## National Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units

Response to Comments Received on Proposed Information Collection Request (Published on November 10, 2009; 74 FR 58012)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Energy Strategies Group Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

December 16, 2009i Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... ...........1 2.0 Proposed ICR for NESHAP for Coal - and Oil-Fired EGUs (11/10/09).............................5 2.1 Selection of 50 random units for dioxin/furan organic HAP testing ...................... 5 2.2 Selection of 50 random units for testing for impact assessment............................. 5 2.3 Requirement for paired/duplicat e trains during the testing..................................... 6
2.4 Schedule and burden............................................................................................... 6 2.5 Units owned/operated by small systems s hould be allowed to submit their data at the end of the 8-month period................................................................................. 9
2.6 Oil-fired units........................................................................................................ 10 2.7 Quality of data obtained........................................................................................ 10 2.8 Statistical representativene ss of the units selected................................................ 12 2.9 Proposed surrogate parameters for me rcury and non-mercury metallic HAP...... 13 2.10 Testing of sister units............................................................................................ 13 2.11 Certifications required .......................................................................................... 15 2.12 Fuel sampling requirements.................................................................................. 15 2.13 Some companies bear a disproportiona te share of the testing burden.................. 16 2.14 EPA significantly altered the list of units to be test ed, impacting on companies’ budget process....................................................................................................... 17 2.15 Selection of specific units for the testing.............................................................. 17 2.16 Comments on specific questions........................................................................... 23
2.17 Selection of additional units.................................................................................. 24 2.18 Specific testing questions...................................................................................... 24
3.0 Other comments that were addressed follo wing publication of the first draft of the ICR and not further responded to herein............................................................................27

List of Tables

Table 1-1. List of Commente rs on the Proposed Information Collection Request for the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired Elect ric Utility Steam Generating Units, Proposed on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 58012) ................................................................2ii Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACI Activated carbon injection
CAA Clean Air Act CAMR Clean Air Mercury Rule
CD Consent Decree CEMS Continuous Emission Monitoring System CFB Circulating fluidized bed boiler
CO 2 Carbon dioxide
EGU Coal- and oil-fired electr ic utility steam generating unit EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERT Electronic Reporting Tool ESP Electrostatic precipitator FGD Flue gas desulfurization FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HCl Hydrogen chloride HCN Hydrogen cyanide HF Hydrogen fluoride ICR Information Collection Request
MACT Maximum achievab le control technology MW Megawatt MWe Megawatt electric equivalent
NESHAP National emission standa rds for hazardous air pollutant
NO X Nitrogen oxides OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate matter
PM 2.5 PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 μ PM 10 PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 μ POM polycyclic organic matter PRA Paperwork Reduction Act QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit SCR Selective catalytic reduction
SO 2 Sulfur dioxide
TDS Total dissolved solids TSS Total suspended solids1 

### 1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) requested comment on July 02, 2009 (74 FR 31725), on a proposed information co llection request (ICR) for a new data collection for coal- and oil-fired electric util ity steam generating units (EGU) (EPA ICR No. 2362.01). A 60-day comment period (ending August 31, 2009) was provided for the public to submit comments to EPA regarding the proposed new data collection. EPA received a total of 51 sets of comments regarding the proposed in formation collection request. Some of the comment sets were signed or submitted on behalf of multiple commenters. Also, in some cases duplicate comment sets from the same commente r were submitted to EPA’s Air and Radiation Docket. Some commenters also submitted supplem ental information and data to support their comments. EPA responded to each substantive co mment, made appropriate changes to the ICR, and submitted the ICR to the Office of Manageme nt and Budget (OMB), noticing the submittal in a Federal Register announcement published on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 58012). A 30-day comment period (ending December 10, 2009) ensued.

