25 In Poland, industrial source emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur trioxide, and

sulfuric acid reduced the number of pollinated blossoms in orchards because of reduced

efficiency of pollinating bees. However, sulfur emissions are not considered to be an issue with

the test burn because IP has a caustic scrubber for SO2 control. It should also be noted that both

New York State and Vermont are in attainment for SO2.

In summary, given that: 1) the decline in honeybees is attributed primarily to parasitic mites and

to a lesser extent, pesticides; 2) the inverse relationship between honeybee population trends and

overall air quality trends; and 3) the low levels of emission rates and contaminant deposition

likely from this two week test burn, it is highly unlikely that the emissions released by IP during

the test will have any adverse impact on honeybees.
Comment 64: If IP is granted long term approval, will system performance be as good as

during the test?

Response to Comment 64: It is premature to address this question at this time.

Page 46

Comment 65: Vermont and New York have a long history of working together to oppose

air pollution originating in upwind states.

Response to Comment 65: Since IP first contacted NYSDEC about burning TDF, the

Department has cooperatively included Vermont’s regulatory agencies in every stage of the

review process. In fact, the proposed permit resulted from this collaboration with Vermont’s

Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of Health. Therefore, the

Department does not believe that its action on this permit application is at odds with this history

of cooperation with Vermont on issues of common concern. As has been set forth in both the

overview and the responses to other comments, the basis for the decision to require that IP

submit an application to modify its Title V permit, and subject the proposed permit change to

public review and comment through the process provided for by the Uniform Procedure

regulations (6 NYCRR 621.6, 621.7), as well as EPA review, was the recognition of Vermont’s

concern with air pollution originating in upwind states. As has also been fully set forth in the

responses to other comments herein, the Department has taken Vermont’s concerns into

consideration by carefully analyzing the potential impacts of emissions from the test burn in

relation to established health-based guidelines, applicable in both New York and Vermont, and

imposing stringent monitoring and reporting requirements during the course of the test burn. IP

may not exceed its current limits during the test burn, and stack testing, opacity monitoring, and

the use of continuous emissions monitoring will assure compliance with those existing limits.

The data generated as a result of the test burn will provide information that will enable both the

Department and the State of Vermont to fully and accurately evaluate any potential future

application by IP to modify its Title V permit, to allow the permanent use of TDF as fuel at the

facility, should one be submitted. The Department believes that throughout this entire process it

has demonstrated its commitment to cooperation between the two states. Finally, New York’s

efforts with other states, including Vermont, have always focused on conditions that prevent

attainment of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the states. There is no such issue with

IP’s permit application.

Comment 66: Governor Douglas extended an offer to share cost of control equipment

which was summarily rejected by IP officials.

Response to Comment 66: This is not a factor upon which the Department may base a

determination whether to approve or deny the proposed permit modification. However, with

respect to the concern over IP’s installation and use of control equipment for the test burn, see

Responses to Comments 40 and 46.
Comment 67: Why has there been no Response to Comment from Governor Pataki to the

Senator Jeffords and Governor Douglas comment letters?

Response to Comment 67: The Department of Environmental Conservation is New York

Page 47

States’s principal environmental regulatory agency. As it functions within the Executive Branch,

the Department is the appropriate agency to respond on behalf of the Governor to the technical

and policy issues that have been raised by representatives of the State of Vermont. On

April 21, 2005 and again on November 1, 2005, the Department responded to the inquiries of

Senator Jeffords concerning the proposed test burn at the IP facility. On December 5, 2005, the

Department responded to the inquiry of Governor Douglas. Copies of those letters are available

through the Freedom of Information Law to anyone who submits a written request.

Notification Requirements

The Proposed Permit contains revisions from the Draft Permit in Condition 37 as explained in

Response to Comment 38.

At this time, the Department is notifying the EPA Administrator and the State of Vermont of its

declination to accept certain recommendations for the proposed permit that the State of Vermont

submitted during the public or affected state review period. The reasons for the declination to

accept the State of Vermont’s recommendations have been stated in this Responsiveness

Summary.

The Proposed Permit is being forwarded to the EPA for its review in accordance with 6 NYCRR

201-6.4 (a) for a review period of 45 days. In accordance with 6 NYCRR 201-6.4 (d), if the

EPA Administrator does not object in writing, any person may then petition the EPA

Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the administrator's 45-day review period to

make such objection. Any such petition shall be based only on objections to the permit that were

raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period, unless the petitioner

demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise such objections within such period, or unless the

grounds for such objection arose after such period. The EPA Administrator contact name and

address is:

Steven Riva

EPA Region 2

25th Floor

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866