# American Forest & Paper Association Boiler MACT Information

February 2011Table of Contents

Agenda

Position Paper on Boiler MACT Regulations.......................................Tab 1

Legal Arguments for R easonable Boiler MACT Limits...........................Tab 1

EPA’s “MACT” Standard for Industria l Boilers Must Be Based on the Performance of Real Boilers............................................................Tab 2

Source By Source Approach............................................................Tab 2

Additional Comments on Bo iler MACT Pollutant by Pollutant Approach and Effects of Multiple Emissions Controls.........................................Tab 2

HBCA Crosswalk..........................................................................Tab 3

EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Secti on of AF&PA comments..........Tab 3

Tier I HBEL Lookup Tables.............................................................Tab 3

Non-Hazardous Solid Materials Rule................................................Tab 4

International Emission Limits fo r Industrial Boilers................................Tab 5

Boiler MACT and Benefit Claims......................................................Tab 6

Selected Quotes from Gover nors on Boiler MACT...............................Tab 7

Senate Boiler MACT letter to The Honorable Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator.................................Tab 7

Association Boiler MACT letter to The Honorable Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator.........

................ ................ ............... ................ ............... .........Tab 8

# TAB 1January 2011  Page 1 Position Paper on Boiler MACT Regulations

Background :

Although most boilers already are well controll ed for key pollutants, EPA is in the process of reissuing the Boiler MACT 1 rules to require 99% of bo ilers to do much more. We anticipate that solid fuel-fired boilers (like those that burn coal) will be heavily impacted. But even boilers using relatively clean fuels like biomass, hydrogen, clean process gas or other gaseous fuels will be subject to ultra-lo w emission levels which will be extremely expensive to meet if th ey can be met at all.

The Boiler MACT sets emission limits for hazardous air pollutants. On June 4 th , EPA proposed new rules for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers using fossil fuels
and biomass to address concerns raised about the or iginal rule in recent court decisions. EPA is under a court order to finalize the Boiler MACT ru les by February 21, 2011.

The Boiler MACT rules would require installation of up to four different air pollution control devices that will conflict with other existing c ontrol requirements. Due to the methodology EPA is using, the Boiler MACT emission li mits would be extremely stringent, often approaching levels that c an barely be detected.

During this current economic crisis, these rules would impose an unsustainable regulatory burden if finalized as proposed. The capital cost for all manufacturing could be $21 billion, plus billions more in annual costs and no other country in the world as a set of standard as stringent jeopardizing our globa l competitiveness. A wide range of manufacturers and the jobs they sustain would be severely harmed, as well as municipalities, universities, hospita ls, federal facilities and others.

Possible Solutions At Hand :

EPA can use newly submitted and existing data to revise its proposed rules to protect air quality and target investments strategically, preventing se vere job losses and tens of billions of dollars in unnec essary regulatory costs.

EPA should set standards based on what real-world sources actually can achieve

. Instead, EPA is proposing a pollutant-by-pollu tant approach based on the best performers for each of five separate pollutants. Th is results in a set of standards based on a

1 The “Boiler MACT” is a rulemaking under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The statute requires that EPA regulate hazardous air pollutants from em ission sources, including boilers, using maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”). Boilers use various fuels at industrial, commercial and institutional facilities to generate steam, heat, and/or electricity to power manufacturing. In addition to Boiler MACT, EPA is finalizing three related rules: Boiler GACT (Genera lly Achievable Control Technology for boilers at smaller sites); the Commer cial and Industrial Solid Waste Incinerator (CISWI) rule (setting limits for non-hazardous solid waste incinerators); and the defin ition of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (a Resource Conservation Recovery Act rule determining which materials are wastes and thus covered under the CISWI rule when burned).January 2011  Page 2 hypothetical boiler that can somehow simult aneously achieve the greatest reductions for each separate pollutant. This is like mandati ng a best-performing car that simultaneously is the best in fuel efficiency, passenger capaci ty, acceleration, towing capacity and safety. Some facilities that have recently upgraded t heir boilers or built new ones with the latest technology do not meet the pr oposed standards. Under the statute, 12% of boilers
should be able to meet the st andards with little or no additi onal effort, but under the proposed rule, less than 1% can comply without further controls. The tremendous diversity of boiler types, fuels used, oper ating conditions and products made justify “source-based” floor setting.

EPA should provide alternative health-ba sed emissions limitations for qualifying low-level emissions

. A practical, health oriented st andard for threshold pollutants like hydrogen chloride and manganese would allow sources to demonstr ate that their emissions of these compounds do not pose a pub lic health concern. Section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act expressly contemplates t he use of such a standard, which can be implemented at each facility without compro mising public health protection. EPA has argued that reductions of other pollutants not covered by the MACT program (“cobenefits”) justify not using this authority, but that is contra ry to the law. EPA should not add unnecessary stringency to the rule in a misguided effort to control non-HAP
emissions that are better r egulated under other parts of t he Clean Air Act. EPA should
make the health threshold standard an integral part of its final rule.

EPA should expand the use of work practi ce standards to all gas-fired boilers. EPA appropriately used its authority under 112(h) to set work prac tices for natural gas fired boilers. These units are very clean burning, i ndeed they are so low that the emissions are extremely difficult and uneconomical to measur e. It is critical to both preserve the proposed work practice and to expand the univers e of gas fired boilers covered by work practices to other clean burning gases. EPA could avoid the increase in emissions (e.g., NOx and CO2) and energy use that would result from the numerous control technologies required with no guarantee of actually achieving the emission limits.

In the related rule defining “Non-Haza rdous Secondary Mate rials,” EPA should reaffirm that many seconda ry materials including biom ass residuals are fuels and
not wastes

. The statute and related case law allow EPA to classify these materials as fuels if they are not discar ded, are treated as valuable co mmodities, and are burned for energy recovery. Failure to encourage these alternative and often renewable fuels will result in more materials being landfilled and increase use of fossil fuels.

EPA should use representative data in setti ng the standards and should factor into the MACT the variability in operations, fuels, designs and testing performance across the many types of boilers

. There is insufficient latitude for variability among the extremely diverse universe of units and fuels us ed. Boilers burning significant amounts of biomass with coal and other solid fuels are inappropriately treated as coal boilers for pollutants that are combustion by-products. EPA has a large amount of data from recent testing and data requests as well as that submitted during the comment period to supplement its record of t he last 15 years. They s hould examine these data using different analytical methods to derive defensib le limits that are achievable in actualJanuary 2011  Page 3 operation for both existing and new units. To do otherwise leaves many companies in a position where the only way they can comply with the regulatio n is to stop operating.

EPA should base the standards on the emi ssions of the best performing 12% of sources, rather than the “best of the best .” In its Phase II emissions testing program, EPA targeted only those sources that were the best performers. Then when EPA went to select the top 12% for setting the MACT fl oors, it assumed that this data set was representative of the full range of operations. In other word s, EPA cherry picked the data and based the standards on the “ best of the best” rather than the 12% best performing sources in the entire source category. The re sult is arbitrary because it is based on a skewed data set that by design is not represent ative of the full range of sources in the source category. Proposed emis sion limits are close to the dete ction limit of test methods and far beyond what normal best performing units c an achieve. In fact, pollution control vendors and manufacturers of new boilers are questioning whether the limits are achievable. Thus, EPA is setting the stage for an over-reaching regulation that is legally vulnerable for ignoring the practical capabilit ies of combustion units and controls.

In the related “Boiler GACT” rule fo r smaller boilers, EPA should set work practices, not emissions limits, for ar ea source biomass, coal and oil boilers. EPA has the discretion either not to regulate CO emissions from biomass and oil fired boilers at smaller facilities OR to choose to set a work practice standard based on section 112(d)(5). The database EPA reli es on for the GACT standards is so poor that the limits end up being even more stringent than those for ma jor sources. In addition, EPA has not shown that emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM) 2 from biomass or oil combustion is part of the 90% of sour ces identified in the urban air toxics program as needing
reductions.

Summary :

1. EPA should set limits based on the overall performance of actual sources, not on a hypothetical boiler that does not exist in the real world. 2. EPA should include a health threshold standard in the final Boiler MACT rule to target environmental investment s where there is a real need.
3. EPA should finalize work practice standards for natural gas and refinery gas and expand their use to all gas-fir ed boilers and emission controls.
4. EPA should narrowly define solid waste in the related rule on the definition of NonHazardous Secondary Materials. 5. EPA should set standards that reflect t he variability in the operations of true best performing boilers due to fuels, operations , designs and testing differences. 6. EPA should base the standards on the bes t performing 12% of sources, rather than the “best of the best.”
7. EPA should establish work practices for sm aller biomass, coal and oil fired boilers in the related Boiler GACT rule.

2 CO is the surrogate for POM.Legal Arguments for Reason able Boiler MACT Limits



### A. The “pollutant by pollutant” appr oach to determin ing MACT is not appropriate because it results in standards that do not reflect the performance of the best performing boilers.

• The proposed Boiler MACT standards are based on pollutant-by-pollutant analyses that rely on a different set of best performing sources for each separate
HAP standard. 1 In other words, EPA has “cherry picked” the best data in setting each standard, without regard for the sources from wh ich the data come.

• The statute unambiguously directs EPA to set standards based on the overall performance of sources . Sections 112(d)(1), (2), and (3) specify that emissions
standards must be established based on t he performance of “sources” in the category or subcategory and t hat EPA’s discretion in setting standards for such units is limited to distinguishing among cl asses, types, and sizes of sources. These provisions make clear that standar ds must be based on actual sources, and cannot be the product of pollutant-by-pollu tant parsing that results in a set of composite standards that do not necessar ily reflect the overall performance of any actual source. Congress provided ex press limits on EPA’s authority to parse units and sources for purposes of setti ng standards under § 112 and that express authority does not allow EPA to “distinguish” units and sources by individual pollutant as is proposed in this rule. Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

• EPA’s database shows that very few units (six) ar e best performers for all pollutants and thus it could not have reasonably conclud ed that the proposed standards reflect the perform ance of actual sources.



### B. EPA should establish health-based emission s limitations for acid gases and manganese under § 112(d)(4).

• Section 112(d)(4) authorizes EPA to se t health-based emissi ons limitations and is a powerful tool that enables EPA to match the st ringency of a HAP emissions
limitation to the level determined nece ssary to fully protect human health

• In formulating § 112(d)(4), Congress re cognized that, “For some pollutants a MACT emissions limitation may be far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the environment.” 2 As a result, § 112(d)(4) was provided as an alternative standard setting mechanism for HAPs “where health thresholds are well-established ... and the pollutant pres ents no risk of other adverse health effects, including cancer....” 3

1 See, e.g., 75 Fed. Reg. 32019 (“For each pollutant, we ca lculated the MACT floor for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available emissions data from units within the subcategory from lowest emissions to highest emissions, and then taking the numerical average of the test results from the best performing (lowest emitting) 12 percent of sources.”).

2 S. Rep. No. 101-228 (1990) at 171.

3 Id

.• EPA acknowledges its authority under § 112(d)(4) but proposes not to establish any health-based emissions limitations “[g] iven the limitations of the currently available information ( i.e. , the HAP mix where boilers are located, and the cumulative health impacts from co-locat ed sources), the environmental effects of HCl, and the significant co-benefits of se tting a conventional MACT standard for HCl.” 4

• Ample scientific information supports a determination that HCl, chlorine, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen cyanide, and manganese are threshold pollutants, and thus, are eligible to be regulated under § 112(d)(4). In addition, the Agency has the technical tools and significant factual support for establishing healthbased emissions limitations for these H APs that would provide the requisite ample margin of safety to health and the environment.

• From a legal standpoint, the statute makes clear that cr iteria pollutant co-benefits associated with the propos ed MACT standards may not be considered in deciding whether to estab lish § 112(d)(4) health-bas ed emissions limitations. Also, EPA has failed to explain why the health-based emissions limitations it established in the 2004 Industrial Boiler MACT and the justification provided for
those limitations shoul d now be reversed.



### C. EPA inappropriately relies on emi ssions data from the “best of the best” in determining the exi sting source MACT floors.

• The relative lack of data is a fund amental problem because EPA construes the statute as requiring it to set exis ting source MACT floors based on the top performing 12% of sources for which it has data for the larger source categories and subcategories. Less data means the pool from which the top 12% is drawn is smaller and, therefore, the actual number of sources used to determine the MACT floor is smaller.

• The bulk of the information on which EPA’s relied in developing the proposed standards was collected by way of a § 114 information request that required testing of specified best performing units for specified pollutants. In this way, EPA artificially limited the pool of data from which it dr ew its top 12% best performing sources. The result is fatally arbi trary because EPA’s sampling approach for Phase
II created a dataset that is not representative of sources for which the data is being used to infer emissions.

• Instead of using emissions data from t he “best of the best,” EPA should simply use emissions data from the “best” units in each subcategory.



### D. EPA must adopt a wo rk practice standard for dioxins/furans.

• The proposed dioxin/furan emission standar ds are so low and the detection limits of dioxin and furan isomers are so variable that many boilers are likely to exceed the proposed emission limits for dioxin/furans even though the tests show that all the isomers are present below the detecti on limits. Thus, imposing a dioxin/furan

4 75 Fed. Reg. at 32032.emissions limitation on industrial boile rs would be arbitrary and capricious because the method of demonstrating comp liance would not reliably distinguish compliant boilers from noncompliant boilers.

• In this situation, EPA has ample authorit y to prescribe a work practice standard instead of a numeric emissions limit. Section 112(h)(2)(B) authorizes EPA to establish work practice standards when “the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and econom ic limitations.”

• In any event, the § 112 HAP list in cludes only the named compounds dibenzofuran (CAS #132649) an d 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorod ibenzo-p-dioxin (CAS #1746016). Therefore, if EPA decides to adopt numeric standards, the standards must be specific to thes e compounds. EPA has no authority to regulate under § 112 the generic chemical categories of “dioxins” and “furans.”



### E. The proposed rule fails to adeq uately account fo r variability in emissions that reasonably is expected from the top performing

sources.

• EPA has improperly developed a CO standard that boilers must meet at all times based on 3-run stack tests that fail to properly characterize the highly variable nature of CO emissions in solid fueled boilers. EPA has used only 3-run stack test data, which represents only a sma ll and unrepresentative snapshot in time captured during the best operating conditi ons, to set emission limits for a pollutant that is highly variable.

• EPA makes a similar mistake with regard to its proposal not to set a separate standard for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. The emissions data on which the standards are based do not, in fact, reflect or adequately accommodate emissions from periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

• EPA proposes to use the 99 percent upper predictive limit (“UPL”) to accommodate and reflect variability in t he operation of the best performers in calculating the MACT floor. The use of the 99 percent UPL calculated on only a small number of sources in a subcategor y does not adequately capture variability or serve to predict the MA CT floor level achievable by the top performers.

• Instead of using the UPL, EPA should use the upper tolerance limit (“UTL”), which is meant for use in situations w here the available data does not represent the entire population. In addi tion, since the proposed 99% confidence interval is applied to all 5 HAPs, the combined probab ility of achieving the set of limits drops to 95%, which is inappropriately low when facilities must be in compliance 100% of the time. .



### F. The emissions database includes numerous fundamental flaws that compromise the MACT floor analysis that is based on these data.

• EPA’s failure to provide adequate time fo r an appropriate assessment of the data violates the Agency’s obligation to prov ide a full and fair opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule. Within these severe time constraints, weconducted a spot check of approximately 100 stack test reports which revealed numerous data errors – many of which, if corrected, would have a material impact on the stringency of EPA’s calc ulated MACT floors and associated proposed standards.Boiler GACT Legal Arguments



### A. EPA Has Not Justified The Need To Regulate Area Source Industrial Boilers In Order To Satisfy § 112(c)(6).

• EPA’s MACT proposal for the § 112(c )(6) pollutants is flawed because the Agency provides no basis for its asse rtion that mercury (Hg) and polycyclic organic matter (POM) must be regulated under this standar d in order to satisfy the requirement that 90% of nationwide emissions of these pollutants must be regulated under § 112 standards. In 1998, when EPA published the list of source categories that must be regulated to meet the § 112(c)(6) 90% control requirement, the Agency did not draw fi rm conclusions as to whether any area source categories needed to be regulated.

• Moreover, § 112(c)(6) does not obligate EPA to regulate in order to provide “an anticipated margin to ensure that the obligations under CAA section 112(c)(6) are

met.” EPA has either exceeded the 90% standard or not. When the facts show that the 90% standard is met, EPA has sa tisfied its § 112(c)(6) obligation.

• When the facts are not sufficient fo r EPA to reliably draw conclusions, EPA’s obligation is to seek t he additional information necessary to determine whether additional regulations are needed to meet the 90% standard. EPA’s obligation to provide record support for its regulatory decisions is turned on its head by the

assertion that the lack of facts or uncertainty as to the available information justifies additional regulat ion under § 112(c) (6).



### B. Even If EPA Needed To Regulate Area So urce Industrial Boilers To Meet § 112(c)(6), It Would Not Be Re quired To Adopt MACT Standards.

• CAA § 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA in most cases to set standards for area sources using “generally available control tec hnologies or management practices” ( i.e.

, “GACT”) rather than “MACT.” Section 112(d)(5) provides, “With respect to categories and subcategories of area source s listed pursuant to [§ 112(c)], the Administrator may, in lieu of the author ities provided in [§ 112(d)] ... elect to promulgate standards or requi rements applicable to sources in such categories or subcategories which provide for t he use of generally available control technologies or management practices by such sources.” In other words, EPA may establish “GACT” standards for ar ea sources rather than “MACT” standards under § 112(d).

• EPA takes the position in the proposal t hat it cannot use GACT to regulate HAP emissions from area source categories t hat are subject to § 112(c)(6). Thisposition ignores the language in § 112(d )(5) that defines the scope of the Agency’s authority to use GACT. Secti on 112(d)(5) expressly states that EPA is authorized to use GACT “[w]ith respect to categories and subcategories of area sources listed pursuant to [§ 112(c)].”

• A fundamental problem with EPA’s position is that it ignores the language in § 112(d)(5) authorizing EPA to use the GA CT method “in lieu of” the § 112(d)(2) MACT procedure. EPA itself has observed that the term “in lieu of” is commonly understood to mean “in plac e thereof” and, thus, has previously correctly concluded that, “CAA section 112(d)(5) authorizes EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)(5) that provi de for the use of generally available control technologies or management practi ces (GACT), instead of issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3).” 5

• In short, the statute plainly says that the requirement to set a standard under § 112(d)(2) can be satisfied by using the al ternative GACT procedure specified in § 112(d)(5). As a result, setting GACT under § 112(d)(5) meets the §112(c)(6) requirement to regulate under § 112(d)(2).



### C. The GACT Standard For Area Source Industrial Boilers Should Consist Of Management Or Work Practice s Rather Than Numeric Emissions Limitations.

• In situations where the use of GACT is authorized (as it is here), § 112(d)(5) on

its face authorizes EPA to establish “standards or requirements .... which provide for the use of generally available control technologies or management practices .” (Emphasis added). In other words, when setting standards based on GACT, EPA is expressly authorized to establish work practices instead of emissions

limitations.

• There is no need under the express terms of § 112(d)(5) for EPA to make a showing under § 112(h) in or der to set management or work practice standards. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history of § 112 6 and is reflected in numerous existing GACT standards. 7

5 73 Fed. Reg. 1916,1920-1921 (Jan. 10, 2008).

6 See , S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101 st Cong. 1 st sess. 171-172 (GACT is to encompass “methods, practices and techniques which are commercially avai lable and appropriate for application by the sources in the category ....”).

7 See, e.g., 72 Fed. Reg. 16636, 16639 et seq. (Apr. 4, 2007) (describing methods of determining GACT for 7 area source categories).

# TAB 2Privileged and Confidential Attorney Work Product

- 1 - EPA’s “MACT” Standard for Industrial Boilers Must
Be Based on the Performance of Real Boilers

EPA’s proposed “MACT” standard for industrial boilers would set extraordinarily stringent
emissions limits – limits that are far stricter than needed to protect health and the environment. This rule will cost companies billions of dolla rs and will create a strong incentive for companies to shift their manufacturing operations and the jobs that go with them overseas.

EPA has many choices as to how it sets the standa rd. The Agency has deliberately chosen to forego alternative approaches that would protect health and the e nvironment at far less cost. EPA can and must change its course.

How does the air toxics program work? The purpose of § 112 of the Clean Air Act is to
eliminate undue risk from emissions of hazar dous air pollutants. Congress intended to accomplish this goal through a carefully designed two st ep process. The first step – the so-called “MACT” standards – requires EPA to set emissions limits from a given category of sources (in this case industrial boilers) at the level no less st ringent than what is alre ady is being achieved by
the better-controlled source or sources in th e category. EPA may make the standard more stringent than this “floor” level, but must prove that the more stri ngent standard is justified. In short, EPA must figure out who is doing a good job of controlling HAPs and require all other
similar sources to do the same or better.

In the second step, which must be accomplished within 8 years after a MACT standard is set, EPA must determine whether there is unacceptable re maining risk to health or the environment. If such risk exists, EPA must strengthen th e MACT standard to eliminate the undue risk.

Industrial boilers emit se veral types of hazardous air pollutant s (“HAPs”). Section 112 requires
EPA to set emissions limits for each of them. Therefore, the industrial boiler MACT “standard” actually will be comprised of a collecti on of several separate emissions limits.