This document presents EPA’s response to th e substantive comments received by EPA on the November 10, 2009, proposed ICR, to the extent those comments differ from the comments on the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR. The commen t summaries are grouped by topic in sections.Version 4 2 EPA Internal Review Draft: 03NO2009 Table 1-1. List of Commenters on the Prop osed Information Collection Request for the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utilit y Steam Generating Units, Proposed on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 58012)

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation

0066 12/07/2009 Terry Graumann, Manager, Environmental Services, Otter Tail Power Company

0067 12/08/2009 N. Norem Public Service Company of New Mexico

0068 12/07/2009 James M. Parker, Manager, Compliance Services and Designated Representative, PPL Montana, LLC

0069 12/04/2009 Basil G. Constantelos, Managing Director, Environmental Services, Midwest Generation EME, LLC

0070 12/09/2009 Kenneth J. Anderson, Managing Supervisor, Air Quality, Environmental Services, Ameren Corporation

0071 12/09/2009 Usha-Maria Turner, Director, Environmental Policy and Reporting, Luminant

0072 12/09/2009 Farzie Shelton, Associate GM T echnical Support, Lakeland Electric 0073 12/09/2009 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (We Energies)

0074 12/10/2009 Don Keisling, Westmoreland Pa rtners, LLC

0075 12/10/2009 Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs, Southern Company

0076 12/10/2009 M. Gary Helm, Sr. Environmental Consultant, Conectiv Energy

0077 12/10/2009 Bill Wemhoff, Sr. Principal, Environmental Policy, The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

0078 12/10/2009 John Quinn, Director, Environmental Issues, Constellation Energy

0079 12/10/2009 Cathy S. Woollums, Senior Vice President, Environmental Services, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company

0080 12/10/2009 Paul Chu, Senior Project Manager, Environment Sector, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

0081 12/10/2009 J. Michael Geers, Environmental Health and Sa fety (EHS) Manager, Air Management Group, Duke Energy Corporation

0082 12/10/2009 Debra J. Jezouit Megan H. Berge, Baker Botts L.L.P. on behalf of the Class of '85 Regulatory Response GroupTable 1-1. (Continued)

3 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation

0083 12/10/2009 John M. Ross, Manager, Regulatory Programs, E nvironmental, Health & Safety, NiSource

0084 12/10/2009 Kent Bolivar, EI International

0085 12/10/2009 Ben C. Trammell, Jr., Managing Director, Regu latory Law & Policy, Dynegy Inc.

0086 12/10/2009 Quinlan J. Shea, III, Executive Director, Environment, Edison Electric Institute (EEI)

0087 12/10/2009 Lee Zeugin, Hunton & Williams LLP on behalf of the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)

0088 12/10/2009 Michael Bradley, Director, The Clean Energy Group

0089 12/10/2009 John P. Shimshock, Senior Air Environmental Specialist, RRI Energy, Inc.

0090 12/10/2009 John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services, American Electric Power (AEP)

0091 12/10/2009 David C. Cannon, Jr., Vice President, Environnment, Health & Safety, Allegheny Energy

0092 12/10/2009 Berdell Knowles, Records Retention and Legislative Affairs Specialist, Government Relations, Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

0093 12/10/2009 J. Michael Kennedy, Principal Environmental Specialist, Progress Energy

0094 12/10/2009 Margaret Hood, Legal Assistant, Jackson Walker L.L.P. on behalf of Michael J. Nasi, Counsel, Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition

0095 12/10/2009 Bill Matthews, Director, Environmental Policy/Planning, CLECO Corporation (Cleco)

0096 12/10/2009 Jon Howard, Lead Project Manager, Weston Solutions, Inc.

0097 12/10/2009 Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer, Dominion Resources Services, Inc. (Dominion)

0098 12/10/2009 John F. Buresh, Senior Environmental Analyst, Environmental Services Department, Xcel Energy Inc.

0099 12/10/2009 Louis P. Pocalujka Kathryn M. Cunningham, Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental and Laboratory Services Department, Consumers Energy

0100 12/10/2009 Verne Shortell, Executive Director, Environmental Business, NRG Energy, Inc.Table 1-1. (Continued)

4 Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234 Date Received Commenter Name and Affiliation

0101 12/10/2009 Dale W. Corfman, Environmental Department, FirstEnergy, Akron, Ohio Corporate Office5 

### 2.0 Proposed ICR for NESHAP for Coal - and Oil-Fired EGUs (11/10/09)

2.1 Selection of 50 random units fo r dioxin/furan organic HAP testing

Comment : Commenters 0066, 0079, 0080, 0081, 0089, and 0099 opposed the selection of 50 randomly-selected units to test for dioxin/furan HAP. The commenters allege that these units are not believed to be among the “best performing” units, and, thus, will not impact on the MACT limits. The commenters suggested that utilities be allowed the option of selecting any unit for which the utility is the operating agent or has owne rship stake so as to be able to select the unit best suited for testing (and, thus, minimizing costs). Commenter 0080 also questioned EPA’s handling of non-detect values, s uggesting that such values sh ould be reported as “zero.”