What’s the biggest problem with EPA’s ch osen method of setting this standard? Under EPA’s proposed method of setting the standard – the “pollutant-by-pollutant” approach – EPA identifies a different set of best-performing bo ilers for each of the pollutant-specific emissions limits. So, for example, boilers A, B, and C might be the best performing with regard to mercury emissions, while boilers D, E, and F are best performing for hydrogen chloride emissions. In other words, EPA “cherry picks” the best data in setting each standard, without regard for the
fact that a different collection of boilers are the best performers for each pollutant.

The result is a composite set of standards that , taken together, reflect the characteristics of hypothetical best performing boilers that simultaneously achieve the greatest reductions for all HAPs. However, such standards fail to re flect the performance achieved by the actual best performing boilers. For industr ial boilers, this “ franken-plant” approach would cause the standards to be so stringent th at they could not be achieved by many boilers – which stands in sharp contrast to the clear Congressional direction for EP A to set “maximum achievable control technology” standards.Privileged and Confidential Attorney Work Product

- 2 - By analogy, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to de termine the “most valuab le player,” and set standards based on what that player actually accomplished on the field. Instead, EPA has constructed a hypothetical MVP comp rised of Player A’s batting average, Player B’s fielding performance, and Player C’s impeccable pitching. However much we might like to see a single player with such talents, the re ality is that the MVP will be pret ty good at most skills, but not the
best at all of them. The same is true of industrial boilers.

What can and should EPA do to fix its flawed approach? EPA should set the industrial boiler MACT based on the overall performance of actua l boilers, rather than creating a composite reflecting the performance of supe r-boilers that do not actually ex ist. Under an actual-boiler approach, EPA would identify the “MVP” boilers – i.e. , those that are the best performing when considering all HAPs – and then set the individual HAP emissions limits based on the performance achieved by these boilers. This me thod guarantees that the collection of emissions limits that make up the MACT st andard is based on the actual performance of real boilers.

What does the Clean Air Act say? The CAA unambiguously directs EPA to set standards based on the overall performance of sources . Sections 112(d)(1), (2), and (3) specify that
emissions standards must be established based on the performance of “s ources” in the category or subcategory and that EPA’s discretion in setting standards for such units is limited to distinguishing among classes, types, and sizes of sources. These provisions make clear that standards must be based on actual sources, and cannot be the product of pollutant-by-pollutant parsing that results in a set of composite sta ndards that do not necessari ly reflect the overall performance of any actual source. Congress prov ided express limits on EPA’s authority to parse units and sources for purposes of setting stan dards under § 112 and th at express authority does

not allow EPA to “distinguish” units and sources by individual pollutant as is proposed in this
rule. Sierra Club v. EPA , 551 F.3d 1019, 1028 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

EPA mistakenly believes the CAA is not so clear. Not surprisingly, EPA asserts that “section 112(d)(3) does not mandate a total facility approach” and that “[a] reasonable interpretation of section 112(d)(3) is that MACT floors may be established on a HAP-by-HAP basis.” 75 Fed. Reg. 54970, 54998 (Sept. 9, 2010). But, even if § 112 were ambiguous (which it is not), EPA has improperly exercised its discretion in this rule . EPA has not shown or attempted to show that the proposed standards reflect the performance of any actual boilers a nd has not determined whether the suite of proposed emi ssions limitations is practicable. This failure to investigate a fundamental aspect of the proposed rule rend ers the rule arbitrary and capricious. EPA’s database shows that very few units are best perf ormers for more than on e pollutant, which clearly indicates that the proposed sta ndards reflect the performance of exceedingly few actual boilers.

Notably, EPA has expressed concern that the source-approach “likel y yields least common denominator floors – that is floors reflecting medi ocre or no control, ra ther than performance which is the average of what best performers have achieved.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 54999. But, this is a hypothetical concern that would not be realized for industrial boilers. Commenters on EPA’s proposed rule submitted analyses proving that the source-based approach produces stringent standards that would result in steep reductions in HAP emissions from industrial boilers.

# Source by Source Approach



# for Boiler MACT

November 30, 2010

# Source by Source Approach

• Current MACT floors are set based on pollutant by pollutant approach, resulting in a different set of top performing boilers for each pollutant.



# • We looked at setting MACT limits using a source approach instead.

• Due to small number of boilers that had data for all 5 pollutants proposed to be regulated, we did an analysis instead for boilers that had data for


# the 3 “fuel based HAP.”

# Methods

• ERG MACT Floor Memo Appendix C

- 2 was used to separate boilers that had data for Mercury, HCl and PM.

• The lowest test was used as presented in Appendix C

- 2 in order to have the same rankings as the EPA’s pollutant by pollutant approach.

• Each boiler was ranked by each pollutant (Mercury, HCl and PM) then an average ranking was taken.

• The Top 12% of this final average ranking was taken and used in source by source floor calculations.

• We then used all of the run by run data for these boilers to calculate a 99UPL for Mercury, HCl, and PM.

• Fuel Variability Factors followed the same guidelines as described in pages 7

- 9 and Appendices A

- 1a, A

- 1b, A

- 2a and A2b in ERG MACT 

# Floor Memo.

# Boiler Changes We Made

• WIGPGreenBay2818 B10

- Wastepaper Sludge

- Fired Boiler 10 that is incorrectly categorized by EPA as liquid instead of biomass.

• GAGPSRMRiincon EU BO02 and WIGPGreenBay2818 B29

- 

# Fluidized Bed Boiler #9 that burn petcoke but had been incorrectly categorized as coke oven gas boilers

• LAShellChemicaGeismar Furnace F

- S801is incorrectly categorized by EPA as Gas 2 instead of Liquid.

• We used test data as

- is, so results subject to change based on QA 

# of test data and any changes to results based on detection limit re

calculation, etc.

# Biomass Source by Source

• 57 boilers had test data for all 3 fuel based HAP.

• Top 12% is 7 boilers.

• Calculated fuel variability factors where data
available.

• Top ranked boiler is OR Flakeboard Eugene, 

# which burns primarily natural gas with 15

- 20% biomass, so this boiler is not representative. Used AR Potlatch Forest Warren boiler (100% 

# biomass) instead for new source MACT.

# Biomass Floor Units

FacilityID CombustorID _common Mercury
Rank HCl

Rank PM

Rank Summed

Rank

ORFlakeboardEugene Boiler

- 2 2 16 3 21

MESDWarrenSomerset No2 Power Boiler 3 3 17 23

ARPotlatchForestWarren Wellons Boiler 24 1 4 29

GAGPMadisonPly 800 Wood Waste Boiler 23 4 5 32

MEBoralexStratton Boiler #1 13 6 14 33

FLUSSugarCorp Boiler No. 7 1 26 18 45

IDPotlatch PB

- 1 CE 31 2 12 45

# Biomass Results

Biomass Boilers Proposed MACT
Limit Source

Approach
UPL Source Approach

Limit With Variability Proposed New

Source MACT Source

- based

New Source
Limit

Mercury (Hg) 9.E

- 07 2.E

- 06 3.E

- 06 2.E

- 07 7.E

- 07

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.006 0.02 0.04 0.004 0.004

Particulate Matter (filterable) 0.02 0.05 0.008 0.050

# Coal Source by Source Floor

Boilers

• 202 total boilers with data available for all 3 pollutants.

• 12% is 25 boilers.

• Existing and new limits have fuel variability
info factored in.FacilityID CombustorID _common Hg Rank HCl Rank PM Rank Summed Rank

IAArchersDanielsMidlandDesMoines Asea Boiler #1 2 7 1 10

VAUniversityofVirginia 7103

- 1

- 01R 18 9 4 31

WIGPGreenBay2818 B29

- Fluidized Bed Boiler #9 17 8 7 32

IARoquetteAmerica Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler (121) 3 2 35 40

TNEastman_NO_CBIDATA Boiler 30 36 4 19 59

INPurdueUniverisity Boiler 5 4 40 18 62

SCCogenSouth B001

- Main Boiler 6 3 55 64

AKDoyonUtilities_AK 4 15 34 17 66

MENewPage

- Rumford Cogen#6 13 60 12 85

MENewPage

- Rumford Cogen#7 14 61 13 88

IDAmalgamatedSugarCoTwinFalls S

- B1 11 59 23 93

AKDoyonUtilities_AK 7 33 33 30 96

IDTASCONampa Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) #1 41 16 46 103

IAUofIowa EP7 Boiler 11 1 77 27 105

IDTASCONampa Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) #2 42 17 47 106

VASmurfitStoneWestpt PB08 37 11 61 109

WINewPageBiron B24 100 10 11 121

TNEastman_NO_CBIDATA Boiler 31 87 12 26 125

INTateLyleSagamore 31B1 24 48 56 128

INSABICInnovativePlastics 01

- 001 BW1 Boiler 49 66 14 129

INSABICInnovativePlastics 01

- 001 BW2 Boiler 50 67 15 132

PAPHGlatfelter PB5 51 74 8 133

OKGPMuskogeeMill B

- 3 25 83 34 142

IAMuscatinePowerandWater Unit 7 80 20 45 145

MIPharma&Upjohn1180 Boiler 3 73 23 49 145

# Coal Source by Source Approach

Results

Coal Boilers Proposed

MACT Limit Source

Approach
UPL Source

Approach
Limit With Variability Proposed

New Source
MACT Source

New Source
Limit

Mercury (Hg) 3E

- 06 6E

- 06 2E

- 05 2E

- 06 1E

- 06

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 0.02 0.06 0.09 6E

- 05 5E

- 04

Particulate Matter (filterable) 0.02 0.04 0.001 0.001

# Liquid Source by Source Floor

Boilers

• 13 boilers with data available for all 3 pollutants, took top 5 boilers for floor calculations.



# • After examining data for this floor, Mercury run by run data for TN Invista Chattanooga 

# EU003

- Vaporizer#2 was not available in the database (ERG used fuel data instead of stack test data), so fuel data was used 

# to calculate the Mercury limit.

# Liquid Source by Source

FacilityID CombustorID_common Hg
Rank HCl

Rank PM

Rank Summed

Rank

LAShellChemicaGeismar Furnace F

- S801 5 1 1 7

SCMilliken

- Dewey D30 6 2 4 12

MNGPDuluth EU33Boiler#3 1 7 6 14

TNInvistaChattanooga EU003

- Vaporizer#2 12 3 5 20

MEFPLEnergyWyman Unit#5 2 6 12 20

# Liquid Source by Source Approach

Limits

Liquid Boilers Proposed MACT Limit Source Approach Limit Proposed New Source MACT Source

- based Approach New Source MACT

Mercury (Hg) 4E

- 06 5E

- 06 3E

- 07 2E

- 07

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 9E

- 04 1E

- 03 4E

- 04 1E

- 04

Particulate Matter (filterable) 0.004 0.2 0.002 0.01

No fuel variability data available.

# Gas 2 Source by Source Floor

Boilers

Only 4 boilers with data available for all 3 pollutants, so all boilers were in floor. No fuel variability data available. FacilityID CombustorID_common Hg Rank HCl Rank PM Rank Sum

INTateLyleSagamore 21B501 2 1 2 5

SCBMWManufacturingCo HB03 1 4 1 6

MDSeverstalSparrows 1BLR(No.1Boiler) 3 2 3 8

WVMountainStateCarbonFollansbee S1 4 3 4 11

# Gas 2 Source by Source Approach

Limits

Gas 2 Boilers Proposed MACT
Limit Source Approach Limit Proposed New Source
MACT Source

- based

Approach New Source
MACT

Mercury (Hg) 2E

- 07 7E

- 06 2E

- 07 3E

- 07

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 3E

- 06 0.003 3E

- 06 4E

- 04

Particulate Matter (filterable) 0.05 0.01 0.003 0.005

### Additional Comments on Boiler MACT Po llutant by Pollutant Approach and Effects of Multiple Emissions Controls

The proposed MACT standards for industrial boilers and process heaters are based on pollutant-by-pollutant analyses that rely on a different set of best performing sources for each separate HAP standard. The result is a se t of standards that reflect the performance of a hypothetical set of non-existent best pe rforming sources that simultaneously achieve the greatest emission reductions for each HAP or surrogate rather than the actual performance of one or more re al sources with a specific set of emissions controls. The purpose of this review is to evaluate if the limits being considered for Boiler MACT would, in some cases, necessitate installation of combinations of emission controls that may have adverse effects on each other. In other words, the presence of one control technology could prevent a second contro l technology from operating at optimum performance. In many cases, the installati on of additional controls will also result in
increased emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG).

The table below summarizes the control inte ractions discussed in this document.

Control Device Interactions and Co ncerns with Additional Controls CO Catalyst following
other control devices for reducing CO and organic
HAPs • For solid fuels, the CO catalyst must be placed after other controls removing particulate and sulfur to avoid poisoning catalyst and converting sulfur dioxide to SO 3 . Since higher temperatures are necessary to c ontrol HAPs than CO, this will likely require reheating of flue gas using additional fossil fuel in order to achieve the proper catalyst operating temperature, resulting in additional emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG.

• Use of a catalyst will result in conversion of NO to NO 2 , which

will adversely affect compliance with NO 2 NAAQS. Sorbent injection to
control HCl in boilers equipped with dry ESPs Presence of SO 3 in flue gas improves PM collection efficiency of ESPs by lowering ash resistivity and also improves dioxin capture. If sorbent injection is used prior to the ESP for acid gas control to achieve Boiler MACT HCl limits, the sorbent will also capture SO 3 and result in higher PM and dioxin emissions. CO catalyst followed by carbon injection CO Catalyst will oxidize fuel sulfur to SO 3 , which inhibits the ability of activated carbon to adsorb mercury. CO versus NOx control Reducing NOx emi ssions will result in higher CO emissions, reducing CO emissions will result in higher NOx emissions.
Retrofit installation of multiple control devices • Adding multiple control devices to a boiler will increase the pressure drop through the system and require additional electricity to run the system, resulting in reduced boiler efficiency and additional emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG.

• Retrofit installation of multiple controls could enhance the

conditions that favor formation of dioxin. Sorbent injection prior to
PM control device • Injection of sorbent to control HAPs prior to a PM control device
will increase PM emissions over baseline.

• Flyash may no longer be eligible for re-use and may have to be

landfilled.1. CO Catalyst operation vs. NO 2 and GHG emissions

CO oxidation catalysts are likely to be deactiv ated by certain metals that are present in the flue gas produced from the combustion of solid fuels. These metals may poison the catalyst or mask the active sites on the catalyst material, rendering them ineffective. In addition, oxidation catalysts are ve ry efficient at converting SO 2 to SO 3 , which would
have a detrimental effect on downstream h eat recovery surfaces, and could produce a visible sulfuric acid plume. Therefore, the oxidation catalyst would have to be placed downstream of the partic ulate controls and SO 2 /acid gas scrubbers. Note that emissions
of NO will also be oxidized to NO 2 , which may adversely affect a source’s compliance
with the NO 2 NAAQS.

The flue gas temperature leavi ng particulate and acid gas control devices is typically well below the minimum effective operating temperat ure of the oxidation catalyst. While CO catalysts are effective at oxi dizing CO at temperatures of 450-750°F, experience has shown that they need to be operated at mu ch higher operating temperatures to actually
achieve volatile HAP control (600-750°F). In order to reduce HAPs and CO, it would therefore be necessary to inst all a duct burner to reheat the flue gas by several hundred degrees to the necessary temperature. The a dditional fossil fuel that would be consumed by the duct burner would produce a dramatic de crease in the overall boiler efficiency. The duct burner would also produce increased emissions of GHG and criteria pollutants such as NOx, SO 2 , and particulate.

2. Acid Gas Removal vs. Pa rticulate and Dioxin Control

The presence of SO 3 in flue gas has been shown to significantly improve the collection efficiency of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) by lowering the resistivity of the fly ash.
Since most of the chlorinated dioxins are a ttached to the particulate matter, the dioxin capture in the ESP would also be enhanced by the presence of SO 3 . However, a likely strategy for controlling HCl emissions (also required by Boiler MACT) is to inject sorbent to achieve acid gas control. These sorbents would also remove SO 3 from the flue gas, which results in higher resistivity of the fly ash, and reduced ESP collection efficiency. Therefore, sorbent injection for HCl control could negatively impact the
effectiveness of dioxin controls for boile rs burning sulfur-containing fuels.

3. Effect of Fuel Sulfur and Chloride on Mercury and HCl Emissions Control

Fuels with high sulfur or chloride contents form oxidized forms of mercury which are more easily captured in particulate control de vices and scrubbers. Boilers burning fuels
with low sulfur and chloride contents emit higher fractions of mercury in its elemental form, which is harder to capture. When burning fuels containing mercury with fuels containing sulfur (e.g., biomass with TDF, oil, or coal), mercuric sulfate is formed, which is a particulate and can be captured in a fabr ic filter or electrostatic precipitator. However, when fuels such as biomass and natural gas with low mercury contents are burned without sulfur-containing fuels, elemen tal mercury is the primary emission and is not captured in a fabric filter.A primary control for Hg emissions involves the injection of activ ated carbon into the flue gas. The activated carbon oxidizes the mercury on the active sites on the carbon particles. The oxidized form of Hg can then either be rec overed by the particulate control equipment, or by a scrubber (oxidized Hg is so luble). The oxidation reactions only occur at temperatures below about 350oF.

The use of activated carbon injection for Hg control is negatively affected by the presence of sulfur trioxide (SO 3 ). While the majority of the su lfur in fuel is converted to
SO 2 , a small amount is converted to SO 3 . SO 3 occupies the active sites on the carbon, taking away those sites from the Hg. Even a few parts per million of SO 3 can have a significant negative impact on the Hg rem oval that is achieved by activated carbon injection. Additionally, other control device s, such as CO oxidation catalyst or SCR NO
x reduction catalyst, will convert an additional percentage of the SO 2 to SO 3 , resulting in reduced Hg removal.

There is a large body of research which has documented that during combustion there is a complex interaction between fuel chlorine, alkali metal, and su lfur content that determines the amount of hydrochloric acid that is finally produced. When fuels containing chlorine and alkali metals are burned, HCl and al kali chlorides are formed. During such combustion, the ratio of HCl and alkali chloride is determined primarily by the combustion temperature. Higher combusti on temperatures generally cause lower HCl formation. However, when fuel sulfur is converted to SO 2 during combustion, it reacts
with alkali chloride to release HCl.

Activated carbon injection is not as effective on units firing so lid fuels with low levels of halogenated compounds. The solution on these units has been to inject a brominated compound with the carbon. Units equipped with scrubbers capture the resulting oxidized Hg and any excess bromine. Since the corrosiv ity of HBr is much greater than that of HCl, it is likely that HBr will create problems for the structural materials associated with
the scrubber.

4. Conflict of Lower CO vs. Higher NO
x and other Pollutants

The minimization of excess oxygen in boiler app lications is a key feature for maximizing boiler efficiency. A boiler’s efficiency is a ffected by the amount of combustion air that is present, and the difference between the am bient temperature a nd the stack exhaust temperature. The more air that is heated up through the combustion process, the more heat is lost to the atmosphere, causing the boi ler to be less efficient. A less efficient boiler will require more fuel to be fired to produce a given amount of steam, resulting in higher operating costs and higher GHG emissions.

Minimizing the level of excess oxygen is a primary strategy for reducing NO
x emissions
from a boiler. The NO
x formation mechanisms are dependent upon the temperatures in the flame zone, and the amount of nitrogen in the fuel. Reducing the level of excess oxygen reduces the adiabatic flame temperatur e, which reduces the rate at which thenitrogen in the combustion air and fuel forms NOx. Consequently, when low oxygen levels are maintained in the combustion air, less thermal NOx is produced. Similarly, if there is less oxygen present, nitrogen is less likely to be oxidized (and more likely to form diatomic nitrogen). This re duces both the amount of thermal NO
x , and the fuel NO
x (NO
x that is formed by the release of fuel- bound nitrogen). Therefore, increasing the level of excess oxygen to reduce the CO level will result in higher NO
x emissions.

Low NO
x burner designs for gas-fired boiler a pplications manipulate the stoichiometry
within the flame to minimize NO
x formation. These designs es tablish a fuel-rich zone for the initial phase of combustion, a nd then add air at a later stag e in the outer regions of the flame. In the initial phase, there is not sufficient oxygen available to form significant
amounts of NO
x , and in the secondary phase, the flame is much cooler, which also
inhibits NO
x formation. However, these burners often operate with CO emissions up to 10 ppmvd in the upper part of the load range. At mid loads, the CO begins to increase near 50 ppmvd, and at low loads, it may exceed 100 ppmvd. These low-NO
x burners will
not be able to achieve CO emissions as lo w as 2 ppmvd. Drawbacks to the use of CO catalysts to achieve these ultra low CO levels were discussed above, and API has submitted extensive comments on why ultra low CO levels are not necessary to achieve
low HAP levels.

Data reviewed by the National Council of Air and Stream Improvement for biomass
boilers indicates that boilers w ith higher carbon content in th eir fly ash will achieve some mercury and acid gas control. Operation of boilers under conditions meant to minimize CO will reduce the carbon content of the fly ash and reduce the inherent minimization of mercury and HCl.

5. Loss of Boiler Efficiency due to In stallation of Emissions Controls, and Implications for PSD and GHG Increases

Boiler efficiency may be defined in a number of ways, but it is essentially the net amount of energy that may be extracted from the proce ss, as a fraction of the gross energy input. There are a number of ways in which emi ssion controls produce a negative impact on boiler efficiency. The most common of these is the increased backpressure created by the addition of control technologies th at lie in the path of the flue gas. These include catalyst beds (e.g., for CO or NO
x control), and baghouses (for par ticulate control). To overcome the increased backpressure, the combustion ai r fan requires more power to deliver the same amount of air. Thus, more energy is required to produce the same amount of steam, resulting in higher fuel consumption, and increases in emissions of GHG and other combustion-related pollutants.

Similarly, pollutant controls for acid gas, mercury, or dioxins invol ve the injection of chemicals into the flue gas stream. The in jection equipment consumes electricity that reduces efficiency. Some of these technolog ies require injection of a wet sorbent, for which water is the carrier fluid. The water vapo rizes, and in doing so acts as a heat sink, and decreases the boiler efficiency. As a resu lt, more energy is re quired to produce thesame amount of steam, again resulting in higher fuel consumption and increases in emissions of GHG and other combustion-related pollutants.

As stated previously, CO oxidation catalysts require a specific temperature window to operate effectively. Due to space and operati onal concerns, many boilers would have to install oxidation catalyst downstream of thei r existing pollution cont rol equipment. In these cases, a duct burner will be required to re heat the flue gas. The additional fuel used would increase emissions of GHG, and other combustion-related PSD pollutants.

The use of activated carbon for Hg removal ma y be problematic for boilers equipped with an ESP. The presence of SO 3 is often critical to the su ccessful operation of an ESP. Therefore, adding chemicals to remove the SO 3 in the flue gas will result in less particulate control for the ESP. The increa sed carbon in the particulate has also been shown to alter the resistivity of the fly as h, causing arcing in the ESP, and reducing the overall control efficiency. If the boiler is equipped with a hot-side ESP for particulate control, carbon injection ma y not successfully remove Hg because the flue gas temperature in the ESP is too high for Hg oxidation to have occurred (>350oF).

Injection of activated carbon for Hg cont rol has a number of ancillary adverse environmental impacts. The increased amount of carbon in the fly ash causes it to be unsuitable for use in other applications (e.g., cem ent), so a facility that has an activated carbon injection system for Hg control will be required to send its fly ash to a landfill. The carbon that is injected into the flue gas also represents and in crease in the inlet loading to the particulate control device. It may be necessary to install additional particulate control equipment (such as a fabric filter) downstream of the existing particulate control device to adequately cont rol emissions. Therefore, a unit that met the
MACT PM emission limit could still have to install additional PM control equipment to
offset the effect of th e Hg control strategy.

In addition, as more emission controls are adde d, they tend to increa se the backpressure of moving the flue gas through the system, and out the stack. The increased backpressure results in less gas volume flow for a give n fan capacity. Boilers that add multiple emission controls will either have to accep t a reduction in the rated steam production capacity, or will have to increa se their fuel usage and possibly fan capacity to produce the same amount of steam, furthe r reducing their efficiency.

Many boilers are located in boilerhouses that have little availabl e space for additional
controls. Retrofit of new cont rols on these boilers may require major structural changes to the buildings in which they are located. In many cases, the flue gas leaving the boiler must be diverted to a piece of control e quipment located to one side (or even at elevation), and then ducted back to the orig inal flue gas path. The additional ducting
further increases the bac kpressure on the boiler.

Chlorinated dioxins are formed in boile rs as a result of reactions between chlorine/chlorinated compounds and products of incomplete combustion in a temperature range from 750oF down to 400oF. One strate gy for controlling dioxin emissions is tominimize the time that the flue gas occupies this temperature wi ndow. Adding additional control devices may lengthen the amount of tim e gases spend in this temperature window and increase the opportunity for dioxin forma tion. In addition, retrofit of pollution controls could adversely affect the flow patterns in the duct, and the resulting poor mixing of the combustion gases could also contribute to dioxin formation.

# TAB 3Page 1 of 5 HBCA Crosswalk

The numbered questions are the Specific Requests for Comments/Data questions from the “HBCA

Comments Requested 5

‐ 10 ” document.

The bulleted responses (blue font) are from the “AFPA Boiler MACT Comments 08

‐ 23

‐ 10 ” document,

with page numbers included for reference.

1) Peak short

‐ term emissions of HCl from boilers

– Note: comment/data is not specifically requested,

but this is a point raised in the p. 132 lead

‐ in, associated with EPA concerns about acute exposure

• Peak short term emissions can be estimated using the maximum hourly fuel use and either a
95 th percentile of stack test or fuel analysis data. [pg. 169]

• HCl is typically an acute exposure concern, but the chronic RfC is typically the limiting factor in

exposure assessments. [pg. 154]

• Once acid gases are emitted from a stack, they have a short life in the atmosphere, due to high solubility and reactivity and concentrations decrease rapidly with distance from the source. [pg. 149]

2) Facility

‐ specific information: emissions, plant configurations, and fence

‐ line characteristics. Needed

to enable EPA to develop model plants for the 11 subcategories, in order to conduct dispersion
modeling

• A health protective HBEL under CAA 112(d)(4) could take a number of forms. For example, a tiered approach could be developed where a conservative look

‐ up table provides HCl equivalent

emission rate thresholds for various source

‐ receptor combinations. If the look

‐ up table is not viable, then site

‐ specific modeling following established U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance could

be performed to establish an appropriate HBEL. For example, detailed dispersion modeling using

source specific stack parameters, distance to fenceline, and receptor locations could be used to
establish appropriate HBELs. [pg. 149]

• Example lookup tables are provided in Appendix H.

3) Whether appropriate to establish health

‐ based thresholds for all acid gases, or for one acid gas as a
surrogate

3⁄4 If for all acid gases : for each, EPA would need to be able to conclude there is a health threshold, no

scientific evidence of carcinogenicity, and emission standard uses best available science to consider
possibility of toxicologic interactions with the other emitted gases

3⁄4 If for one acid gas as a surrogate : also define the mechanism proposed to determine the

appropriate surrogatePage 2 of 5 3⁄4 If for one acid gas as a surrogate : must demonstrate, based on the knowledge of the effectiveness

of scrubbers for controlling each of the acid gases, that the surrogate emission standard ensures
that ambient levels of each of the other acid gases do not exceed their respective chronic health

thresholds

• HCl, other acid gases and some metal HAPs, such as Mn qualify as threshold pollutants. Supporting evidence includes identification of a threshold dose below which adverse effects do

not occur, lack of evidence for carcinogenicity, and consideration of toxicological interactions

among acid gases and potential for additive effects. Demonstration of a common mode of

action amongst the various HAPs would support the notion of applying a single 112(d)(4)

standard for acid gases. [pg. 152]

• Both acute and chronic exposure to HCl, Cl2, and HF affect the respiratory system and the pollutants cause respiratory irritation by similar mechanisms of action. However, the primary
chronic toxicity effect for HF (skeletal fluorosis) occurs at lower doses than the reported respiratory effects. Therefore, it is recommended that a combined acute HBEL for HCl, Cl2, and

HF and a combined chronic HBEL for HCl and Cl2 be established, but a separate chronic HBEL for

HF is recommended. [pg. 162]

• HCN has a completely different mechanism of action than HCl and HF. Therefore, establishment
of a single acute HBEL for HCN is recommended. Mn has a completely different mechanism of

action from HCN and affects a different target organ than HCl and HF, so establishment of a separate chronic HBEL for Mn is indicated as well. [pg. 162]

4) Whether there would be an additive affect if individual section 112(d)(4) standards are set for each

acid gas, and if so, how to simulate that affect.

• Because it is acknowledged that some of the HAPs subject to HBELs may have overlapping
health effects, the concept of the Target Organ Specific Hazard Index (TOSHI) following U.S. EPA
Guidance may be appropriate in some instances. The hazard index concept inherently assumes that potential health effects due to simultaneous exposure are additive. This method was applied in the 2004 Boiler MACT HBCA where the effects of Cl2 and HCl were assumed to be

additive by computing HCl toxic equivalent emissions. Adding the health effects is appropriate
for the acute health effects of the primary HAP acid gases from solid fuel industrial boilers, HCl, Cl2, and HF, and adding chronic effects of HCl and Cl2 is also appropriate...(i.e., an HCl acid gas toxicity

‐ weighted short

‐ term emission rate can be defined as the emission rate of HCl + the

emission rate of Cl2 x Threshold of HCl /Threshold of Cl2 + the emission rate of HF x Threshold of

HCl /Threshold of HF). [pg. 163]

5) Comment on use of the hazard index (HI) approach, as described in EPA’s “Guideline for the health

risk assessment of chemical mixtures” and whether there are any other approaches to address such

additive effects.

• With the Target Organ Specific Hazard Index (TOSHI), the potential for health consequences for

various HAPs with similar types of health effects are assumed to be additive. Toxicological

studies for HCl and HF indicate that they have the same mode of action. Given that HCl and HF

concentrations are simultaneously present in flue gas, it may be appropriate to consider acutePage 3 of 5 and chronic effects of these two HAPs collectively in evaluating peak short term (e.g., 1

‐ hour)

and long

‐ term (e.g., annual average) exposure concentrations. This concept could be readily incorporated by computing a toxicity weighted emission rate of HCl that accounts for HCl and HF

emissions and their corresponding health effects benchmarks. We note that EPA’s suggestion in
the 2010 proposed rule that HF and HCN could materially contribute to health risk runs directly

counter to the statement that the agency made in the preamble to the 2004 Boiler MACT Final

Rule (69 FR 55244) when it stated that its research indicated that health risks from HF and HCN

emissions from boilers are considered to be insignificant. [pg. 148]

6) Whether EPA should consider the affected sources (boilers) by themselves, or whether it should

consider all HAP emissions at the facility when developing a standard.

• CAA Section 112(d)(f) does not express any intent that emissions from other types of sources at

a facility or background concentrations should be considered in a cumulative fashion with

emissions from permitted source. Evaluation of the acid gas impacts from all regulated boilers at

a facility will, in most cases, address virtually all of the irritant gas hazard. With the possible exception of some types of chemical production and metallurgical facilities, nearly all of the

industrial emissions of HCl (and other acid gases) at industrial facilities are associated with

boilers. As such, computing an acid gas TOSHI associated with boiler emissions represents the

acid gas risk for the entire facility. [pg. 149]

• The language of CAA Section 112(d)(4) indicates that only the potential threshold effects from

the MACT source should be considered. [pg. 165]

7) How to consider the potential interactions of acid gases with other emitted respiratory irritants at

these types of locations. Actual data requested, or, if no data is available, then comment on
whether such a demo could be made using a bounding calculation.

• The comments discuss cumulative exposure concerns for each compound. As HCl, Cl2, and HF
affect the same acute target organ system and HCl and Cl2 affect the same chronic target organ system, the effects of these compounds could potentially be additive. Because HCN has a different mode of action than HCl, Cl2, and HF, its effects would not be additive. [pp. 152

‐ 158]

8) Whether EPA should consider HAP emissions from neighboring facilities, and if so, what the
geographic scope of such consideration should be. EPA notes consideration also could be based on “average” or “high end” ambient levels of respiratory irritants seen in recent monitoring data or
modeled estimates, since site

‐ specific data might not be available on all respiratory irritants.

• Once acid gases are emitted from a stack, they have a short atmospheric half

‐ life due to high solubility and reactivity, and as such, concentrations decrease rapidly with distance from a

source. Thus, it would be a very unusual circumstance if impacts from multiple facilities would overlap in a cumulative layer cake fashion. This is confirmed by ambient measurement studies in

source

‐ rich urban areas, which have shown that HCl concentrations are very low, typically less

than 5% of the 20 μ g/m3 Reference Concentration (RfC). In coastal areas, most of the airborne

HCl is attributable to the contribution of air

‐ sea interaction. Natural coastal deposition of HCl is
also reflected in data from EPA’s National Acid Deposition Network, which indicates that there is

no spatial correlation between deposition and major combustion sources. [pg. 148]Page 4 of 5 • Even if this were applicable under CAA 112(d)(4), dispersion modeling shows that maximum
impact short

‐ term and annual average concentrations of non

‐ reactive pollutants associated with

boiler emissions generally occur within 1 km and fall off rapidly with distance. This limits the

range at which appreciable concentrations of these gases are transported. Because acid gases

are highly soluble, react with ammonia the ambient air, and are rapidly deposited through wet

and dry deposition, the range of ground

‐ level concentrations is much more limited than for non

‐
reactive pollutants. Therefore, unless there are boilers at an immediately adjacent facility, it is
highly unlikely that impacts would overlap to the extent that it would materially affect the HBEL.
[pg. 166]

• There is no evidence that background concentrations of HCl are at appreciable levels from a public health perspective. A limited number of ambient measurement studies have shown that

ambient concentrations, even in highly urbanized areas, are very low. A long

‐ term

measurement study of ambient acid gas concentrations in New York City (Bari et al 2003)

indicates an average of about 0.5 μg/m 3

, which is only 2.5% of the chronic RfC (Reference
Concentration). Thus, there is little basis for adjusting the HBEL to adjust for background

concentrations of acid HAP gases. A study of HCl emissions and impacts from utility boilers
(Harkov 1999) concludes that, even in the vicinity of major sources of HCl, ambient

concentrations are very low. [pp. 166

‐ 167]

9) How to appropriately simulate all reasonable facility/exposure situations (e.g., using worst

‐ case facility emissions coupled with worst

‐ case population proximity, average emissions and population,

or 90 th percentile emissions and population). Simulation could be based on sequential examination

of the facilities or could use screening or bounding methodologies. Seeking comment on these and

other approaches.

• Realistic, yet conservative, HAP emission rate assumptions should be used in determining
compliance with HBELs under 112(d)(4) rather than across

‐ the

‐ board worst

‐ case assumptions

because using worst

‐ case emission assumptions will materially overestimate both chronic and

acute risk. Although care must be taken in estimating emissions, for the HAPs under
consideration, standardized methods could be established to develop suitably conservative

emission estimates based either on fuel data or emission tests. A conservative analysis would

assume maximum emission rates of each pollutant occur simultaneously at worst

‐ case dispersion conditions. [pp. 168

‐ 169]

• As previously stated, we do not believe it is appropriate to consider sources other than the
facility’s boilers in the analysis.
10) Comments are sought on all conclusions in this section, which would include its final segment discussing co

‐ benefits.

• EPA asserts that Congress acknowledged the possibility that MACT standards would result in

collateral non

‐ HAP emissions reductions and, therefore, that “the Agency may consider such

benefits as a factor in determining whether to exercise its discretion under section 112(d)(4).”Page 5 of 5 Consideration of non

‐ HAP collateral emissions reductions is impermissible in setting MACT

standards. Section 112(d)(2) provides an express list of factors that EPA may consider in setting

§ 112(d) standards

– including “the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non

‐ air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.” This list does not allow

consideration of non

‐ HAP air quality benefits, such as the co

‐ benefits of reducing PM2.5

emissions. This restriction is an unambiguous command that EPA should not consider non

‐ HAP

air quality benefits in setting standards under § 112(d). More fundamentally, the CAA clearly
distinguishes regulation of HAPs from criteria pollutants. NAAQS are already in place for all

relevant criteria pollutants, so only HAPs should be considered under MACT. In terms of
biomass, there are no associated SO 2 reductions to claim. [pp. 145

‐ 147]EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 1



### I. Health-Based Emission Limits Shou ld be Incorporated into the
Rule

A. Introduction

In the Industrial Boiler MACT proposal , EPA acknowledges its authority under § 112(d)(4) to establish a health-based em issions limitation (“H BEL”) for threshold pollutants in lieu of a MACT emissions limitat ion. However, the Agency proposes not to establish any HBEL “[g]iven the limitations of the currently available information ( i.e. , the

HAP mix where boilers are lo cated, and the cumulative health impacts from co-located sources), the environmental effects of HCl, and the significant co -benefits of setting a
conventional MACT standard for HCl.” Draf t at 140. Nevertheless, EPA asks for comment on a wide range of issues related to the justification for setting HBELs and the method by which they should be set.



### i. There are several compelli ng reasons for setting HBELs for HCl and manganese in the Industrial Boiler MACT.

Section 112(d)(4) is a powerfu l tool that enables EPA to match the stringency of a HAP

emissions limitation to the level determined nec essary to fully protect human health. As a result, the standard is no more stringent and no less stringent than needed to get the job done.

As EPA explains in the proposed rule, § 112(d) generally requires MACT emissions

limitations to be set at a level that refl ects the performance of the better performing sources in the given source category or subcategory. Section 112(d)(4) provides an alternative to this basic approach for pollutants for which a health threshold has been established. For such pollutants, § 112(d)(4) authorizes EPA to “consider such threshold levels, with an ample margin of sa fety, when establishing emission standards” under § 112(d).

The default technology-based method of setting MACT standards is a cookie cutter approach that can and does result in HAP emissions limitations that go well beyond what is needed to protect the public from HAP emissions. The clear purpose of § 112(d)(4) is to prevent this from happening. The legislative history of § 112(d)(4) is abundantly clear on this point. In formula ting § 112(d)(4), Congress recognized that, “For some pollutants a MACT emissions lim itation may be far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the environment.” 1 As a result, § 112(d)(4) was provided as an alternative standard setti ng mechanism for HAPs “where health

1 S. Rep. No. 101-228 (1990) at 171.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 2

thresholds are well-established ... and the po llutant presents no risk of other adverse health effects, including cancer....” 2

When the first Industrial Boiler MACT was promulgated in 2004, it included healthbased emissions limitations for HCl and man ganese. Under both of these standards, a site-specific risk assessment had to be conducted to prove that emissions from the site were low enough that human health would be protected, with an ample margin of safety. Actual emissions testing of all affected em issions points was required to verify the

emissions rates used in the risk assessment. All relevant site par ameters were required to be recorded in the site’s Title V operating permit to provide assur ance over time that public health would be adequately protected. 3

In short, these health-based emissions lim itations were rigorous standards that demanded accountability. They were a winner for the Agency and the public because public health would have been protected with an ample margin of safe ty. At the same
time these standards were a winner for a ffected sources because the standards would not have blindly required emissions to be re duced far below the levels needed to assure that the public was protected. It was estimated at the time that these health- based standards would have saved over $2 billion in compliance costs, as compared to the technology-based standards that otherwise would have applied.

The first Industrial Boiler MACT was over turned by the D.C. Circuit, but on grounds

unrelated to the health- based emissions limita tions. Notably, in defending the healthbased emissions limitations, t he Department of Justice conc luded that, “Environmental

Petitioners’ claim that the st atute precludes EPA from est ablishing alternative standards for threshold pollutants (which petitioner s mischaracterize as an exemption) is

meritless.” 4

Giving full consideration to the use of health -based standards is particularly important in
the wake of the series of decisions from t he D.C. Circuit that ha ve progressively limited

EPA’s discretion to make common-sens e decisions when setting MACT standards under § 112. EPA’s authority to set heal th- based standards under § 112(d)(4) is unassailable. For appropriate HAPs and where t he relevant facts substantiate its use,

EPA can set health-based standards with full confid ence that they will survive judicial

review.

2 Id

. 3 See, generally, 69 Fed. Reg. 55218, 55227-55228 (Sept. 13, 2004).

4 Final Brief For Respondent United States Environm ental Protection Agency, D.C. Cir. Case No. 04-1385 (Dec. 4, 2006) at 53-54.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 3



### ii. In light of the exceedingly stringent proposed MACT emissions limitations for HC l and metals (including manganese), it is arbitrary a nd capricious for EPA not to develop HBELs for th ese pollutants.

While EPA has discretion in deciding whet her to set HBELs under § 112(d)(4), the Agency cannot be arbitrary and capricious in making such a decision. The proposed HCl and PM emissions limitations for all ty pes of industrial boilers are exceedingly stringent. Affected sources will have to spend tens of millions of dollars in order to meet the standards and, as even EPA pr edicts, a significant number of existing units simply

will not be able to meet the st andards and will be required to s hut down. In addition, the work that EPA performed in support of the HBELs included in the 2004 rule demonstrates that the propos ed standards are far more st ringent than needed to assure the protection of public health with an ample margin of safety. The costs and burdens on affected sources and the degree of contro l needed to provide adequate health and environmental protection are both key factor s that should be considered by the Agency in deciding whether to adopt HBELs in the Industrial Boiler MACT.

In the proposed rule, EPA completely ignores these factors. The Agency’s discussion

of HBELs includes no assessment whatsoever of the costs that might be avoided by adopting HBELs for HCl or manganese. As to potential effects on health or environment, EPA simply raises implement ation questions and asserts a lack of information to resolve the questions. Such an approach is facially inadequate in light of the extensive policy, scientific, and techni cal assessment developed in support of the
HBELs in the 2004 Industrial Boiler MACT standard.

In short, EPA’s failure to fully consider key factors that are relevant to making an

informed decision as to whether HBELs shou ld be adopted is arbitrary and capricious.



### iii. EPA has failed to provide a rational basis for ignoring and contradicting the findings made in support of the HBELs included in the 2004 Indus trial Boiler MACT rule.

EPA asserts in the proposed rule that its decision not to pr opose HBELs “is not contrary to EPA’s prior decisions where we found it appropriate to exercise the discretion to invoke the authority in section 112(d)(4) for HCl, since the circumstances in this case differ from previous considerat ions.” Draft at 140. In contrast to “other source categories for which EPA has exercised its authority under section 112(d)(4),” EPA explains that boilers and process heaters ar e more likely to be co-located with other HAP sources and are often located in heavily populated urban areas where many other

HAP sources exist. Id . at 140-141. The Agency concludes that, “These factors makeEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 4

an analysis of the health im pact of emissions from t hese sources on the exposed population significantly more complex than for many other source categories, and

therefore make it more difficult to es tablish an ample margin of safety.” Id . at 141.