Commenter 0096 encouraged EPA to establish det ection limit criteria at the program outset.

Response : As discussed in the Response to Comment s document for the July 2, 2009, draft ICR, EPA has no basis for determining the top perfor ming 12 percent of units for dioxin/furan HAP emissions. Therefore, EPA has selected 50 units at random from the population of coal-fired EGUs. Although EPA agrees that the emissions are li kely to be low, we still must collect such data to establish the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d) standard.

EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding repo rting non-detect values as zero. Such an arbitrary designation would be misleading, as de tection limits are a func tion of the equipment and process used to measure emissions, rather than arbiters of the absence of a specific compound. Values identified as non- detects today may well be quantif iable in the near future, as equipment and process improvements are made . EPA believes having respondents report the value obtained, the detection limit, and the pro cess by which the detectio n limit is calculated, along with a flag identifying the value obtained as being below the detection limit, provides us with the information necessary to assess the impa ct of that measurement as emissions standards are being developed.



### 2.2 Selection of 50 random units for testing for impact assessment

Comment: Commenters 0066, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0073, 0075, 0077, 0080, 0082, 0086, 0087, 0089, 0090, 0097, and 0099 opposed the selection of 50 ra ndomly-selected units to test for all HAP except dioxin/furan HAP. The commenters allege that these units are not believed to be among the “best performing” units. If the te sting cannot be eliminated, the commenters suggested that the testing be conducted over a larger number of units (i.e., not every unit having to test for all HAP). Further, the commenters suggested that utilities be allowed the option of selecting any unit for which the utility is the opera ting agent or has ownership stake so as to be able to select the unit best suited for testing (and, thus, minimizing cost s). Commenters also suggested that sufficient information was al ready available to EPA through the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), Toxics Release Inve ntory (TRI), data obtained in support of the 1998 Utility Report to Congress, etc. to allow it to assess the impact of the MACT standard.

Response: The Agency believes that it is important that it be able to accurately assess the impact of the standard. EPA does not believe that sources suggested by commenters (e.g., NEI,6 TRI, data gathered for the 1998 Utility Report to Congress) are of sufficient detail or completeness to be appropriate for this purpose. EPA often uses the voluntarily submitted HAP emissions data from the NEI as a starting point fo r assessing baseline risks in the Residual Risk program, augmenting those data based on actual test data (where availabl e) and public review. However, the CAA requires that a residual risk assessment be undertaken within 8 years after a source category has been subject to a CAA sec tion 112(d) standard so sources in the subject category will have been collecting HAP data re flecting compliance with the CAA section 112(d) standard for a number of years. Utilities are not currently subject to a CAA section 112(d) standard and, therefore, they are not required to collect actual HAP da ta, nor report them to States which then report them to the NEI. Furt her, the TRI does not require that the estimates submitted be based on emission tests, allowing, rather, that they be based on “engineering judgment,” emission factors, or other methods of estimation. In addition, none of the data sources currently contain detailed data for al l of the necessary individual HAP. Thus, EPA believes that gathering these data is necessary to conduct a credib le assessment of the emissions of this important source category.

EPA is amenable to the suggesti on that alternative units be allo wed for the 50 randomly selected units as long as such substitutions are similar in coal rank, boiler type and size, and emission control. The company is responsible for notifyi ng EPA of any substitutions within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter and EPA must approve the alternative selection(s).


### 2.3 Requirement for paired/duplic ate trains during the testing

Comment: Commenters 0066, 0075, 0076, 0077, 0080, 0081, 0082, 0086, 0087, 0088, 0089, 0090, 0092, 0093, 0095, 0096, 0098, 0099, and 0100 opposed the requirement that paired/duplicate trains be utilize d. The commenters allege that the requirement for duplicate or paired trains should be eliminated because it has no technical justificat ion and adds tremendous cost and complexity to the ICR testing. The co mmenters also stated that EPA did not consider that using duplicate or paired tr ains may not even be feasible due to space limitations at the site, or that additional test ports may be required. The commenters note that multiple trains include adding a significant amount of time to complete the stack testing by having to move extra equipment amongst various test ports, and creating safety hazards by hauling duplicate equipment to the test port location.