These assertions are astonishin g in that they fail to reflec t the fact that the industrial boiler source category is one of the few ca tegories where EPA has previously “found it appropriate to exercise the discr etion to invoke the authority in section 112(d)(4).” As a result, EPA has already drawn conclusions as to how to deal with possible co-location with other HAP sources and how to appropriate ly consider HAP emissions from other nearby sources. These are not issues of firs t impression generally or in the specific context of industrial boilers and process heat ers. The questions have been asked and
answered in the context of notice and comment rulemaking for the industrial boiler and process heater source category.

Thus, EPA is mistaken in asserting that it s decision not to propose HBELs is “not contrary to EPA’s prior decisions.” T he decision not to propose HBELs is flatly inconsistent with EPA’s prior determination t hat HBELs are appropriate and justified for the industrial boiler and process heater source category. EPA’s failure to acknowledge its prior determination and failure to explain why it has rais ed as questions issues that previously were resolved (such as how to consider co-located HAP sources and nearby HAP sources) render its decision not to propose HBELs arbitrary and capricious.



### iv. The co-benefits of co llateral non-HAP emissions reductions cannot be used to justify a decision not to adopt HBELs.

EPA explains in the proposal that “it consi dered the fact that setting conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM (as a surro gate for metals including manganese) would result in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably SO2, noncondensable PM, and other non-HAP acid gas es (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals (e.g., selenium).” Dr aft at 139. The Agency notes in par ticular that its belief that the rule will result in the reduction of up to 340,000 tons per year of SO2, which it

characterizes as “substantial reducti ons with substantial health benefits.” Id . EPA asserts that Congress acknowledged the possi bility that MACT standards would result

in collateral non-HAP emissi ons reductions and, theref ore, that “the Agency may

consider such benefits as a fa ctor in determining whether to exercise its discretion under section 112(d)(4).” Id . at 140.

EPA is mistaken. Consider ation of non-HAP collateral emissions reductions is impermissible in setting MACT standards. Se ction 112(d)(2) provides an express list ofEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 5

factors that EPA may consider in setting § 112(d) standards – including “the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements.” This lis t does not allow consideration of non-HAP air quality benefits, such as the co-benefits of reducing PM 2.5 emissions. This restriction is an unambiguous command that EPA should not consider non-HAP air quality benefits in setting standards under § 112(d).

More fundamentally, the CAA clearly distingui shes regulation of H APs from criteria pollutants. Section 112 “prohi bits the addition of any criteria pollutant to ‘the list’ of HAPs, with a single exception for certain precur sor pollutants not relevant to this case. This prohibition extends of necessity not only to rules that literally list a criteria pollutant as a HAP but also to any rule that in effect treats a criteria pollutant as a HAP.” National Lime Ass’n v. U.S. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

By basing its rejection of the health-based ap proach for Boiler MACT on the co-benefits of criteria pollutant reduction, EPA is “in effect” unlawfully tr eating a criteria pollutant as a HAP. EPA’s action here is not the simple us e of a criteria pollutant as a surrogate for a HAP, which courts have upheld as long as EPA proves the scientific underpinning of the surrogate relationship. Id. Rather, EPA ar gues directly that it is the reduction in criteria pollutant emissions that causes it to reject the health-based approach. This

EPA cannot do.5

EPA’s sole support for its “collateral benefits” theory is legislative history -- the Senate Report that accompanied Senate Bill 1630 in 1989. But the D.C. Circuit rejected precisely the same argument in National Lime. In that case, EPA supported its argument regarding particulate matter as a su rrogate for HAP metals by referring to the same Senate Report discussed above. The court rejected EPA’s argument, noting that the Senate Report referred to an earlier versi on of the statute that was ultimately not enacted, and hence was irrelevant:

The final statute, by contrast, unqualifiedly proh ibits listing a criteria pollutant as a HAP, that is, regar dless of the reason. Because the comment in the Senate Report regardi ng PM and metals was made before the blanket prohibition upon regulati ng PM as a HAP was added to the statute, the report is irrele vant to our construction of 7412(b)(2) as enacted.

5 Moreover, criteria pollutants from boilers are strictly regulated elsewhere under the Clean Air Act through New Source Performance Standar ds and other provisions of the Act.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 6

National Lime at 638. Similarly here, EPA cannot use the language of a Senate Report

that did not reflect the l anguage of the statute as enact ed to support its co-benefits theory and rejection of the health-based approach.

Moreover, even if it were relevant, the language in the Senate Report cited by EPA appears to address only area-source GACT standards under Sect ion 112(d)(5), and therefore is not relevant to interpretation of MACT standards under Section 112(d)(2) or the health- based alternative under Section 112(d)(4 ). And, in the final analysis, “it is the statute, and not the Committee Report, whic h is the authoritative expression of the

law.” City of Chicago v. Env. Defense Fund , 511 U.S. 328, 337 (1994). Here, the statute clearly provides t hat MACT standards may addre ss only HAPs, not criteria pollutants. See National Lime Ass’n at 638.

But, even if it were not unambiguously prohibi ted, consideration of non-HAP air quality benefits under § 112(d)(4) would be unreasonabl e. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) are in place for all re levant pollutants, including ozone, SO 2 , and PM. A MACT standard is a very imprecise t ool for helping to attain and maintain such NAAQS because it imposes across-the-boar d requirements in circumstances where

tailored solutions are needed. Each area has its own unique mix of sources and it own particular needs in terms of what reduc tions are needed and where such reductions should be achieved. SIP-based air quality pr ograms provide the needed flexibility to design a program that effectively addresses local air quality needs. MACT standards are an unreasonably blunt instrument for dealing with non-HAP air quality issues.

Lastly, emissions of SO 2 from unit burning biomass are very low when compared to
other fuels. The AP-42 emission factor for wood combustion is 0.025 lb/mmBTU and AF&PA’s experience with bi omass units is that SO 2 emissions are routinely much lower
than this emission factor. NCASI also has completed research (NCASI Technical Bulletin 640, Sulfur Captur e in Combination Bark Boile rs, and Special Report 09-02, Sulfur Capture in Combination Bark Boilers – An Update) that demonstrates that even when sulfur containing fuels ar e burned with biomass, a signifi cant portion of sulfur is captured by the alkaline wood ash. 6 Thus, even if EPA could consider co-benefits of non-HAP reductions in developing standards under § 112, the nominal co-benefits of reducing SO 2 emissions from biomass units woul d not outweigh the other advantages of establishing a health- based emissions limitation for HCl.

6 These 2 documents are available to NCASI me mbers and can be made available to EPA staff upon request.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 7



### B. Technical Assessment

The purpose of this provision of the CAA is to allow EPA to focus more stringent MACT controls on non-threshold HAPs (those that could pose some level of adverse health effects at any non-zero concentration) than HAPs with thresholds, for which the level of incremental concentration from a source could pose potentia l health consequences. By providing a special provision for threshold HAPs that likely pose little or no potential adverse health effects, the CAA allows EPA to consider limiting the burden on regulated sources with HAP emissions that pose little or no health hazard. Some of the HAPs targeted by the Boiler MACT, such as the acid gases, hydrogen chloride (HCl), chlorine (Cl 2 ), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), as well as metals such as manganese (Mn) meet the requirem ents for classification as threshold pollutants. Therefore, if the associated incremental ambient concentr ations of these threshold pollutants as a result of emissions from a regulated source are sufficiently low, they
would qualify for alternative MACT provisions under 112(d)(4).

Section 112(d)(4) does not specify how EPA should “consider threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety” in developing altern ative MACT requirements. In the Pulp and Paper MACT and in the 2004 Boiler MACT, EPA maintained that that application of this CAA section is met if the incremental ex posure concentration from subject MACT sources at a facility is less than established health effects thresholds. The “margin of safety” is built into the means by which:

• Emissions and associated exposure c oncentrations are characterized;

• Health effects thresholds are derived; and

• Dispersion models estimate exposure.

CAA Section 112(d)(4) does not apply to HAPs fr om other source categories at a facility or background concentrations, as the CAA explicitly directs EPA to address residual issues subsequent to the initial MACT setti ng process under CAA Section 112(f)(c).

HCl typically comprises about 80% or more of acid gas emissions from boilers, with 20% or less comprised of HF. In terms of developing Health-Based Emission Limits (HBEL), it is appropriate to consider EPA’s concept of Target Organ Specific Hazard Index (TOSHI), where the potential for health consequences for various HAPs with similar types of health effects are assumed to be additive. Toxicological studies for HCl and HF indicate that they have the same mode of action as irritant acid gases. Given that HCl and HF concentrations are simult aneously present in flue gas, it may be appropriate to consider acute and chronic ef fects of these two HAPs collectively in evaluating peak short term (e.g., 1-hour) and long-term (e.g., annual average) exposure concentrations. This concept could be readi ly incorporated by computing a toxicityweighted emission rate of HCl that a ccounts for HCl and HF emissions and their corresponding health effe cts benchmarks.

We noted that EPA’s suggestion in the 2010 proposed rule that HF and HCN could materially contribute to health risk runs direct ly counter to the following statement thatEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 8

the agency made in the preamble to the 2004 Boiler MACT Final Rule (69 FR 55244)
when it stated that its resear ch indicated that health ri sks from HF and HCN emissions from boilers are consider ed to be insignificant.

“Facilities attempting to utilize the health-based compliance alternative for HCl will not be required to evaluate emissions of ot her inorganic HAP except for chlorine. We

conducted an assessment of boiler emission s and determined that, of the acid gas HAP controlled by scrubbing technology, ch lorine is responsible for the great majority of risk and HCl is responsible for the next largest portion of the total risk.

The contributions of other HAP, including hydrogen fluoride, to the total risk were negligible. Therefore, facilities attempting to demonstrate eligibility for the healthbased compliance alternative for HCl, either by conducting a lookup table analysis or by conducting a site specific compliance de monstration, must include emission rates
of chlorine and HCl from their boilers. We do not expect hydrogen cyanide emissions
from boilers covered under the final rule.”

If EPA has conducted new research that refutes th is former finding, it is imperative that this research be brought to light.

As noted, the language of CAA Section 112( d)(f) does not express any intent that emissions from other types of sources at a facility or background concentrations should be considered in a cumulative fashion wi th emissions from permitted source. Evaluation of the acid gas impacts from all regulated boilers at a facility will, in most cases, address virtually all of the irritant gas hazard. With the possible exception of some types of chemical production and metallurgic al facilities, nearly all of the industrial emissions of HCl (and other acid gases) at industrial facilities are associated with boilers. As such, computing an acid gas TOSHI associated with boiler emissions only under CAA 112(d)(4) represents the acid gas ri sk for the entire facility. Once acid gases are emitted from a st ack, they have a short atmo spheric half-life due to high solubility and reactivity, and as such, concentra tions decrease rapidly with distance from a source. Thus, it would be a very unusual circumstance if impacts from multiple facilities would overlap in a cumulative layer ca ke fashion. This is confirmed by ambient
measurement studies in source-rich urban areas, which have shown that HCl concentrations are very low, typically less than 5% of the 20 μg/m 3 Reference Concentration (RfC). In coastal areas, most of the airborne HCl is attributable to the contribution of air-sea interaction. Natural coastal deposition of HCl is also reflected in data from EPA’s National Acid Deposition Network, which i ndicates that there is no spatial correlation between deposition and major combustion sources.

A health protective HBEL under CAA 112(d)(4 ) could take a number of forms. For example, a tiered approach could be develop ed where a conservative look-up table provides HCl equivalent emission rate th resholds for various source-receptor combinations. If the look -up table is not viable, then site-specific modeling following established U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance could be performed to establish anEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 9

appropriate HBEL. For example, detailed di spersion modeling using source specific stack parameters and receptor locations coul d be used to establish appropriate HBELs. Variability in emissions could be addressed by consideration of variability in fuel consumption and fuel content. A robust statistical method could be applied to assure conservatism with a reasonable level of cert ainty, such as the 95th percentile commonly applied by EPA. Alternatively, limits fo r HCl and other pollutants established in air permits could be proposed for use in li eu of establishing separate HBELs.

In the proposed rulemaking, EPA concluded that the information available at this time is insufficient to establish health-based emi ssion standards for HCl or the other acid gases. In the 2004 Boiler MACT EPA concluded that HCl was a threshold pollutant for which CAA Section 112(d)(4) should be app lied and there are many other historical precedents where EPA has cons idered HCl a threshold pollutant. Some of those precedents include: 1) National mission Standar ds for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fo r Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II); Final Rule; 2) National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants From Chemical Recovery Combus tion Sources At Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, And Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills; 3) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry; Proposed Rule; 4) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Ai r Pollutants: Chlorine and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From Chlorine Production.

Thus, the recent change in EPA’s position a ppears not to be based on changes in the underlying scientific evidence since 2004 but rat her a shift in policy. In this proposed rulemaking, EPA interprets section 112(d)(4) to allow additional factors beyond any established health threshold, such as cumula tive and ecological effects, to be weighed in making a judgment whether to set a standard for a spec ific pollutant based on the threshold. This interpretation of the CAA represents a signi ficant and unexplained departure from previous MACT rulemaking s and from EPA's prior decision to adopt

health based emissions limitation in the 2004 i ndustrial boiler MACT rule. The Agency has made a 180 degree turn that is not suppor ted by the record and not scientifically justified.



### A. Basis for HBELs under CAA Sect ion 112(d) in the Industrial Boiler MACT

CAA 112(d) enables EPA to establish alte rnative MACT standards by applying provisions such as the HBEL to avoid unnece ssary regulation for HAPs that do not pose a health risk. In 2004, EPA det ermined that two HAPs commonl y emitted from solid fuel industrial boilers, hydrogen chloride (HCl) and manganese (Mn), are threshold pollutants that do not pose a si gnificant health risk at a po tentially large proportion ofEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 10

regulated sources. If it can be demonstrat ed that health benchmarks are met for these HAPs, emission controls for these materi als are not deemed to be necessary.

Similar considerations for addressing HCl as a threshold pollutant have been included in 1) National Emission Standards for Hazar dous Air Pollutants: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Wa ste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II); Final Rule; 2) Nati onal Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants; Proposed St andards For Hazardous Air Pollut ants From Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources At Kraft, Soda, Sulfit e, And Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills; 3) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From t he Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry; and 4) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Chlori ne and Hydrochloric Acid Emissions From Chlorine Production. In the absence of specific scientific evidence to t he contrary, it has historically been EPA’s policy to classify non-carcinogenic effects as threshold effects, as demonstrated in the above rulemakings.

The logic provided by EPA in developing the 2004 HBCA was a direct interpretation of 112(d)(4). In summary:

• Hydrogen chloride is the chief acid gas HAP from solid fuel combustion and emissions are related to chloride and chlorine content in fuel. Hydrogen
chloride and chlorine are threshold HAPs with associated similar effects and established Reference Concentrations (RfC), such that the combined inhalation risk of these HAPs can be considered collectively.

• Manganese is a threshold HAP metal, which is a chief risk driver for woodfired boilers. The 2004 Boiler MACT included emission standards for Total Selected Metals (TSM), of which manganese was a component. The HBCA would exempt manganese from the TSM calculation.

• 112(d)(4) was interpreted to require that all MACT boilers (i.e., from the same MACT source category) at a single facility not significantly contribute to risk. It does not require risk evaluation of other HAPs with different types of health effects or contribution fr om other sources or backg round concentrations, as presently suggested in the proposed rule . In 2004, EPA stated the basis for this determination in response to comments that cumulative risks should be evaluated under the HBCA. EPA responded that 112(d)(4) does not indicate
that a risk assessment should be undertak en, but simply that the threshold level of a particular HAP should be cons idered and that it is appropriate to consider cumulative risk under 112(f), which requires the evaluation of residual risk after the implementation of MACT standards. Section 112(f)(1)(c) states that EPA will address “actual health effects with respect to persons living in the vicinity of sources, any av ailable epidemiological or other health studies, risks present ed by background concentrations of hazardous air pollutants” in the residual risk assessments.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 11

Rather than this direct interpretation of the CAA 112(d)(4) applied by EPA in 2004, the preamble to the 2010 proposed Boiler MACT repeatedly cites congressional intent, suggesting expanding the consid eration of threshold level to other tangential issues such as MACT HAP controls also reducing cr iteria pollutant and ec ological benefits of controls. Although such objectives may appear to be meritorious from an overall environmental protection perspective, there is no indication from the language of 112(d)(4) that other factors besides human health effects of specific threshold HAPs are
intended to be considered.



### B. Acid Gas HAPs (HCl, Cl 2 

### , HF, HCN) and Mn Qualify Threshold HAPs with Established Thresholds

HCl, other acid gases and some metal HAPs, su ch as Mn qualify as threshold pollutants and, therefore, they should be consi dered under section 112(d)(4). Supporting evidence includes identification of a thres hold dose below which adverse effects do not occur, lack of evidence for ca rcinogenicity and consideration of toxicological interactions among acid gases and potential for additive e ffects. In addition, demonstration of a common mode of action amongst the variou s HAPs would support the notion of applying a single 112(d)(4) standard for acid gases.

Table 1 summarizes data on threshold doses for HCl, Cl 2 , hydrogen cyanide (HCN), HF, and Mn. Information supporting the existence of health effects thre sholds for each HAP is provided below along with a discussion of whether the HAPs have similar modes of
action.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 12

1. Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Critical Target Organ

The critical target organ for acute toxicity of HCl is the upper re spiratory system (sore throat, nasal discharge), lo wer respiratory system (pul monary function, cough, chest pain), and eyes. The target organ for chronic toxicity is also the respiratory system.

Mechanism of Action On contact with moisture, HCl dissociates almost completely. The hydrogen ions combine with water to form hydronium ions (H3O + ), which can cleave organic molecules and cause cell death. Thus, the adverse effe cts associated with HCl exposure are due to direct contact irritation of tissues at the portal of entry and persistent cellular injury in the affected tissue.

Evidence of Threshold
An acute threshold has been established. A chronic threshold has not been established. However, data on chronic toxi city of HCl are very limited and all studies
located in the literature hav e used the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) as the lowest dose in the dosing regimen. T herefore, the failure to identify a chronicEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 13

threshold is not an indication that no threshold exists, but rather an indication that data on chronic effects from HCl are very limited. HCl is typically an acute exposure concern but the chronic RfC is usually limiting in exposure assessments. However, controlling short-term peak exposures naturally has t he dual benefit of also reducing long-term exposures. In addition to the general lack of toxicological studies suggesting that HCl could be a potential carcinogen (see below), t he listing of health thresholds for HCl by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR), California EPA, and the Wo rld Health Organization in the public domain has established that HCl is a threshold pollutant.

Evidence of Carcinogenicity No pre-neoplastic or neoplastic nasal lesion s were observed in a 128-week inhalation study with SD male rats at 10 ppm HCl gas . No evidence of treatment related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies performed by i nhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans, no a ssociation between HCl exposure and tumor
incidence has been observed.

Cumulative Exposure There is little evidence that the general public is exposed routinely to measurable quantities of gaseous chlorine and/or HCl. Even the HCl produced during the combustion of fossil fuels or the incineration of solid wa ste apparently lasts too short a time in the un-reacted state to pose a signi ficant health risk (IPCS, 1982). However, HCl does affect the same target organ system (respiratory system) as hydrogen fluoride (HF) and, therefore, it is possible that the effects of HCl and HF could be additive.

2. Chlorine (Cl 2 )

Critical Target Organ

The critical target organ fo r the acute toxicity of Cl 2 is the upper respiratory system (transient respiratory irritation), lower respir atory system (slight alterations in pulmonary function tests), and the eyes. The target organ fo r chronic toxicity is also the respiratory system.

Mechanism of Action

Cl 2 is a strong oxidizer that hydrolyzes in water forming HCl and hypochlorous acid. Cl 2 gas has been shown to be 33 ti mes more potent as a sensory irritant in mice than HCl (Barrow et al. 1977), The assumption is that produc ts of the reaction of Cl 2 with water are

able to interact with functi onal groups in components fr om cells in the respiratory epithelium. At low concentr ations, only sensory receptors are affected, triggering only changes in respiratory dynamics, but higher concentrations produce frank tissue damage due to disruption of cellular components (ATSDR, 2007).EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 14

Evidence of Threshold

The effects of acute-exposure to Cl 2 have been well charac terized in humans and animals. Collectively, the re sults suggest that brief exposures to concentrations of Cl 2 less than 0.5 ppm do not cause sensory irritation or significant alterations in pulmonary function tests, but exposure to 1 ppm or gr eater can induce transient respiratory and eye irritation and slight alteration s in pulmonary function tests (Anglen 1981; D’Alessandro et al. 1996; Rotman et al. 1983; Schins et al. 20 00; Shusterman et al. 1998, 2003). There is no information regarding chronic-duration expos ure of the general population to chlorine because this type of exposure occurs only in occupa tional settings. There are few studies of chronically exposed workers that were not also subjected to acut e episodes of high exposure or “gassing” incidents. However, a chronic threshold based on nasal lesions

has been establishe d in monkeys (Klonn e et al. 1987).

Evidence of Carcinogenicity

No studies on the carc inogenic effects of Cl 2 in humans and only a few animal studies

were located in the literature. All of t he animal carcinogenicity studies listed on the Chemical Carcinogenesi s Research Information System were negative and no positive

studies were listed on the Carc inogenic Potency Project at http://potency.berkeley.edu /chemicalsummary.html . Co-carcinogenic properties (i.e.,

some studies su ggest that Cl 2 can promote the carcinogenic ity of other compounds) of

Cl 2 in animals have been examined, but the re sults are mixed, with one study resulting in cancer in a single mouse and another study causing a 40% decrease in the number of

skin cancers in initiate d mice. Study results on genotoxicity of Cl 2 have also been mixed.
Neither, the EPA, the In ternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), or the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have classified Cl 2 gas as to its carcinogenicity. Alth ough EPA has not develo ped a formal evaluation of the potential for

Cl 2 carcinogenicity, the evaluation by the In ternational Agency for Research on Cancer stated that there was inadequa te evidence for carcinogenicit y in humans or experimental

animals and thus concluded that Cl 2 is not classifiable as to it s carcinogenicit y to humans. Other rules (e.g., Final Stan dards for Hazardous Air Poll utants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Re placement Standards and Phase II); Final Rule; 2) National

Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants) have evaluated Cl 2 only with regard to

non-cancer effects. In the abs ence of specific scientific evidence to the contrary, it has been EPA’s policy to classify non-carcinog enic effects as th reshold effects.

Cumulative ExposureEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 15

There is little evidence that the general public is exposed routinely to measurable quantities of gaseous Cl 2 . However, Cl 2 does affect the same acute target organ system (respiratory system) as HCl and hy drogen fluoride (HF) and the same chronic target organ system (respiratory system) as HCl, Therefore, it is possible that the acute
effects of Cl 2 , HCl and HF could be additive and the chronic effects of Cl 2 and HCl could also potentially be additive.

3. Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)

Critical Target Organ The Central Nervous System (CNS) is the target organ for the acute health effects associated with HCN. The critic al target organ for the chr onic health effects of HCN is also the CNS, but long-term exposure can al so affect thyroid function (CalEPA, 2008b).

Mechanism of Action The mode of action of HCN toxicity is cytoc hrome oxidase inhibition, which prevents cellular utilization of oxygen. The cyanide ion blocks oxidative respiration, causing failure of oxygen usage with tissue hy poxia leading to metabolic acidosis.

Evidence of Threshold
An acute threshold has been established. A chronic threshold in humans has not been established. Data on chronic toxicity of HCN in humans (and animals) is very limited. However, a subacute inhalation NOAEL for HCN has been established in rabbits (CalEPA, 2008b). In addition to the lack of evidence that HCN is a potential carcinogen (see below), the listing of health threshol ds for HCN by California EPA (CalEPA, 2008b) and many other organizations (e.g., Agency for Toxic Substance Registry [ATSDR], World Health Organization [WHO], Nationa l Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven (The Netherlands), et c.) in the public dom ain has established HCN as a threshold pollutant.

Evidence of Carcinogenicity Out of 20 mutagenicity studies summarized on the Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (CCRIS) fo r sodium cyanide, there was not a single positive result (CCRIS, 2010). Therefore, av ailable data indicate that HCN does not have mutagenic properties and is not considered to be a carci nogen. Free CN is not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (IRIS, 2010).

Cumulative Exposure HCN has a completely different mechanism of action than the other two acid gases on which comments have been requested (i.e., HCl and HF) and affects a different target organ system. While several studies indicate that chronic exposure of workers to low concentrations of cyanide can cause respirator y, cardiovascular, and thyroid effects, the acute effect on the CNS system occurs at lowe r concentrations than those at which theEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 16

portal of entry (respiratory) effects occur. Because HCN has a different mode of action than HCl and HF, it is not a candidate for a li mit that addresses the combined effects of multiple acid gases.

4. Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

Critical Target Organ The critical target organ for acute health e ffects of HF is the upper respiratory system (irritation), with symptoms such as coughing, choking, and chills, followed by pulmonary edema, which may occur with cough, chest tightness, rales, and cyanosis after an asymptomatic period of one to two days (CalEP A, 2008a). The critical chronic target organs include bone and teeth (skeletal/dent al fluorosis), as well as the upper respiratory system (pulmonary hemorrhage) (CalEPA, 2008b).

Mechanism of Action The acute respiratory effects of HF are the result of dehydration and corrosion of tissues mediated by free hydrogen ions (CalEPA, 2008a). The respiratory system is also listed as one of the critical target organs for chronic toxic effects of HF; however, respiratory effects result from higher exposure levels than required for fluorosis (Hodge and Smith, 1977). Presumably, direct contact irritation of tissues at the portal of entry and persistent cellular injury in the affected tissue are responsible for the chronic respiratory effects of HF. In addition, t he dissociated fluoride ion is also capable of complexing certain bivalent cations, pr imarily calcium and magnesium, which interferes with calciu m metabolism and causes cell destruction (CalEPA, 2008b) and fluorosis upon chronic expo sure. Skeletal fluorosis is considered to be the critical target organ for chronic expo sure since this effect is seen at lower concentrations than the respir atory system effects.

Evidence of Threshold
Both acute and chronic threshold doses have been established. In addition, since lower doses of fluoride have a beneficia l or nutritional effect, a th reshold type of response for adverse effects is clearly expected (CalEP A, 2008b). In addition to the general lack of evidence that HF is a carcinogen in humans (s ee discussion below), the listing of health thresholds for HF by California EPA (C alEPA, 2008b) and many other organizations (e.g., Agency for Toxic Substance Regist ry [ATSDR], World H ealth Organization [WHO], etc.) in the public domain has es tablished HF as a threshold pollutant.

Carcinogenicity Several authors have suggested the potential mu tagenicity of HF or sodium fluoride, although EPA and National Research Council hav e concluded that the mutagenicity of HF in man has not been demonstrated (EPA , 1998). According to the National Toxicology Program, "the preponderance of evidence" from laboratory in vitro (i.e., cell culture) studies indicate that fluoride is a mu tagenic compound in laboratory studies. Some substances that are shown to be mu tagens in laboratory studies, are also carcinogens. In some cases, “the overall significance of the in vitro fluoride transformation data are subject to question" (NRC, 1993) because the cells used inEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 17

some of the laboratory studies are unusually s ensitive to the induction of transformation. In addition, the concentrations of fluoride causing mutagenic damage in the in vitro studies is higher than the concentrations f ound in human blood. More importantly, no specific epidemiological evidence is av ailable for evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of HF or ot her fluoride compounds in hu mans. Increased rates of cancer have been reported in workers in se veral industries involving exposure to mixtures containing fluorides, but fluoride could not be specifica lly implicated as the cause of the cancer in any of these studies (EPA, 1998). The potential carcinogenic potential of fluorides in drinking water has also been investigated. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that when differences in demographics, degree of industria lization, and other social fa ctors are accounted for, the studies provide no evidence that an increase in the level fluorides in drinking water
is associated with an increase in cancer mort ality (EPA, 1998). Ther efore, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that HF or other fluoride compounds are carcinogenic.

5. Manganese (MN)

Critical Acute Target Organ

Mn toxicity has been reported through o ccupational (e.g. welder) and dietary overexposure and is evidenced primarily in the Central Nervous System, although lung, cardiac, liver, reproductive and fetal toxici ty have been noted. The CNS is considered the critical target organ for the chronic toxicity of Mn (Crossgrove and Zheng, 2004). No information on acute toxicity of Mn could be located in the open scientific literature.

Mechanism of Action Mn neurotoxicity results from an accumulation of the metal in brain tissue and results in a progressive disorder of t he extrapyramidal system which is similar to Parkinson’s disease. In order for Mn to distribute from bl ood into brain tissue, it must cross either the blood–brain barrier (BBB) or t he blood–cerebrospinal fluid ba rrier (BCB). Brain import, with no evidence of export, would lead to br ain Mn accumulation and neurotoxicity. The mechanism for the neurodegenerative damage specif ic to select brain regions is not clearly understood. Disturbances in iron hom eostasis and the valence state of Mn have been implicated as key factors in contributing to Mn toxi city (Crossgrove and Zheng, 2004).

Evidence of a Threshold Lower doses of Mn have a beneficial or nutriti onal effects, therefore, a threshold type of response for adverse effects is clearly expected. There is debate about where the threshold for Manganese falls, but several studies in the last two decades provide for determination of No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAELs) for chronic neurological effects in workers. In addi tion to the lack of evidence that Mn is a carcinogen (see discussion below), the listing of health thresholds for Manganese by EPA, California EPA (CalEPA, 2008b) and the Agency for Toxic Substance Registry (ATSDR) in the public domain has established Manganese as a threshold pollutant.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 18

Evidence of Carcinogenicity Mn is listed in IRIS as Classification D (not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity) (IRIS, 2010). Although there are some mixed results, there are little data to suggest that inorganic Mn is carcinogenic.



### C. Summary and Conclusions Regarding Threshold Pollutant Determination

1. Evidence for Thresholds

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Based on the limited negative carcinogenicity data, and on knowledge of how chlorine reacts in the body, its likely mechanism of action, and its consideration as a threshold pollutant in numerous other rulemakings, HCl is presumptively considered to be a threshold pollutant.

Chlorine ( Cl 2 )

Based on the thresholds established for Cl 2 , the lack of evidence for carcinogenicity, it’s likely mechanism of action, and it’s consider ation as a threshold pollutant in numerous other rulemakings, Cl 2 is presumptively considered to be a threshold pollutant.

Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN)

Based on the thresholds established for HCN, the lack of evidence for carcinogenity, and knowledge of how HCN reacts in the body, HCN is considered to be a threshold pollutant.

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

Based on the thresholds that have been est ablished and lack of reliable data suggesting that HF is carcinogenic, HF is presumptivel y considered to be a threshold pollutant.

Manganese (Mn)

Lower doses of Mn have a beneficial or nutriti onal effects, therefore, a threshold type of response for adverse effects is clearly expect ed. In addition to the lack of evidence that Mn is a carcinogen (see discussion below), the listing of health thresholds for Manganese by EPA, California EPA (CalEPA, 2008b) and the Agency for Toxic Substance Registry (ATSDR) in the publ ic domain has established Manganese as a threshold pollutant.

2. Proposed Toxicity Factors and Margins of Safety

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 19

It is proposed that the California EPA (CalE PA) acute Reference Exposure Level (REL)
be established as the acute threshold dose and that the EPA RfC be established as the chronic threshold dose. The human studies on which the California acute REL is based were done with asthmatics, which represent a sensitive human subpopulation. Also, the chronic EPA RfC has a cumulative uncertainty factor of 300 (10 fo r extrapolation from a LOAEL to a NOAEL, 3 for interspecies variabi lity, and 10 for intraspecies variability) built into it. Therefore, both the acute and chronic threshold values recommended for HCl provide an ample margin of safety for use in establishing emission standards under CAA112(d)(4).

Chlorine ( Cl 2 ) It is proposed that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) acute Minimal Risk Levels (MRL) be established as the acute threshold dose. The acute no-observed-adverse-effect level (NO AEL) of 0.5 ppm was adjusted to account for continuous exposure (0.5 ppm x 8 hours/ 24 hours = 0.2 ppm). Although sensitive

individuals were tested in some of the studi es, an uncertainty factor of 3 was used to account for sensitive populations to arrive at the acute-duration inha lation MRL of 0.07 ppm (0.2 ppm/3). It is also proposed that the ATSDR chronic MRL be established as

the chronic threshold dose. An uncertain ty factor of 30 (3 for extrapolation from animals to humans with dosimetric adjustm ent and 10 for human variability) was applied to the lower 95% confidence limit predicted exposure concentration associated with a

10% extra risk to arrive at the chronic-durat ion inhalation MRL of 0.00005 ppm for Cl 2

. Therefore, both the acut e and chronic threshold values recommended for Cl 2 provide an ample margin of safety for use in estab lishing emission standards under CAA 112(d)(4).

Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) It is proposed that the California EPA (CalE PA) acute Reference Exposure Level (REL)
be established as the acute threshold dose and that the EPA RfC be established as the chronic threshold dose. The California acute REL has a cumulative uncertainty factor of 100 (10 for interspecies variability and 10 for in traspecies variability) built into it. In addition, the acute studies were done on prim ates, which represent the species most similar to man, thereby reducing uncertainty regarding toxic response. Also, the chronic EPA RfC has a cumulative uncertainty factor of 1000. A factor of 10 is used for sensitive human subpopulations, a factor of 10 is used for the lack of a NOAEL, and partial factors of 3 each are used for defic iencies in the database (lack of chronic and multigenerational reproduction studies) and for less than chronic duration. Therefore,
both the acute and chronic threshold valu es recommended for HCN provide an ample margin of safety for use in establis hing emission standards under CAA112(d)(4).

Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

It is proposed that the CalE PA acute and chronic RELs be established as threshold doses for HF. Both the acute and chroni c California RELs for HF incorporate a cumulative uncertainty factor of 10 to account for variability in human responsesEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 20

(intraspecies variability) to inhal ation exposure to HF. While th is safety factor is not as large as some, both threshold values are j udged to provide an ample margin of safety for use in establishing emission standards un der CAA112(d)(4) since the studies were conducted in human populations, thereby elimi nating much of the uncertainty regarding toxic responses. The chronic REL in parti cular is judged to be amply conservative because the human population consisted of fert ilizer plant workers who were no doubt exposed to many other chemicals simultaneously. Manganese (Mn)

No acute toxicity criteria for Mn were loca ted in the open scientific literature. It is proposed that the EPA RfC be established as t he chronic threshold dose. The chronic EPA RfC has a cumulative uncertainty factor of 1000. This uncertainty factor reflects 10 to protect sensitive individuals, 10 for us e of a LOAEL, and 10 for database limitations reflecting both the less-than-chronic periods of exposure and the lack of developmental data, as well as potential but unqu antified differences in the toxi city of different forms of Mn. Therefore, the chronic threshold value recommended for Mn provides an ample margin of safety for use in establ ishing emission standa rds under CAA112(d).

3. Health Effects Thresholds to be used for CAA112(d)(4) Emission Standards

Both acute and chronic exposure to HCl, Cl 2 and HF affect the respiratory system and the pollutants cause respiratory irritation by similar mechanisms of action (direct contact irritation of tissues at the portal of entry and persistent cellular in jury in the affected tissue). However, the critical effect on whic h the chronic toxicity criterion for HF is based is skeletal fluorosis, which occurs at lower doses than the reported respiratory effects (Hodge and Smith, 1977). Therefore, it is reco mmended that a combined acute HBEL for HCl, Cl 2 , and HF and a combined chronic HBEL for HCl and Cl 2 be established. However, a separate chroni c 112(d)(4) HBEL for HF is recommended.

While chronic exposure of workers to low concentrations of cyanide can cause respiratory symptoms, effects on the CNS system occur at lower concentrations than those at which the portal of entry (respiratory) effects oc cur. In addition, HCN has a completely different mechanism of action than HCl and HF. Therefore, HCN is not a good candidate for inclusion if a combined ac id gas standard is derived. Therefore, establishment of a single acute 112(d)(4) HBEL for HCN is recommended. Although the critical target organ for Mn is the CNS, Mn has a completely different mechanism of action from HCN. Since Mn has a different mechanism of action from HCN and affects a different target organ than HCl and HF, est ablishment of a separate chronic 112(d)(4) HBEL for Mn is indicated as well.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 21

4. How HBELs can be implemented under CAA Section 112(d)(4)

EPA has a great deal of latitude in exploring other ways to “ consider threshold levels with ample margin of safety ”. Even though the MACT are primarily technology-based standards, the intent of secti on 112(d)(4) is to allow flexibility for EPA to establish special provisions for threshold HAPs that do not contribute significant health risk. Here we provide a conceptual model of how an H BEL could be incorporated into the Boiler MACT.

Following the approach of the He alth Based Compliance Alter native of the 2004 Boiler MACT rule, HBELs could either be establis hed through conservatively-derived look-up tables (Tier 1 HBEL) or a facility could develop a site-specific HBEL based on modeling following EPA guidance (EPA, 2004) (Tier 2 H BEL). A facility would need to certify through fuel analysis or source testing that its boiler emissions meet the corresponding HBEL. Alternatively, limits for HCl and other pollutants that are al ready established in a facility’s air permit could be used in lieu of HBELs.

Toxicity Considerations in Developing HBELs

Because it is acknowledged that some of the HAPs subject to HBELs may have overlapping health effects, rather than c onsidering only individual HAP exposure, the concept of Target Organ Specific Hazard Index (TOSHI) following U.S. EPA Guidance (EPA 2004) may be appropriate in some instances. The hazard index concept inherently assumes that potential health effects due to simultaneous exposure are additive. [This method was applied in the 2004 Boiler MACT HBCA where the effects of
Cl 2 and HCl were assumed to be additive by co mputing HCl toxic equivalent emissions. Although not elaborated in these comments, it is inherently a ssumed, that this same or similar approach for combining effects of Cl 2 and HCl effects is appropriate.] As noted above, adding the health effects is appropriate for the acute heal th effects of the primary HAP acid gases from solid fuel industrial boilers, HCl, Cl 2 .and HF, and adding chronic
effects of HCl and Cl 2 is also appropriate. For inst ance, following the TOSHI concept, the development of acute HBELs for acid gases can consider combined emissions of HCl, Cl 2 and HF, and development of chronic HBELs can consider combined emissions
HCl and Cl 2 based on toxicity weighted emissions. In this case, an HCl acid gas toxicity-weighted short-term emission rate c an be defined as the emission rate of HCl +
the emission rate of Cl 2 x Threshold of HCl /Threshold of Cl 2 + the emission rate of HF x
Threshold of HCl /Threshold of HF.

Establishment of separate chronic 112(d)(4 ) HBEL for HF and HCN is supported since the critical effect/target organ on which the chronic toxicity cr iteria are based is different for the two acid gases and the mechanism of action is different as well. Because MnEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 22

health effects and mechanisms of action can be differentiated from other HAPs, HBELs for Mn should be established independently.

Tier 1 HBELs – Based on Physical Parameters using Look-up Tables

The HBELs could take the form of a limited number of alternativ e HAP emissions limits that would be based on simple physical paramet ers related to dispersion. These limits would be set in such a way that there w ould be no health effects due to inhalation of specified threshold HAPs such as acid gas es (primarily hydrogen chloride) and metals

such as Mn.

EPA could develop Tier 1 HBELs based on scr eening-level dispersion modeling that conservatively relates maximum off-site conc entrations associated with all Boiler MACT sources at a facility. A separate HBEL would apply to each facility based on the combination of physical stack paramet ers from each subject boiler.

The physical parameters incorporated into the screening-level modeling used to develop the tables should include the basic parameters that gover n the dispersion and

are. These include:

• Source characteristics, such as st ack height and building height for each MACT
source;

• Distance to property line;

• Maximum height of on-site structures;

• Presence of highest nearby terrain (e.g., within 5 km).

Tier 1 HBELs look-up tables would account for various combinations of these physical parameters. Because the look-up tabl es are based on screeni ng-level dispersion models, such as SCREEN3 or AERSCREEN, t hat are designed to be conservative, this would provide the “ample margin of safety ” as required by 112(d)(4). Thus, EPA can assure that compliance with the Tier 1 HBEL s will mean that actual concentrations to which the public could be exposed are below established health effects threshold levels. The screening modeling that EPA would use to develop Tier 1 HBELs may address both chronic (annual average) and acute (max imum 1-hour) threshold effects, as appropriate. The determination of whether HBELs are appropriate for acute effects, chronic effects or both types of effects dep ends on whether an acute or chronic effect for a threshold HAP is universally dem onstrated to be more limiting. EPA may conclude, as it did in 2004, that protecti on against chronic health effects will inherently safeguard against acute health effects. An ex ample of the possible structure of Tier 1 HBEL look-up tables is provided in Appendix H to these comments.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 23

Tier 2 HBELs – Based on Site-specific Dispersion Modeling

If facility boiler emissions exceed the conser vatively derived Tier 1 HBELs or if the regulatory agency judges that the physical layout or dispersion environment of the site make it inappropriate to apply the Tier 1 HBEL look-up tables, a facility would conduct site-specific dispersion modeling. Site s pecific modeling would use source specific stack parameters and apply EPA ’s state-of-the-science dis persion model AERMOD with five years of representative meteorological data. Model receptor s could be placed at the boundary and in a specified gr id representing off-site loca tions out to 5 km or could use site-specific receptor locations such as have been previously established for ambient air quality modeling.

In this modeling, the combined impact of th e specific HBEL HAPs would be modeled for the appropriate averaging times (1-hour for acute and annual average for chronic) and compared to established health effects benchmarks, such as those provided in Section B, Table 1 of these comments. As noted, to address acute effects of acid gases, it is appropriate to add the hazard quotients (HQ) (modeled concent ration divided by health effects threshold) for HCl, Cl 2 , and HF to compute a haz ard index (HI) for acute respiratory effects. A HI < 1. 0 indicates that there is no incremental health effect. To address chronic effects of acid gases, it is appropriate to add the HQs (modeled concentration divided by health effects threshold) for HCl and Cl 2 to compute a hazard index (HI) for chronic respiratory effects. As noted, for chronic effects of HF, HCN and Mn it is appropriate to evaluate threshold effects separately for each pollutant. To establish HBELs for each boiler, the facilit y would use the modeling to determine the combination of peak 1-hour and annual average emi ssion rates that result in a HI or HQ of 1.0. Thus, if emissions from each s ubject boiler are less than these site-specific HBELs it will be assured that exposure will not exceed health effects thresholds as required under CAA Section 112(d)(4).