Response: EPA has reviewed the requirement for pa ired/duplicate trains and has decided that the requirement is not essential to the completion of the ICR or to the acquisition of adequate data upon which to base a standard. Although we continue to believe that the use of paired trains is the preferred method, we do not want to underm ine the industry’s ability to comply with the time frame established in the ICR. We believe th at the drilling of new ports and whatever else may be required for paired trains could potentiall y impede industry’s compliance with this ICR. Therefore, EPA has removed this requirement from the ICR.



### 2.4 Schedule and burden

Comment: Commenters 0071, 0075, 0077, 0078, 0081, 0082, 0086, 0087, 0090, 0093, and 0099 stated that the timeframe provided for submi ttal of the available da ta is inadequate to conduct a thorough search, collect , review, quality assure, and enter the information. The7 commenter recommended that 6 months be allowed for this effort. Comme nters also state that EPA has underestimated the burden for this effort.

Commenter 0087 stated that EPA’s schedule for proposing MACT standards would not be affected if utilities were to be given additional time to complete Parts I and II.

Commenters 0070, 0071, 0075, 0077, 0078, 0079, 0081, 0082, 0083, 0086, 0087, 0090, 0092, 0093, 0095, 0096, 0097, 0098, 0099, and 0100 stated that even the revised test period of 6 to 8 months is insufficient to allow for all units to complete the testing. One commenter has already queried some of the emission test contractors routinely used for the Part 75 Relative Accuracy Testing Audits (RATAs) as to their availability to conduct the required tests. At least one contractor has already indicated they would not be able to accommodate this task due to other commitments. EPA needs to extend the period for completing the emission tests to at least 9 to18 months to allow the limited emission testing resources adequate time to perform these tests. Further, EPA has underestimated the burden by failing to include costs incurred by the companies when operating when it is not economic to do so.

Commenter 0079 stated that EPA is unclear with regard to the 60/80/100 percent data submittal plan. That is, is the split based on the number of units or the number of tests?

Commenter 0080 indicated a concern that the short time-frame allowed for testing will result in sampling and laboratories with limited experience will have to be employed and that “shortcuts” may be taken.

Commenter 0082 stated that it is inappropriate to a llow the deadlines in the proposed Consent Decree (CD) to drive the ICR deadlines. The commenter alleged that EPA was fully aware of the concerns being raised during comments on the first draft of the ICR when it negotiated the deadlines in the CD. The commenter stated that EPA should not ente r into a proposed CD that constrains the ability of companies to efficiently and effectively meet the requirements of the ICR and that is imperative that EPA offer companies sufficient time to fully complete the ICR and then determine what deadlines are appropriate to offer in settlement.

Commenter 0088 recommended that EPA separate the stack test and laboratory/report-writing timelines such that stack testing would be required to be completed within the 6- to 8-month timeline, with laboratory analyses and reports due within additional 60 days.

Commenter 0092 stated that because of internal administrative procedures (legal and regulatory) imposed on it as a public entity, it will find it difficu lt, if not impossible, to select and engage a vendor and have all the tests co mpleted within the required 8- month timetable, even assuming there will be sufficient testing industry capacity.

Response: On December 20, 2008, a number of envir onmental and public health organizations filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that EPA had failed to perform a mandatory nondisc retionary duty under CAA section 304(a)(2), by failing to promulgate final MACT emissions st andards for HAP from EGUs, pursuant to CAA section 112(d), by the statutorily-mandated deadline . American Nurses Assn., et. al. v. Lisa Jackson , Civ. No. 1:08-cv-02198 (RMC). As not ed in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, EPA has been in8 settlement negotiations with plaintiffs in the matter and on October 28, 2009, we published a proposed Consent Decree (CD) in the Federal Register (74 FR 55547) for public comment pursuant to CAA section 113(g). Under the pro posed CD, EPA must sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking sett ing forth EPA proposed CAA section 112(d) standards for EGUs by March 16, 2011, and sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking setting forth EPA’s final emission standards by November 16, 2011. The public comment period recently closed. Consis tent with paragraph 13 of the decree, EPA and the Department of Justice are reviewing the comments and will determine whether it is appropriate to withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed CD. Until this determination is made, we are proceeding with a schedule that ensures that we will meet the proposed deadlines. Accordingly, we are not making a ny revisions to the time-frames re quired to respond to the ICR.