### D. Consideration of Overlapping Impacts of and Background HAPs for HCl

Among the reasons cited by EPA for not proposing the HBEL for HCl in the 2010 Boiler MACT rule is the belief that impacts from other sources at the sa me facility or nearby facilities may need to be considered in evaluati ng risk. As noted above, the language of CAA Section 112(d)(4) indicates that only the potential threshold health effects from the
MACT source should be considered. Furt hermore combined risk sources from various MACT categories should be considered under the residual risk program, after MACT standards have been promulgated and implemented. Howeve r, even if an HBEL analysis were to consider these cumulative exposures, the effe ct would be minimalEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 24

because the evidence indicates that the potenti al incremental risk added as a result of overlapping plumes is very small.

The chief acid gas HAPs emitt ed from most industrial boilers are chiefly HCl (since most

elemental chlorine in fuel is converted to HCl during combustion) and HF. A review of TRI 2008 data (excluding EGUs, chemical pl ants, and metal mining) indicates that 77.3% of acid HAP gas emissions are HCl, 22.4 % are HF and only 0. 3% are HCN. As noted, the threshold effects of acid gases ar e dissimilar to other HAPs and, therefore, these can be considered separately from other HAPs using EPA’s TOSHI concept. At most types of industrial facilities that have s ubstantial emissions of acid gases, solid fuel boilers subject to the boiler MACT (or ot her MACT such as the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT) are the only significant sour ce of these emissions. Because it is unlikely that there would be a substantial co ntribution of acid gas HAP emissions that are not regulated under the boiler MACT at most facilities, it should not generally be necessary to consider non boiler MACT s ources in establishing HBELs.

Another consideration potentia lly affecting HBEL developm ent is whether boiler MACT source impacts from nearby facilities over lap. Even if this were applicable under CAA 112(d)(4), dispersion modeling shows t hat maximum impact short-term and annual average concentrations of non-reactive pol lutants associated with boiler emissions generally occur within 1 km and fall off rapidly with distance. This limits the range at which appreciable concentrations of these gas es are transported. Because acid gases are highly soluble, react with ammonia t he ambient air, and are rapidly deposited through wet and dry deposition, the range of ground-level concentrations is much more

limited than for non-reactive pollutants. Theref ore, unless there are boilers at an immediately adjacent facility, it is highly unlikely that impacts would overlap to the extent

that it would materia lly affect the HBEL.

There is no evidence that background concentra tions of HCl are at appreciable levels from a public health perspective. A limit ed number of ambient measurement studies have shown that ambient concentrations, even in highly urbanized areas, are very low. A long-term measurement study of ambient ac id gas concentrations in New York City (Bari et al 2003) indicate s an average of about 0.5 μg/m 3 , which is only 2.5% of the chronic RfC (Reference Concentration). Thus , there is little basis for adjusting the HBEL to adjust for background conc entrations of acid HAP gases.

A study of HCl emissions and im pacts from utility boilers (H arkov 1999) concludes that, even in the vicinity of major sources of HCl, ambient concentrations are very low. This report states:EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 25

“In the atmosphere, HCl is fa irly short-lived...since it is very soluble and reacts readily with ammonia (NH 3 ) or alkaline cations such as Ca or K to form chloride salts. Therefore, even though the mass of HCl emitted may be substantial, the actual impacts of these emissions may not be significant. For example, data from the National Atmospheric Depos ition Program (NADP 1998) National Trends Network deposition monitoring netwo rk over the years indicates that chloride ion deposition is strongly influenced by sea salts, rather than simply point sources of HCl emissions... EPA did not identify exceedances of any HCl

health-based standards in the health risk studies reported in the Utility HAP Report (EPA 1998a).”

The conclusion is that evaluation of non-boi ler MACT, multiple facility and background do not need to be considered in establishing HBELs for acid HAP gases.

Another assertion in the proposed Boiler MACT rule is that control of HCl emissions

from solid fuel boilers will reduce acidic deposition. A map of chloride deposition in 1997 (from Harkov, 1999) illustrates that t here is no correlation between chloride deposition and distance from coal fired power plants in the Ohio Valley or industrial areas in the Midwest but is instead is related to the influence of sea salt, especially in the Pacific Northwest, New England and Souther n Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Thus, there is no indication that HCl depos ition from major point so urce emissions contribute materially to chloride deposit ion or acidification.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 26



### E. Realistic but Suitably Conser vative Emission Rate Assumptions Can be Used to Estimate Compliance with Acute and Chronic
HBELs

In establishing compliance with HBELs, a fac ility will need to estimate upper-limit shortterm emissions to assess acute threshold health effects and annual average emissions to assess chronic threshold effects. Realis tic, yet conservative, HAP emission rate assumptions should be used in determini ng compliance with HBELs under 112(d)(4)
rather than across-the-board worst-case assumptions because using worst-case emission assumptions will materially overes timate both chronic and acute risk. EPA contends that a reason not to include a risk opti on such as HBEL is that there is lack of available data for HAP emissions from boile r sources. Although care must be taken in estimating emissions, for the HAPs under c onsideration, standardized methods could be established to develop suitably conservative emission estimates based either on fuel
data or emission tests.

If fuel testing is used, emissions for HCl, Cl 2 , HF, and Mn may be conservatively estimated based on knowledge of fuel type, m easured fuel concentrations and use rate, assuming 100% of the HAP is released to the atmosphere. If source testing is used it will automatically account for a degree of HAP removal through bottom ash, andEPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 27

emission controls. Because it is recognized t hat a single fuel sample or source test may not be representative of the long-term average, multiple fuel samples taken over an established period could be required. If a boiler has variable fuel sources,(e.g., coal from different mines or various types of wood), a number of samples from each source type would also be required. The variability of emissions would then be used following standardized data analysis methods to estimate the 95 th percentile average emission factor to be used in the chronic HBEL compliance determination and combined with permitted annual fuel use. To account for short-term (hour-by hour) fluctuations the maximum hourly fuel use could be applied, al ong with a statistical estimate of the 95 th percentile concentration for each HAP to es timate emissions for the acute HBEL.

This method of evaluating short-term fluctuat ions is highly conservative because the modeling used to develop the HBELs implicit ly assumes that a source continuously emits each HAP at its 95 th percentile maximum emission ra te and that the worst-case emissions occur concurrently with worst-case dispersion conditions (Paine and Heinold 2010). The degree to which this highly c onservative assumption affects HBEL certification depends on whether the acute H BEL or the chronic HB EL is limiting.

A similar procedure can be applied based on s ource test data. In the case where emission controls are in-place, the sour ce could have the option of measuring
uncontrolled or controlled emi ssions. If emission controls are used during the source test, additional parameters rela ted to the control device w ould need to me monitored.



### F. References for HBEL comments:

ATSDR, 2008. Toxicologica l Profile for Manganese. http://www.atsdr.cdc.go v/ToxProfiles/tp151.pdf

.
Bari, A., V. Ferraro, L. Wils on, D, Luttinger, L. Husain, 2003, Measurements of Gaseous HONO, HNO 3 , SO 2 , HCl, NH 3 , Particulate Sulfate and PM 2.5 in New York, NY, Atmos. Environ. 37, 2825-2835.

CalEPA, 2008a. California Envi ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment. Appendix D. 2 Acute RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA 1999). http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

. CalEPA, 2008b. California Envi ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental
Health and Hazard Assessment. Appendix D.3 Chronic RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines (OEHHA 1999). http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

. CalEPA, 2008c. California Envi ronmental Protection Agency. Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment. Appendix D. Individual Acute, 8-Hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Level Summaries h ttp://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html

.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 28

CCRIS. Chemical Carcinogenesis Re search Information System. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search

. Crossgrove, J. and Zheng, W., 2004. Re view Article Manganese toxicity upon overexposure. NMR Biomed. 2004;17:544–553 Publis hed online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley. com). DOI:10.1002/nbm.931.

Harkov, Ronald, 1999. Hydrogen Chloride ( HCl) Emissions from Maryland Utility Boilers, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Mary land Power Plant Research Program, June.

IPCS, 1982. International Pr ogramme On Chemical Safety . Environmental Health Criteria 21 Chlorine an d Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ ehc/ehc21.htm#SubSectionNumber:6.2.4

. National Atmospheric Deposit ion Program (NRSP- 3)/National Trends Network. 1998. NADP Program Office, Illinois State Water Survey, 2204 Griffith Drive., Champaign, IL.

EPA, 1998. Summary Review of Health E ffects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds. Health Issue Assessmen t. EPA600/8-89/002F. December, 1998.

EPA. 1998a. Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility

Steam Generating Units-Fi nal Report to Congress . EPA-453/R-98-004a.

EPA, 2004. Air Toxics Risk Assessment Referenc e Library: Volume 2 Facility-Specific Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy, Office of Air Qu ality Planning and Standards (EPA-453-K-04-001B) http://www. epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol2.html , April.

EPA, 2004a. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boile rs and Process Heaters: Final Rule

EPA, 2004b. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boile rs and Process Heaters: Final Rule

EPA, 2005. National Emission Standards for Haza rdous Air Pollutants: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants fo r Hazardous Waste Combustors

EPA, 2010. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and In stitutional Boilers and Process heaters; Proposed Rule.

Hodge, H.C. and Smith, F.A.: Occupational Fluoride Exposur e. J. Occup. Med. 19:12– 39 (1977).

HSDB, 2010. Hazardous Substance Databa nk. http://toxne t.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB

.EPA–HQ–OAR–2002-0058 – HBEL Se ction of AF&PA comments August 23, 2010 Page 29

IPCS, 1982. International Pr ogramme On Chemical Safety . Environmental Health Criteria 21 Chlorine and HCl. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ ehc/ehc21.htm#SubSectionNumber:6.2.4

. IRIS, 2010. Integrated Risk Information S ystem. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/htmlgen?IRIS

.
Paine, R. and D. Hein old. Consideration of Emissions Variability in Modeling Short-Term Concentrations. Paper 751, presented at the 103 rd Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (2010).

Santamaria, A.B. 2008. M anganese exposure, essentiality & toxicity Indian J Med Res
128: 484-500.

### Appendix H – Tier I HBEL Lookup Tables

Example Instructions for the Applicati on of Tier 1 HBEL Look-up Tables that account for stack height, property boundary di stance, building height and terrain

1. Compute HAP Emissions for each MACT boiler unit at a facility.

2. Determine the minimum stack height and distance to property boundary among MACT boilers.

3. Perform Good Engineering Practice (GEP) Stack Height analysis following EPA guidance. Compare GEP height to each boiler stack height.

4. If one or more boilers is less than G EP height, divide GEP stack height by 2.5 to determine effective building heigh t to be applied in the table.

5. Use stack height, building height and boundary distance to determine HBEL value from Table Xa.

6. If all stack heights are above highest te rrain within 5 km: Tier 1 HBEL = HBEL from Table Xa. If one or more stack heights are below highest terrain within 5 km, proceed to step 7.

7. Determine closest distance to terrain t hat is at or above minimum stack height.

8. Look-up HBEL-b from Table Xb

9. Tier 1 HBEL = lesser of HBEL from Table Xa and HBEL from Table XbTable Xa HAP1 HBEL (lb/hr) (according to stack height, boundary distance and building height)

Distance to Property Boundary (m)

Stack
Height Effective 0 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000
Building

(m) Height (m)
5 NA 115 115 115 115 115 115 114 287 373 373 373 373

10 NA 189 189 189 189 189 189 195 328 433 433 433 433

20 8 386 386 386 386 386 386 386 425 580 603 603 603

30 12 396 396 396 396 396 396 396 436 596 691 808 817

30 20 307 307 307 307 307 307 307 338 462 535 626 632

30 30 251 251 251 251 251 251 251 276 377 437 511 516

40 16 408 408 408 408 408 408 408 448 613 716 832 966

40 20 365 365 365 365 365 365 365 401 549 640 744 864

40 30 298 298 298 298 298 298 298 327 448 523 608 705

40 40 258 258 258 258 258 258 258 283 388 453 526 611

50 20 421 421 421 421 421 421 421 461 631 746 858 1003

50 30 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 376 515 609 701 819

50 40 298 298 298 298 298 298 298 326 446 528 607 709

50 50 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 291 399 472 543 634

60 24 436 436 436 436 436 436 436 473 649 779 885 1043

60 30 390 390 390 390 390 390 390 423 580 696 792 933

60 40 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 367 503 603 686 808

60 60 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 299 410 492 560 660

70 28 450 450 450 450 450 450 450 487 667 814 912 1087

70 40 377 377 377 377 377 377 377 407 558 681 763 910

70 50 337 337 337 337 337 337 337 364 499 609 683 814

70 70 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 308 422 515 577 688

80 32 466 466 466 466 466 466 466 500 686 850 941 1135

80 40 416 416 416 416 416 416 416 447 613 760 842 1015

80 60 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 365 501 621 687 829

80 80 294 294 294 294 294 294 294 316 434 537 595 718

100 40 498 498 498 498 498 498 498 527 724 917 1001 1241

100 60 406 406 406 406 406 406 406 431 591 749 817 1014

100 80 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 373 512 648 708 878

100 100 315 315 315 315 315 315 315 334 458 580 633 785

200 80 677 677 677 677 677 677 677 682 920 1167 1390 1925

200 100 606 606 606 606 606 606 606 610 823 1044 1244 1721

200 150 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 498 672 852 1015 1406

200 200 428 428 428 428 428 428 428 432 582 738 879 1217

Table Xb HAP1 HBEL (lb/hr) (according to st ack height and distance to elevated terrain)

Distance to Off-site Terrain Above Stack Top (m) Stack
Height 50 100 150 200 250 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 5000
(m)

5 57 57 57 57 57 57 144 187 187 187 187

10 94 94 94 94 94 98 164 216 216 216 216

20 193 193 193 193 193 193 213 290 301 301 301

30 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 218 298 345 404

40 204 204 204 204 204 204 204 224 307 358 416

50 211 211 211 211 211 211 211 230 316 373 429

60 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 237 325 389 443

70 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 243 334 407 456

80 233 233 233 233 233 233 233 250 343 425 470

100 249 249 249 249 249 249 249 264 362 459 501

200 339 339 339 339 339 339 339 341 460 584 695

# TAB 4January 20, 2011 Non-Hazardous Solid Materials Rule

As our nation struggles to re cover from the recession and t he unemployment rate lingers at historic levels, non-hazardous solid waste ru les that are central to Clean Air Act rules covering boilers could be unsustainable for U.S. manufacturing and the high-paying jobs it provides. Greater flexibility is needed to avoid unintended consequences.

Background :

As EPA develops rules for boilers, the Agency must also determine which combusted materials are fuels and which are solid wastes . Fuels may be burned in regulated boilers under the Boiler Maximum Achiev able Control Technology (MACT) but solid waste must be burned in units regulated under another, more onerous and stigmatizing provision of the Clean Air Act (section 129 for Commercial and Industr ial Solid Waste Incinerators -- CISWI). EPA is using its authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
make decisions about which materials ar e solid wastes and which are not.

As energy costs rise and the nation moves towa rds alternative fuels, boiler owners continue
to evaluate materials that can s ubstitute for traditional fossil fuel s. Materials that were once considered expendable, such as used tires, are now being routi nely used as energy sources. Other materials, such as biom ass residues from the manufacture of lumber, wood panels and paper making, have always been considered va luable commodities – whether used in production processes or for their fuel value. Many of these materials when burned are
carbon-neutral.

Boiler owners do not want their combustion units to be classified as solid waste incinerators because of the stigma associated with burning wastes. The public has a very negative view of waste incinerators and fights their permitting in their towns. Mills are likely to stop using non-traditional fuels rather than have to c ope with the millions in added costs associated with CISWI regulations and public opposition. Co llection and processing of these residuals creates jobs that will be lost if EPA doesn’ t retain these materials as fuels.

EPA appears to be taking a very narrow view of which materials are fuels and which are solid wastes. EPA has legal authority under RCRA, s upported by numerous court decisions, to classify a wide range of materials as non- wastes and thus appropriately regulated under Boiler MACT.

Policy Position :

AF&PA supports the broadest definition of secondary materials as fuels eligible to be burned in boilers. This approach reduces our dependenc e on foreign oil, relies on a renewable resource and increases the use of carbon-neutral fuels – all national priorities. Furthermore, increasing the use of non-tradi tional fuels keeps energy costs down which enhances competitiveness while protecting and creating j obs. AF&PA is prepared to work with the EPA to protect both public health and jobs while us ing the flexibility of RCRA to come up with workable policies.

# TAB 51 Summary of International Emissi on Limits for Industrial Boilers
December 2010

Key Findings

Environmental regulatory programs vary acro ss the globe. Each country has a unique set of laws and procedures to implement a nd ultimately enforce these requirements. Programs aimed at protecting air quality have evolved substantially over the last several
decades in the United States and the rest of the world. At the same time, economies have changed dramatically with globalizati on and the increasingly competitive world marketplace. The rise of imports into the U.S. and the decline of exports raise significant concerns about the sustainability of the U. S. manufacturing sector and the jobs it supports. This document summarizes availa ble information on air emissions standards for boilers in various countries and regions , such as the European Union, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, China, India, Sout h Korea, Brazil, and South Africa.

Of the countries examined in this review , the proposed EPA limits under the Industrial
Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technol ogy (Boiler MACT) ru le would be the most stringent limits on emissions from boilers from a number of perspectives. First, the U.S. has the only legislation that regulate s 187 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). This includes the five categories of emissions re gulated by the Boiler MACT rules proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): metallic HAPs whose surrogate is particulate matter (PM); acid gases such as hydrochloric acid (HCl); mercury (Hg); organic HAPs whose control surrogate is car bon monoxide (CO); and dioxin/furans. The European Union regulates some of th ese pollutants, but th eir program does not directly regulate mercury emission limits fr om boilers. The EU regulates only CO and PM from gas-fired boilers, not other HAPs. Other countries typically limit only PM emissions from boilers, and typically do not re gulate emissions from gas-fired boilers.
Those countries that have PM emission limits are concerned with the fine PM health concerns, not metallic HAPs per se (for which PM is a surrogate in EPA’s Boiler MACT proposal), with the possible ex ception of the transboundary pollu tion directive in the EU.

Second, the U.S. and the EU have the tightes t emission limits for boilers and have the only limits for gas-fired boilers. Additionall y, the U.S. and EU are alone in having a focus on existing units. Although emissions limits in the EU are comparable to those in the proposed Boiler MACT, EU Directives have significantly more flexibility incorporated into them, such as the abili ty to include site-s pecific factors when establishing pollutant limits in permits, and th e exclusion of periods of start-up, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) in determining comp liance with emissions limits. The EU guidelines for establishing emission limits are based on what availabl e combinations of control technologies are gene rally capable of achieving, no t based on what a hypothetical best performing boiler could achieve on a pollu tant-by-pollutant basis, which EPA uses to set its MACT standards. Furthermore, the enforcement system in the U.S. is unique in its litigious nature, role of c itizen suits, inflexibility in remedies if standards or even2 paperwork requirements are not met, impl ementation timeframes and significant penalties.

Table ES1 summarizes emissions limits for coun tries included in this review. The table makes clear that EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT is the most strict boiler regulation of all
the countries reviewed. This raises serious co ncern that, if finalized in its current form, EPA’s proposed Boiler MACT rule would crea te an unlevel play ing field for U.S. manufacturers compared with their international competition.

ES1. Summary of Regulated Compounds Country PM HCl Hg CO Dioxin/Furan European Union = - N = -

New Zealand - N N N N
Australia - N N N N

Canada N N N N N
China - N N N N
India - N - N N
South Korea - N N N N
South Africa - N N N N
Brazil - N N - N
Russian Federation - N N N N
Dominica - N N - N
Indonesia - N N N N
Jamaica - N N N N

Japan - N N N N Malaysia - N N N N
Thailand - N N N N Republic of Trinidad and Tobago - N N N N
Tasmania - N N N N

Turkey - N N N N
Vietnam - N N N N

“-“ means less stringent than U.S. “=” means comparable limit to U.S. “N” means not regulated3 Compendium of Competitor Nation Clean Air Standards

The following is a more detailed analysis of a dozen combustion source air emissions standards for key competitors of U.S. manufacturing.

European Union

The Integrated Pollution Prevention and C ontrol (IPPC) Directive, promulgated in November 2010, sets more stringent limits for boilers specifically. 1,2 The limits in this
directive are summarized in Table 3. 3 Compliance is required for new sources by 2012 and for existing sources by 2016, unless the source will shut down by 2023.

Table 3. Emissions limits for dust for existing bo ilers using solid or liquid fuels with the exception of gas turbines and gas engines

Total Rated

Thermal

Input Coal and Lignite Biomass and Peat Liquid Fuels

mg/Nm 3 mg/Nm 3 lb/MMBtu a mg/Nm 3 lb/MMBtu a

50-100 30 30 0.017 30 0.016
100-300 25 20 0.011 25 0.013

> 300 20 20 0.011 20 0.011

a Conversion from mg/Nm 3 to lb/MMBtu for assumes biomass f factor of 9600 dscf/MMBtu liquid f factor
of 9190 dscf/MMBtu.

These values are comparable to the U.S. EPA’s proposed existing source MACT limits
for biomass and coal boilers (0.02 lb/MMBtu), but higher than the proposed new source biomass boiler PM limits (0.008 lb/MMBtu), much higher than the proposed new source coal boiler PM limits (0.001 lb/MMBtu), a nd higher than the proposed existing and new liquid boiler PM limits (0.004 lb/MMBtu existing and 0.002 lb/MMBtu new).