We are requiring Parts I and II of the ICR be completed within 90 days so that we may process that information before the emissions testing data are required to be submitted. EPA believes that the 90 days allotted for comp liance with Parts I and II is suffici ent. We also think that the commenters’ burden estimates are excessive because much of the data are required to be maintained pursuant to the regulatory provisions of the Title V program a nd we do not think it is appropriate for this proposed ICR to include wi thin the burden estimate time for sources to organize that information. Also, because Title V requires sources to subm it reports that contain much of the emissions information we are reque sting, the EGUs should not have to review the underlying emissions monitoring data to provide the information th at is required in the proposed ICR. We acknowledge, however, that some info rmation we are requesting is not required pursuant to Title V permit requirements. For th is reason, we are revising the burden estimate in the ICR and now estimate that Parts I and II wi ll require between 45 and 65 hours, depending upon the size and complexity of the unit. Ou r prior estimate was that submission of the information from Parts I and II would take ap proximately 40 hours. We do not think it is appropriate to extend the time for completing Part s I and II because, as stated above, we intend to process and analyze the Parts I and II data in a dvance of receiving the te st data. We note that commenters are arguing both that EP A should allow more time to provide this data and that EPA does not have sufficient time to process the data and propose a standard. We do not agree with those comments, and we believe the schedule we have provided will allow us to comply with the proposed CD deadlines.

All the testing data must be submitted to EPA w ithin 8 months under the revised proposed ICR. With regard to the 60/80/100 percen t data submittal plan, our intent is that this be on a unit-basis, rather than on a test basis. For companies with multiple units subject to testing requirements, the proposed ICR requires the respondents to provide tes ting data for 60 percent of their units within 6 months, 80 percent of their units within 7 months , and all of their units within 8 months. We have revised the test data submission requireme nts of the ICR to accommodate small companies that have three or fewer units on the testing list . For those companies, we will entertain requests to submit data on a different schedule. Respondent s must contact EPA with in 4 weeks of receipt of the ICR to request an alternative schedule.

EPA continues to believe that the proposed ICR sc hedule is workable and not es that at least one commenter suggested in response to the July 2, 2009 version of the proposed ICR that 9 months would be sufficient time to comply with the pro posed ICR. We have significantly reduced the amount of testing we proposed to require in th e July 2, 2009, version of the proposed ICR. For9 this reason, and because we are including flexibil ity for small operators as discussed above, we believe the proposed ICR provides sufficient time for respondents to comply with the data submission and testing requirement. We also beli eve that having the data in that time frame is necessary for the Agency to comply with the deadlines in the proposed CD.

We find most, if not all, emissi ons test results are available in final form within 30 days of completion of testing. Interim results, which can be reviewed by respondents, are available earlier. Given that the time period for emi ssions testing and reporting program has been extended by two months, we find no compelling reason to extend further the time period for reporting of emissions test re sults, especially in light of our obligation under the CD.

Comment: Commenter 0088 requested that EPA allow operators to swap unit test schedules after the first 3 weeks if necessary for dispat ch considerations. Additionally, the commenter requested clarification that co mpanies may test units earlier than declared without notifying EPA, as long as no other schedules are affected.

Response: EPA will allow schedule switches as long as the overall schedule is met. We are amending the ICR to require that notice be provid ed within 2 days of the source becoming aware of the need to switch the schedule for testing uni ts. Similarly, companies may test units early without providing the notice otherwise required in the ICR, but the source must notify EPA within 2 days of determining that early testing is appropriate, even if th at means EPA is notified after completion of emission testing.


### 2.5 Units owned/operated by small systems should be allowed to submit their data at the end of the 8-month period

Comment: Commenters 0086 and 0088 requested that sm aller utility systems (i.e., those with three or fewer units on the test li sts) should be allowed to submit th eir stack testing reports at any time before the completion of the 8-month period.

Response: EPA is revising the ICR as discussed above to provide some flexibility to owners and operators with three for fewer units on the test list.