Table 4. Emissions limits for dust for new boile rs using solid or liquid fuels with the exception of gas turbines and gas engines

Total Rated Thermal Input (MW) Emissions limit (mg/Nm 3 ) (lb/MMBtu)
50 - 300 20 0.011

> 300 10 0.006 > 300 for biomass and peat 20 0.011

The directive also contains a provision that strengthens the role of best available technology (BAT) in establishing emission limit values in permits. Specifically, the

1 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control. Janurary 15, 2008. LINK. Accessed September 27, 2010.

2 Council of the European Union. Interinstitutional file 2007/0286 (COD). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) – Outcome of the European Par liament’s second readin g. July 12, 2010.

3 All emissions limit values are calculated at 273.15 K, 101.3 kPa, and after correction for water vapor content at an oxygen content of 6% for solid fuels, 3% for combustion plants other than gas turbines and gas engines using liquid and gaseous fuels.4 directive states that the permit granting body (competent authority) may set emission limit values (ELV) that differ from the emissi on levels associated with BAT values in terms of values, time periods, and reference conditions in the event that geography or
technical considerations re nder achieving BAT disproportiona tely expensive considering
the environmental benefits. Ultimatel y, however, emissions monitoring must
demonstrate that emissions do not exceed BAT.

Additionally, the directiv e contains the following provisions that render it more flexible than the U.S. EPA proposed Boiler MACT.

• If applying an emission level associated with BAT will be overly expensive compared to the environmental benefits, competent authorities should be able to
set limits that deviate from the BAT em ission limits values based on well-defined
criteria. The emissions levels in th e directive, though, can not be exceeded.

• If an operator is testing a promisi ng new pollution control technique, the competent authority should grant tempor ary deviations from emissions levels
based on BAT.

• Within 24 hours of a malfunction, a com bustion plant should cease operation or use low-polluting fuels. Unabated oper ation should not exceed 120 hours in a 12- month period. If there is an overriding need for en ergy or the possibility of avoiding an overall emissions increase through operating another combustion plant to meet that need, the competent authority can grant a deviation from the
emissions limits.

• Member states can allow coverage of two or more partial or whole installations under one permit. Each entity under a pe rmit must comply with the Directive’s requirements.

• Emission limits based on BAT should not pr escribe the use of any one particular technology to meet those limits.

• Compliance with the emission limit values is considered achieved if none of the arithmetic averages of readings taken ove r a 24-hour period exceed the limit. The averaging period does not include times of start up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Therefore, European installations are not penalized for emitting at levels higher than those in the Di rective during times of SSM.

The large combustion plant directive BREF 4 contains a chapter on combustion techniques for biomass and peat. Table 5 contains the emission limit values (ELV) that the chapter specifies beyond PM.

4 European Commission Joint Research Center. In tegrated Pollution Prevention and Control Reference Document on Best Available Techniques for Large Combustion Plants. July 2006. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refere nce/brefdownload/download_LCP.cfm . Accessed October 11, 2010.5 Table 5. Emission Limit Values from Large Combustion Plant BREF and in the Proposed
Boiler MACT

Pollutant Emission Limit
Value Emission Limit Value U.S. EPA Proposed Values

Carbon Monoxide 50-250 mg/Nm 3 40 – 200 ppmv at 7%
O 2 40 – 560 ppmv at
7% O 2 Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen
Chloride b < 25 mg/Nm 3 0.014 lb/MMBtu a 0.004 – 0.006
lb/MMBtu

Ammonia 5 mg/Nm 3 0.003 lb/MMBtu a N/A

Dioxins and Furans c 0.1 mg/Nm 3 9.47E+04 ng/dscm 0.0003 - 0.003 ng/dscm a Conversion from mg/Nm 3 to lb/MMBtu assumes biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu. b Additional values are established for combustion plants using straw as a fuel.
c Conversion from Nm 3 to dscm assumes 1 Nm 3 = 1.056 dscm.

The range of ELV for carbon monoxide is comparable to U.S. EPA proposed limits. The U.S. EPA proposed standards for hydrogen chlo ride and dioxin are much tighter than those proposed in the EU.

An agreement on the long-range transboundary ai r pollution from heavy metals in the EU limits particulate matter (as a proxy for hea vy metals, including mercury) to 50 mg/m 3 (0.028 lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f fact or of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu) from combustion
installations with a net rated thermal input exceeding 50 MW. 5 This limit is less stringent
than that in the IPPC Directive.

Individual permit limits can be different fr om those in the BAT and/or directive as discussed above. For example, one French pulp and paper mill has the following emissions limits in its permit, which was issued in 2009. 6 The ELVs for this plant that are established for pollutants the Boil er MACT regulates are in Table 6.

Table 6. Emission Limit Values fo r French Pulp and Paper Mill
Pollutant Emissions Limit Unit

PM – Filt 0.04 lb/MMBtu Mercury 4.5 E-05 lb/MMBtu CO 230 ppm @ 3% O 2

Of these limits, the CO limit is more stringent than the proposed EPA limit (560 ppm @
3% O 2 ).

Further, individual countries interpret each directive and can set different emissions limits. Germany has set the PM emission limits in Table 7 for installations generating

5 2001/379/EC: Council Decision of 4 April 2001 on the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Heavy Metals.

6 Email from Glenn Rives, International Paper to Amy Marshall, URS dated October 15, 2010.6 electricity through the combusti on of coal, coke, coal brique ttes, peat briquettes, fuel peat, or untreated wood with a rated thermal i nput of less than 50 MW. 7

Table 7. PM Emission Limits from Combustion of Solid Fuels in Germany

Rated Thermal Input Emission Limits (mg/m3) (lb/MMBtu) a

≥ 5 MW 20 mg/m 3 0.011

≤ 5 MW 50 mg/m 3 0.028 < 2.5 MW using exclusively untreated wood 100 mg/m 3 0.055

a Assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.

The German regulation also limits CO emissions to 0.15 g/m 3 (0.083 lb/MMBtu). If the furnace has a rated thermal input below 2.5 MW, the emission standard applies only to normal operating conditions (e.g., not during SS M). Further, when untreated wood is used, organic substances, measured as to tal carbon, should not exceed a limit of 10 mg/m 3 , which is significantly higher than the proposed emissions le vels in the Boiler
MACT.

If straw or similar plant matter is used, the PM emissions limit is 20 mg/m 3 (0.011 lb/MMBtu) for installa tions with rated thermal inputs above 1 MW. For installations with thermal input below 1 MW, a limit of 50 mg/m 3 (0.028 lb/MMBtu) applies. Carbon monoxide emissions must be below 0.25 mg/m 3 (0.0001 lb/MMBtu). The organic substance emissions limit is 50 mg/m 3 (0.028 lb/MMBtu).

Existing sources must comply with these lim its within eight years after the legislation
became effective.

These emission standards are in line with thos e in the IPPC Directive for installations with rated thermal input exceeding 5 MW. Germany, however, limits emissions from
smaller installations than the EU-wide Directive.

Luxembourg develops permits based on the strongest local regul ations and on the
German TA –Luft. 10 The emissions limit on CO from fuel oil-fired boilers is 100 mg/m 3 or 87 ppmv. 8 The corresponding limit for CO in the boiler MACT is 1 ppmv.

New Zealand

Historically, PM emissions limits in New Zealand for PM were 250 mg/m 3 (0.139 lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f factor of 9600 dscf/MMBtu) for new boilers and 500 mg/m 3 (0.278 lb/MMBtu) for existing boile rs. Currently, a limit of 125 mg/m 3 (0.069 lb/MMBtu) is typical for new boilers. 9 One report, however, indicates that there have

7 First General Administrative Regulation Pertaining to the Federal Imission Control Act (Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control – TA Luft). July 30, 2002.

8 Email from Alan Turner, DuPont to John deRuyter, DuPont, dated November 2, 2010.

9 Email from Rhys Kevern, URS to Amy Marshall, URS dated September 24, 2010.7 been limits on TSP for boilers, but not generally PM 10

. 10 It seems in general, however,
that limits on new installations are determined on a case-by-case basis. 11 These limits are much higher than the proposed U.S. EPA Boiler MACT limits.

Australia

In New South Wales state of Australia, in-stack concentrations of pollutants are subject to
limits. 12 The limit depends on the age of the equipment/facility, which determines into which group the equipment/facility falls. The following two tables lay out both the groupings and the emissions limits.

Table 8. New South Wales emitting facility groupings 13
Group Year of commencement

1 Before 1972
2 1972-1979
3 1979-1986
4 1987-1997
5 1997-2005
6 After 2005

Table 9. Limits for solid particle (total) emissions 14 for any activity or plant using a liquid
or solid standard fuel or a non-standard fuel

Group Limit (mg/m 3 ) Limit (lb/MMBtu)*

1 400 0.222 2, 3, or 4 250 0.139
5 100 0.056
6 50 0.028
* Assuming a biomass f factor of 9600 dscf/MMBtu.

10 Environment Ltd. Improving PM 10 Emission Factors from Industrial Boilers in New Zealand – Stage 1. July 2008. http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf _file/0009/96093/Wilton-et-al-2008.pdf . Accessed September 27, 2010.

11 New Zealand Ministry for the Environment. Good Pr actice Guide for Assessing Discharges to Air from Industry. June 2008. http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/a ir/assessing-discharges-air-industryjun08/assessing-discharges-air-industry-jun08.pdf . Accessed September 27, 2010.

12 Email from Rhys Watson, URS to Amy Marshall, URS dated September 24, 2010.

13 New South Whales Government. http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/ view/inforce/subordleg+428+2010+cd+0+N . Accessed September 27, 2010.

14 New South Whales Government. http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/ view/inforce/subordleg+428+2010+cd+0+N . Accessed September 27, 2010.8 Victoria State’s State Environment Protecti on Policy regulates industrial air emissions including those from boilers. 15 It depends on site-specific factors but there are indicatorspecific maximum emission limits for new and ex isting stationary sour ces. If the boiler meets receptor limits, the generic limits are generally met. The emissions limit for total particulate matter emissions from stati onary sources in Victoria are 0.5 g/m 3 (0.278 lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f factor of 9600 dscf/MMBtu). 16 In air quality control regions, that limit drops to 0.25 g/m 3 (0.139 lb/MMBtu).

The Group 6 emission rate is slightly highe r than the U.S. EPA’s proposed existing
source MACT limits for biomass and coal boilers , but quite a bit higher than the proposed
new source biomass and coal boiler PM limits.

Canada

Canada does not have national limits on PM em issions from boilers. In Ontario, sulfur fuel content is limited to one percent. 17

China

China implemented Environmental Protec tion Law in 1989. This Law contains the following (Tables 10 and 11) limits for controll ed and uncontrolled boilers that are coalfired. 18 The limits were converted to lb/MMBtu assuming that similar limits would apply
to biomass-fired boilers.

Table 10. China mainland emission limits for controlled boilers

Boiler Type Applicable
Area Emission Standard (mg/m 3 )*** Emission Standard (lb/MMBtu)***

Period I** Period
II** Period I** Period
II**
Natural
Circulation (< 0.7 MW (1 t/h)) Zone 1 100 80 0.055 0.044

Zone 2,3* 150 120 0.083 0.066

Other Boilers Zone 1* 100 80 0.055 0.044
Zone 2* 250 200 0.138 0.110
Zone 3* 350 250 0.193 0.138

15 Email from Timothy Routley, URS to Amy Marshall, URS dated September 24, 2010.

16 Victoria Government. Environment Protection Act of 1970. State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management). http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.n sf/d85500a0d7f5f07b4a2565d1002268f3/249fd0306cb8a 9d5ca256b43007ba829/$FILE/829.pdf . Accessed September 27, 2010.

17 Government of Ontario. http://www.canlii.org/en/on /laws/regu/rro-1990-reg-3 38/latest/rro-1990-reg338.html . Accessed September 27, 2010.

18 IEA Clean Coal Center. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/ieaco al/databases/worldwide-emissionstandards/china-volume-2 ?. Accessed September 27, 2010.9 * Zones are defined in China’s ‘Air Quality Standards (GB 3095-1996) ** Emission limit values for period I apply to boile rs that began operation before December 31, 2000, including boilers that were extended or modernized after December 31, 2000. *** Assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.

These limits and the limits in Table 8 belo w are higher than the proposed US EPA Boiler
MACT limits.

Table 11. China mainland emission standards from coal-fired boilers without emission
controls

Boiler Type Ash Content of

Coal (as
received %) Emission Standard (mg/m 3 ) Emission Standard (lb/MMBtu)**

Period I* Period
II* Period I* Period
II*

Layer Combustion
Stoker
Boiler Natural
Circulation (< 0.7 MW (1 t/h)) 150 120 0.092 0.073

Other
Boilers ( ≤ 2.8 MW

(4 t/h)) ≤ 25% 1,800 1,600 1.10 0.98

≥ 25% 2,000 1,800 1.22 1.10

Other
Boilers (>2.8 MW

(4 t/h)) ≤ 25% 2,000 1,800 1.22 1.10

≥ 25% 2,200 2,000 1.34 1.22

Fluidized
Bed Combusting (FBC)
Boiler Circulating
FBC
Boiler 15,000 15,000 9.16 9.16

Other FBC
Boiler 20,000 18,000 12.21 10.99

Spreader

Stoker
Boiler 5,000 5,000 3.05 3.05

* Emission limit values for period I apply to boilers that began operation before December 31, 2000, including boilers that were extended or modernized after December 31, 2000. ** Assuming a coal f factor of 9,780 dscf/MMBtu.

India

The Indian Central Polluti on Control Board (CPCB) limits emissions from industrial
sources. In Part D of the General Envir onmental Standards, CPCB lays out general
concentration-based emission standards. For PM, this standard is 150 mg/Nm 3 (0.083 lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu). For mercury, this standard is 0.2 mg/m 3 (0.0001 lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f factor of 9,60010 dscf/MMBtu). Annexure II puts forth specifi c emissions standards as Tables 12 and 13
review.

Table 12. General Emission Standard s National PM Emission Standards 19,20

Source Emissions Limit (mg/m 3 ) Emissions Limit (lb/MMBtu) a Thermal power plants commissioned before 1/1/1982 with capacity < 62.5 MW 350 0.083

Bagasse-fired step grate 250 0.14 Horse shoe/pulsating grate c 500 b 0.28 Spreader stoker c 800 b 0.44

a Assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.

b 12% CO 2

c If more than one boiler is attached to a single stack, the standard is set based on capacity of all boilers

exhausting to that stack.

Table 13. National PM Emission Standards for Small Boilers 21

Steam Generating Capacity (tonnes per hour) Emissions Limit (mg/m 3 ) Emissions Limit (lb/MMBtu) a

<2 1,200 0.66

≥ 2 and < 10 800 0.44

≥ 10 and < 15 600 0.33

≥ 15 150 0.083

a Assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.

South Korea

Table 14 contains PM emissions limits for industrial boilers and combustion
facilities/boilers in South Korea.

19 India Central Pollution Control Board. General Standards. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/G eneralStandards.pdf . Accessed October 28, 2010.

20 India Central Pollution Control Board. Standards for Bagasse-Fired Boilers. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/Industry-Specific-Sta ndards/Emission/BagasseeFired%20Boilers.pdf . Accessed October 28, 2010.

21 India Central Pollution Control Boar d. Standards for Small Boilers. http://www.cpcb.nic.in/IndustrySpecific-Standards/Emission/Boiler.pdf . Accessed October 28, 2010.11Table 14. South Korean Boiler Emission LimitsPollutant FuelInstalled Time(1) installed before Jun.30,2001(mg/m3)(lb/MMBtu)(2) installed after Jul. 1,2001 20 0.011(1) installed before Jan.31, 2007 40 0.021(2) installed after Feb. 1,2007 20 0.0111) The standard & facility classification of Korean air regulation had changed from 20102) Upper table shows the stadard of general boiler, except combustion facility/boiler(i.e waste combustion boiler, waste gas combustion facility, etc)3) If other air pollutants except upper table are possibie to emit, those pollutants should be report to governmental office and regulated4) Liquid fuels use f factor of 9,190 dscf/MMBtu; solid fuels use f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.Standard0.0270.0370.01730500.0280.0395070Steam GeneratingCaloriesolid fuel mixture withliquid fuelsPMCapacitySteam GeneratingCalorieSteam GeneratingCalorie5ton<Facility<20ton3,095,000<Facility<12,380,000kcalSteam GeneratingCalorieSteam GeneratingCalorieEvery<5ton<3,095,000kcalEveryLiquidSteam GeneratingCalorie>20ton>12,380,000kcalEveryEverySteam GeneratingCalorie<5ton<3,095,000kcalEvery 70>150ton>92,850,000kcal20ton<Facility<150ton12,380,000<Facility<92,850,000kcal5ton<Facility<20ton3,095,000<Facility<12,380,000kcal12 These limits are an order of magnitude highe r than those proposed in the EPA Boiler
MACT.

South Africa

South Africa’s Regulations Relating to Listed Activities and Minimum Emission
Standards limit air emissions from coal-f ired power plants. The plant-wide PM emissions limit for new plants with capacity exceeding 70 MWh is 20 mg/m 3 (0.011 lb/MMBtu). 22 For existing plants, the PM emissions limit is 75 mg/m 3 (0.041 lb/MMBtu). (Note that mg/m3 limits are c onverted to lb/MMBtu assuming a biomass f factor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.)

Brazil

Brazilian emission limits for boilers that ge nerate steam are presented in Table 15.

Table 15. Brazilian Emission Limits for Steam-Generating Boilers

Pollutant Fuel Thermal Capacity (MW) Installed Time lb/MMBtu OBS

< 10 installed after December 26, 2006 280 mg/Nm3 0.154 10 <= Capacity <= 75 installed after December 26, 2006 230 mg/Nm3 0.130

> 70 installed after December 26, 2006 200 mg/Nm3 0.110

< 10 installed after December 26, 2006 730 mg/Nm3 0.391 10 <= Capacity < 30 installed after December 26, 2006 520 mg/Nm3 0.278 30 <= Capacity < 70 installed after December 26, 2006 260 mg/Nm3 0.139

>= 70 installed after December 26, 2006 130 mg/Nm3 0.070

< 70 installed after December 06, 1990 1500 g /10 6 Kcal 0.826

> 70 installed after December 06, 1990 800 g /10 6 Kcal 0.441 <= 0,05 installed after December 26, 2006 6500 mg/Nm3 3.58 0,05 < Capacity <= 0,15 installed after December 26, 2006 3250 mg/Nm3 1.79 0,15 < Capacity <= 1,0 installed after December 26, 2006 1700 mg/Nm3 0.935 1,0 < Capacity <= 10,0 installed after December 26, 2006 1300 mg/Nm3 0.715 <= 0,05 installed after December 26, 2006 6500 mg/Nm3 3.48 0,05 < Capacity <= 0,15 installed after December 26, 2006 3250 mg/Nm3 1.74 0,15 < Capacity <= 1,0 installed after December 26, 2006 1700 mg/Nm3 0.910 1,0 < Capacity <= 10,0 installed after December 26, 2006 1300 mg/Nm3 0.696 1) The results should be expressed on a dry basis and corrected to 3% oxygen 2) The results should be expressed on a dry basis and corrected to 8% oxygen NA: Not Applicable 2

Coal PM

CO Standard

Sugar Cane Bagasse

Wood

2 Wood Sugar Cane Bagasse 2 2

These emission limits are significantly higher than those proposed in the Boiler MACT.

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation has established PM em issions limits in its general technical requirements for boiler plants as summarized in Table 16. 23

22 IEA Clean Coal Center. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/ieaco al/databases/worldwide-emissionstandards/south-africa ?. Accessed September 30, 2010.

23 State Standard of the Russian Federation. Boiler Pl ants. Thermal and Mechanical Equipment. General Technical Requirements GOST P 50831-95.13 Table 16. Russian Federation Lim its on PM from Boiler Plants Boiler Rating Q (MW) (boiler steam capacity

(t/hr)) Adjusted
Ash
Content

(% x kg/MJ) Bulk Particulate Concentration in Flue Gas

Plants built prior to 12/31/ 00 Plants built after 12/31/00

(mg/m 3 ) a (lb/MMBtu) b (mg/m 3 ) a (lb/MMBtu) b

≤ 299 ( ≤ 420) < 0.6 150 0.083 150 0.083
0.6 – 2.5 150 - 500 0.083 – 0.275 150 - 500 0.083 – 0.275

> 2.5 500 0.275 500 0.275

≥ 300 ( ≥ 420) < 0.6 100 0.055 50 0.028
0.6 – 2.5 100 – 400 0.055 – 0.220 50 – 150 0.083

> 2.5 400 0.220 150 0.083

a At 0°C, 101.3 kPa, and an air-to-fuel ratio of 1.4.

b Assuming a biomass f f actor of 9,600 dscf/MMBtu.

The Russian Federation also requ ires that the particulate matter content in the exhaust gasses of solid fuel boilers must be documen ted in the operating specifications for each
boiler. 24 Air dispersion modeling is also typically required to document air quality impacts from industrial source groupings.

Additional Countries

The following countries have PM limits less stringent than those U.S. EPA is proposing. 25

• Dominica;

• Indonesia;

• Jamaica;

• Japan;

• Malaysia;

• Thailand;

• Republic of Trinidad and Tobago;

• Tasmania;

• Turkey; and

• Vietnam.

Emission Limits on Gas-Fired Combustion Sources

Of the sources examined in the preparati on of this compendium, only the EU IPPC
directive 2 contains limits on combustion source s firing natural gas for any of the compounds EPA is proposing to include in the Boiler MACT. A CO limit (100 mg/Nm 3 or around 80 ppmv) is mandated for boilers firing natural gas. This limit is significantly

24 State Standard of the Russian Federation. Hot-Water Heated Boilers Capacities from 0.1 to 4.0 MW. General Specifications. GOST 30735-2001.

25 IEA Clean Coal Center. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/ieaco al/databases/worldwide-emissionstandards/worldwide-emission-standards ? Accessed September 29, 2010.14 higher than EPA’s proposed CO limit for gas-fi red boilers. Combustion plants fired with the following fuels are not subject to any CO limit:

• Blast furnace gas

• Coke oven gas

• Low calorific gases from gasi fication of refinery residues

• Other gases

Table 17 contains the EU emission limit values for PM from gas-fired combustion plants. These limits are comparable to EPA’s proposed PM limits for new Gas 2 boilers.

Table 17. PM Emission Limit Values from Gas-Fired Combustion Plants

Gas Type Emission Limit Value (mg/Nm 3 ) (lb/MMBtu) In general 5 0.003 Blast furnace gas 10 0.006 Gases produced by the steel industry which can be used
elsewhere 30 0.015

Conversion from mg/Nm 3 to lb/MMBtu assumes natural gas f factor of 8710 dscf/MMBtu.

The best available technology that must be used to achieve CO emissions limits is complete combustion, which can be achie ved through good furnace design, monitoring and process controls, and ma intenance procedures. In highly populated areas, an oxidation catalyst may be considered appropr iate BAT. For PM, the BAT recommended only for refinery or blast furnace gas is to appl y pre-treatment measures like fabric filters.

In summary, the EU limits only CO and PM fr om gas fired boilers and does not regulate other pollutants like HAPs that are included in the proposed Boiler MACT. There are different PM limits for gases derived from di fferent sources, and CO emissions are only regulated from natural gas combustion. PM c ontrol technologies are considered BAT for units fired with refinery or blast furnace gas. In general, good combustion practices are
considered BAT to control CO fr om gas-fired combustion plants.15 United States EPA Proposed Boiler MACT

Table 17. Boiler MACT emission limits as proposed in June 2010.

Existing Biomass Boilers

Compound Original Existing
MACT Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM 0.07 0.02 lb/MMBtu

HCl 0.09 0.006 lb/MMBtu Hg 9E-06 9E-07 lb/MMBtu

Dioxin (TEQ basis) (no limit under original MACT) Susp burner/Dutch oven 0.03 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Fluidized Bed 0.02 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Fuel Cell 0.02 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Stoker/grate/other 0.004 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Carbon Monoxide (no limit under original MACT for existing) Susp burner/Dutch oven 1010 ppm @ 3% O2 Fluidized Bed 250 ppm @ 3% O2

Fuel Cell 270 ppm @ 3% O2 Stoker/grate/other 560 ppm @ 3% O2 Existing Coal Boilers

Compound Original Existing
MACT Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM 0.07 0.02 lb/MMBtu

HCl 0.09 0.02 lb/MMBtu Hg 9E-06 3E-06 lb/MMBtu

Dioxin (TEQ basis) (no limit under original MACT) Stoker/grate/other 0.003 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Pulverized Coal 0.004 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Fluidized Bed 0.002 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Carbon Monoxide (no limit under original MACT for existing) Stoker/grate/other 50 ppm @ 3% O2 Pulverized Coal 90 ppm @ 3% O2 Fluidized Bed 30 ppm @ 3% O2 Existing Liquid Fuel Boilers

Compound Original Existing
MACT Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM NA 0.004 lb/MMBtu

HCl NA 9E-04 lb/MMBtu Hg NA 4E-06 lb/MMBtu Carbon Monoxide NA 1 ppm @ 3% O2 Dioxin (TEQ basis) NA 0.002 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Existing Units burning gases other than natural gas or refinery gas

Compound Original Existing
MACT Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM NA 0.05 lb/MMBtu

HCl NA 3E-06 lb/MMBtu Hg NA 2E-07 lb/MMBtu Carbon Monoxide NA 1 ppm @ 3% Dioxin (TEQ basis) NA 0.009 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O216 New Biomass Boilers

Compound Original NEW MACT
Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM 0.025 0.008 lb/MMBtu

HCl 0.02 0.004 lb/MMBtu Hg 3E-06 2E-07 lb/MMBtu

Dioxin (TEQ basis) (no limit under original MACT) Susp burner/Dutch oven 0.03 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Fluidized Bed 0.007 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Fuel Cell 5E-04 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Stoker/grate/other 5E-05 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Carbon Monoxide (original new MACT limit of 400) Susp burner/Dutch oven 1010 ppm @ 3% O2 Fluidized Bed 40 ppm @ 3% O2

Fuel Cell 270 ppm @ 3% O2 Stoker/grate/other 560 ppm @ 3% O2

New Coal Boilers

Compound Original New MACT
Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM 0.025 0.001 lb/MMBtu

HCl 0.02 6E-05 lb/MMBtu Hg 3E-06 2E-06 lb/MMBtu

Dioxin (TEQ basis) (no limit under original MACT) Stoker/grate/other 0.003 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Pulverized Coal 0.002 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 Fluidized Bed 3E-05 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

CO (original new MACT limit of 400) Stoker/grate/other 7 ppm @ 3% O2 Pulverized Coal 90 ppm @ 3% O2 Fluidized Bed 30 ppm @ 3% O2 New Liquid Fuel Boilers

Compound Original New MACT
Limit Proposed
Rule Units PM new large: 0.03 0.002 lb/MMBtu HCl new large: 0.0005 4E-04 lb/MMBtu Hg NA 3E-07 lb/MMBtu Carbon Monoxide 400 1 ppm @ 3% O2 Dioxin (TEQ basis) NA 0.002 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2 New Units designed to burn other gases

Compound Original New MACT
Limit Proposed
Rule Units

PM NA 0.003 lb/MMBtu

HCl NA 3E-06 lb/MMBtu Hg NA 2E-07 lb/MMBtu Carbon Monoxide 400 1 ppm @ 3% O2 Dioxin (TEQ basis) NA 0.009 TEQ ng/dscm @ 7% O2

Some countries have PM emission limits for bo ilers that are fairly comparable to EPA’s proposed existing source PM emission limits for coal and biomass boilers. EPA proposed limits for new source biomass boilers , new source coal boilers, and proposed existing and new liquid boilers ar e tighter then those being considered in the EU. In the EU, proposed limits on dioxin and hydrogen chlo ride are above those proposed in the17 U.S. Proposed CO emissions limits are comparab le in the U.S. and EU. Other countries, including China and India, have promulga ted less stringent PM limits for new and existing boilers than those in the proposed boiler MACT.

# TAB 61 Boiler MACT and Benefit Claims

Some have argued that for EPA revise its proposed Boiler MACT rule would create a threat to public health. However, these concerns fail to consider some important factors, where the rule’s MACT benefits can be maintained while reducing costs and protecting jobs.

• MACT is the cornerstone of the air toxi c program in Title III of the Clean Air Act focused on reducing Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). Yet the only quantified health benefits from the Boiler MACT come from reducing emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and PM2.5 precursors such as sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), rather than HAPs. This leads to the claim that for ever y dollar spent five to twelve dollars in health benefits will be realized. EPA needs to focus on the HAP reductions and find alternative approaches that can obtain those benefits at far lower cost using the flexibility in the law. For example, r oughly 70% of the mercur y costs come from controls on biomass and oil which represent only 5% of the total emissions from
industrial boilers.

• The estimated PM2.5 benefits (2,000 to 5, 100 premature deaths plus other morbidity effects, such as bronchitis and non fatal hear t attack); if they are to be believed (see comment below), appear to be the sa me benefits claimed in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS revisions. This approach woul d be double counti ng the benefits.

• The major recommendations for improvement s in the proposed rule, such as use of the source based approach, great er consideration of vari ability, and accounting for the skewed data set, will lead to standards more stringent than the 2005 limits and require billions in new investments but not be unachievable or ultra low. The vast majority of the HAP benefits come from r educing emissions from the dirtiest units. For example, going from 10 lb/T Btu mercury to 3 lb/T Btu and not all the way to 0.9 lb/T Btu for biomass boilers will still achi eve an emissions reduction from the highest emitters at a fraction of the cost and wil l still preserve most of the 15,000 ton estimated reductions, as these are prim arily based on emissions reductions from coal-fired boilers.

• The language of Section 112 clearly states that EPA can look at other non-air quality benefits like energy use but not ot her air pollutants like PM and SO 2 . Thus, it is illegal to factor in these “c o-benefits” to justify not choos ing flexible options like the
health based emission limit.

• Efforts to reduce PM and SO 2 should be left to the Title I State Implementation Plan (SIP) program and not become the rationale for tougher MACT rules, as Congress intended. Congress clearly created two dist inct programs – one where MACT sets nationwide controls for air toxics and a sec ond where controls for pollutants like PM and SO 2 are targeted to non-attainment areas where air quality problems exist. Many boilers are located in areas far fr om non-attainment areas so the proposed MACT would not help these areas reach at tainment. In fact, only 4% of the SO 22 emissions from paper mills occur in non- attainment areas given our rural based industry. This comes after the industry has reduced SO 2 emission by 37% since
1995.

• Finally on the subject of PM benefits, it is worth pointin g out just how uncertain and overstated they are based on a careful look at the health science. First, EPA’s most recent estimates of risk from exposure to PM2.5 shows less risk than in 1997 when EPA issued the standards for the first time. Second, the key studies relied upon by EPA fail to explain a “cause and effect” betw een PM2.5 and health effects. Third, the uncertainties in the science are greater now than when the origi nal standards were established suggesting that further reduc tions may be overvalued. Finally, EPA has “cherry picked” the results by relying on selected studies showing effects and ignoring many others.

• EPA failed to include any cancer or non- cancer benefits in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for Boiler MACT. However, EPA’s assessment of all MACT source categories shows that the toxicity weighted cancer emissions from boilers represent about 5% of the total and less than 1% of no n-cancer toxicity weighted emissions. (see EPA OAQPS slide on NEI risks).

# TAB 7Selected Quotes from Go vernors on Boiler MACT (October 2010)

Alabama Governor Bob Riley (R)

“As our state’s unemployment rate hov ers around 11 percent, enacting stringent federal Boiler MACT rules would jeopar dize more good paying jobs across the manufacturing sector.” ... “While I s upport efforts to address serious health threats from air emissions, I also believe that regulations can be crafted in a balanced way that sustains bot h the environment and jobs. “

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe (D)

“While I strongly support efforts to addr ess serious health threats from air emissions, I feel that where no risk to pub lic health is posed, regulations should be crafted in a balanced way that sust ains both the environment and jobs. “

“We understand that it is often difficult fo r the EPA to consider and address broad environmental effects when dealing with specific medi a-related rulemaking. However, I feel that the time is ripe wit h this rulemaking to do just that. The EPA has promoted the development of alternat ive energy sournces for a number of reason, including the protection of air qua lity. Unfortunately, when one looks at EPA’s specific rulemaking, the impact has been to discourage that very goal. This proposed rule is an example.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)

“California has adopted some of the nat ion’s most ambitious renewable energy and greenhouse gas reductions goals and I am concerned that rule changes being considered by your agency will undermine the progress we are making.”

“I know the Obama Administration is work ing as hard as we are to increase, not eliminate, green jobs.”

“While I support your efforts to adopt natio nal regulations to reduce hazardous air pollutants, I have significant concerns that these proposed standards would have adverse impact on California’s environment and economy. “

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue (R)

“Being good stewards of our environment is a principle that is very close to the hearts of Georgians and I certainly desir e to protect Georgians citizens from exposure to harmful compounds. However, the proposed rule is unreasonable and will impose serious – perhaps fatal – hardships on significant sectors fo the economy just as the first fragile signs of economic recovery begin to emerge. ““I know that we share many of the sa me concerns of protecting the environment and the welfare of our citizens. As you mo ve forward in the pr ocess of finalizing a Boiler MACT rule, I hope that you will rec ognize that the welfare of our citizens is dependent on many factors, not the least of which is the availability to find good jobs, plan for the future, and provide fo r their families. This will require the final Boiler MACT rule to be reasonable and workable.”

Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle (R)

“Hawaii, as an island state, relies on t he importation and refining of crude oil for its electrical generation, transportati on, and aviation needs... The proposed rule would impose emission standards for liqui d fired process heaters and boilers that are infeasible for Hawaii’s refineries to meet.”

Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R)

“ I am concerned the combination of the depressed economy and all the new regulatory burdens proposed by EPA, such as the Green House Gas Tailoring rule and the upcoming potential reduction in the ozone standard to name a few, could be devestating on Idaho business. I question why EPA is not employing all the flexibility of its authoriry.”

“I urge you to use your discretionary authority under 112(d)(4), as was orginally proposed in the 2004 Boiler MACT rule, to provide small business and larger industries with the flexibility they need to continue to protect air quality and to remain economically healthy fo r both Idaho and the nation.”

Maine Governor John Baldacci (D)

“The proposal concludes that the use of the authority under Sect ion 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act is discretionary and EPA does not support its use in Boiler MACT. I believe that provision reflects C ongress’ intent to pr ovide for flexibility where there is not a public he alth threat. In such case s, it makes sense to allow that approach in the final rule for threshold substances.”

“EPA should use a method to set emissions standards that is based on what real world best performing units actually can achi eve for all the regulated pollutants. EPA should not ignore biases in its emissi ons database, the practical capabilities of controls or the variab ility in operations, fuels and testing performance across the many regulated subcategories of boilers.”

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (R)

“The pending regulations would be a blow to these [economic recovery] efforts by diverting investments from job creation and economic ex pansion, particularly formanufacturing, the forest products industry, and both small and large businesses. Likewise, these rules w ould impact state and local government facilities and higher education institutions.”

“As you develop a final Boiler MACT rule, please consider an approach that fosters economic recovery and job growth balanced with environmental protection.”

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (R)

“Because of the costly control devices that would have to be installed, the pending Boiler MACT policy could restrict resources for potentia l investment and hiring, therefore, jeopardizing the future of the manufacturing industry and its important role in t he state’s economy.”

North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue (D)

“North Carolina has been a national leader in addressing serious health threats from air emissions. However, our e fforts have been grounded in a belief that regulations need to be balanced, in order to sustain both the environment and our competitive position in the world market place, and still maintain jobs for North Carolinians. “

“I encourage EPA to use a method to set emissions standards based on what real world, best performing units act ually can achieve for all the regulated pollutants... Clearly, EPA should not adopt Boiler MACT standards that commercial suppliers of such equipment say are unattainable.”

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland (D)

“I ask that the U.S. EPA gi ve appropriate attention to the economic impact of the rule on Ohio businessess, including the pot ential for job loss resulting from such large capital investments.”

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski (D)

“I ... write to express my concern about a potential unintended consequence of the proposed Boiler MACT rule... While these regulations are important to protect public health from hazardous air pol lutants, I am particularly concerned about the impact these regulat ions could have on our growing renewable energy sector. ....because of variability in bo iler design and fuel quality, the proposed limits may be impracticable for many existi ng biomass boilers. This could work against our goal to expand the use of sust ainable biomass as a part of our GHG reduction efforts.”“As EPA develops a final Boiler MACT rule, I hope you will carefully consider sustainable approaches that protect the environment and public health while fostering economic recovery and j obs within the bounds of the law.”

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R)

“I believe we can all agree that ri sks to public health should be a principal concern when designing such regulations . However, the proposed Boiler MACT rule misses the opportunity to avoid contro ls where certain air emissions are not a problem. Instead, it s hould be redrafted to support a health based approach and set standards that refl ect the variety of boilers in use and their variable performance.”

“The final Boiler MACT rule needs to be reasonable and workable. As your Administration moves toward finalizing this rule, I ask that you make the necessary adjustments to protect health of our citizens without threatening their livelihoods and the recovery of our economy.”

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D)

“I write to express my concern that your agency’s proposed rule to establish ‘maximum achievable control technol ogy’ for industrial, commerical and institutional boilers could undermine the pr ogress we are making in Washington State with renewable bioenergy. While I strongly support the need for updated rules that protect public health from hazar dous air pollutants, I believe this can be accomplished with attainable technologie s and appropriate flex ibility to reduce economic harm and unitended envi ronmental effects.”

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (D)

“The importance of balancing environmental protection with economic vitality has been a central theme for my administration during my two-terms as Governor of Wisconsin. . . However, I am greatly concerned that the Boiler MACT rule currently proposed by your agency [EPA} works against a sustainable future for
Wisconsin and the nation.”

“As EPA develops a final Boiler MACT rule, I hope you will consider a balanced approach that is sustainable, protects public health and the environment and fosters energy independence, economic recovery and jobs.”November 1 1 , 2010

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W

. Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson :

We are w riting to express our concerns about the proposed Boiler MACT rule

– the Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule for industrial, commercial and institutional boilers and process heaters

– and the other associated ru les that were published on June 4 th . As our nation struggles to recover from the current recession, we are deeply concerned that the potential impact of pending Clean Air Act regulations would be harmful to U.S. manufacturing and the high

- paying jobs it pr ovides, as well as all sectors of the US economy. Both small and large businesses are vulnerable to extremely costly regulatory burdens, as well as municipalities, universities, federal facilities, and commercial entities. The flow of capital for new inves tment and hiring is still seriously restricted, and the costs imposed by these regulations as proposed could make or break the viability of continued operations. As proposed, the Boiler MACT rule alone could impose over twenty billion dollars in capital co sts at thousands of facilities across the country and billions more in operating costs.

We support efforts to address significant health threats from air emissions in a cost effective manner, and also believe that regulations can be crafted to accomplish this and still protect jobs and economic growth. Thus, we appreciate your willingness, as expressed in your responses to recent Congressional letters, to consider changes to the proposed rules and incorporating flexible approaches that appropriately addre ss the diversity of boilers, operations, sectors, and fuels that could provide assurance of achievability and prevent severe job losses and billions of dollars in unnecessary regulatory costs.

Specifically, we encourage EPA to set standards based on what real

- world sources actually can achieve . EPA has proposed a pollutant

- by

- pollutant approach based on the “best performers” for each of five separate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP)/ surrogate emissions categories. This approach had many data and methodolog y problems, and resulted in a set of standards such as those for dioxin, mercury and carbon monoxide that cannot be met by even the best performing actual boilers and process heaters.

EPA should finalize work practices for all gas and distillate oil fire d units at major sources and oil and biomass fired boilers located at area sources to avoid the increasein emissions (e.g., NOx and CO 2 ) and energy use that would result from the numerous

control technologies required to meet the proposed emission limits with no guarantee of actually achieving those limits.

In addition, EPA should provide an alternative health

- based emissions approach for qualifying low

- risk emissions . A practical, health

- oriented standard for threshold pollutants would allow sour ces to demonstrate that their emissions of these pollutants do not pose a public health concern. Section 112(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act expressly contemplates the use of such a standard, which can be implemented at each facility to protect public health.

In the related rule defining “Non

- Hazardous Secondary Materials,” EPA should reaffirm that many secondary materials including biomass and biomass processing
residuals are not solid wastes. The statute and related case law allow EPA to classify
these mater ials as fuels if they are not discarded, are treated as valuable commodities, and are burned for energy recovery. Failure to encourage these alternative and often renewable fuels will result in more materials being landfilled and increase use of fossil fue ls.

Lastly, EPA should promulgate work practice standards for dioxins/furans in Boiler MACT due to the many problems with emissions measurement, lack of knowledge of conditions and unit features leading to those emissions, and the inability to further co ntrol emissions at the already extremely low emission rates shown for these
units.

As EPA turns to developing the final Boiler MACT and related rules, we believe it is imperative that EPA utilize adequate time and resources to fully evaluate all
comments and data provided through the public comment process so that a reasonable rule can be promulgated. We appreciate your willingness to consider our suggestions.

Sincerely

,

American Chemistry Council American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute American Forest & Paper Association American Home Furnishings Alliance American Municipal Power
American Petroleum Institute
American Public Power Association American Sugar Alliance American Wood Council Associated Oregon Industries
Biomass Therma l Energy CouncilBrick Industry Association

California Cotton Ginners Association Composite Panel Association Corn Refiners Association Council o f Industrial Boiler Owners Empire States Forest Products Association
Hardwood Federation
Hardwood Manufactures Association Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association
Indiana Hardwood Lumbermen's Association Indiana Manufacturers Association Industrial Energy Consumers of America Kentucky Forest Industries Association Lake States Lumber Association
National Alliance of Forest Owners National Association of Manufacturers National Cotton Ginners’ Association
National Hardwood Lumber Association National Oilseed Processors Association National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association
National Wood Flooring Association Northeastern Loggers’ Association Ohio Manufacturers' Association Ohio Municipal Electric Association PA Anthracite Council
Pellet Fuels Institute Pennsylvania Forest Products Association Rubber Manufacturers Association Societ y of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry Texas Cotton Ginners ’ Association
The Aluminum Association The State Chamber of Oklahoma Treated Wood Council U.S. Chamber of Commerce Utah Manufacturers Association Virginia Manufacturers Association Wisconsin Paper Council

cc: Regina McCarthy, Environmental Protection Agency Robert Perciasepe, Environmental Protection Agency Cass Sunstein, Office of Management and Budget