Comment: Commenter 0088 requested that EPA cons ider proposals to aggregate units and testing deadlines among several companies to allo w for better coordination of the limited number of qualified testing companies. For example, EPA might allow establis hed organizations, such as the commenter, to be treated as one entity for scheduling purposes and to coordinate stack testing. This approach would incr ease flexibility and reduce costs. Responsible officials at each company would declare to EPA their intention to coordinate action among the established organization’s companies, and the companies w ould at the same time submit a schedule for testing each participating member’s selected uni ts. The commenter also requested that EPA consider “company” at the parent company le vel rather than at the subsidiary level.

Response: EPA is amenable to this solution so long as it is the individual company rather than the commenter (or similar) that is committing to th e schedule. EPA would also be amenable to this approach for finding alternativ e test sites (i.e., if a non-best performing unit selected at one company is not suitable for testing for one reason or another, EP A would encourage the10 commenter’s organization to identify to EPA a suitable site from among its other members and submit that alternative to EPA for review and approval/disapproval. Units in the three HAP categories for which EPA selected the best perfor ming units may not be substituted). Further, EPA concurs with the commenter’s suggestion of the consideration at th e parent company level rather than at the subsidiary level.



### 2.6 Oil-fired units

Comment: Commenter 0071 suggested th at the oil-fired MACT appl y only to those units whose owners indicate to the Energy Information Ad ministration that oil is the primary fuel.

Response: EPA has not decided on an applicability de finition at this time. EPA will evaluate the December 2000 listing as part of the rulemaki ng process and determine the scope of the final CAA section 112(d) standard.

Comment: Commenter 0092 stated that it is wastef ul to incur costs to support the possible installation of new emission controls on oil-fire d units, many of which will be operating less and less or not at all in a few years due to their a dvanced ages, and their decreasing reliance in the dispatch order of units.

Response: EPA must gather data to support developm ent of regulations for oil-fired units under CAA section 112(d) because they were listed in the December 2000 regulatory determination.

Comment: Commenter 0093 recommended the EPA remove mercury from the compounds to be tested from oil-fired units.

Response: “Mercury compounds” are one of the lis ted HAP on the CAA section 112(b) list for which CAA section 112(d) standards must be se t and, thus, EPA cannot remove mercury from the list of HAP to be tested.


### 2.7 Quality of data obtained

Comment: Commenters 0077, 0087, 0092, and 0096 stated th at the restricted time allowed for completing ICR responses increases the likelihood th at less than the highest quality data will be submitted. This is particularly true for stack testing where a limited number of highly qualified stack samplers is available. In addition, EPA intends to include a “generic” Quality Assurance Project Plan (“QAPP”) with each CAA section 11 4 letter. However, this QAPP has not been made available for public comment. The ICR requires stack sampling results to be reported using ERT. EPA developed the ERT as part of an ICR for the IB MACT rulemaking. Yet even today, the ERT does not function correctly. Users have reported a number of calculation glitches when entering IB MACT sampling results in th e ERT. Commenter 0077 believes that if these problems are not fixed before EGUs must s ubmit stack sampling data, the quality will be compromised.

Commenters 0079, 0080, and 0090 requests that the re quirement that the QAPP be sent to EPA for approval be clarified.11 Response: EPA acknowledges the concerns of the commen ters. However, the Agency believes that the available data acquired through Part II of the ICR will help to address many of the commenter’s concerns.

EPA disagrees with the commenters’ assertions that there are only a li mited number of highly qualified emissions testers; that only those highly qualified emissions testers can provide high quality data; that the extended time period give n for conducting and reporting emissions testing somehow increases the likelihood th at highest quality data will be provided; and that the ERT does not function properly. Commen ters fail to provide evidence that corroborates their alleged concerns regarding emissions test ers and data. All identified ER T issues have been reviewed and corrected. We encourage respondents and th eir emissions testing firms to review the ERT instructions thoroughly, prior to be ginning emissions testing. We be lieve a majority of questions and reported problems concerning the ERT would ha ve been averted had the inquirers read the instructions. Should an ERT-related issue arise, we will provide quick and complete assistance.

QAPP preparation has been, and remains, the re sponsibility of the respondent. We recommend each respondent devise a quality assu rance test plan that is specific to each of its facilities. Such a plan could include the project elements as enumerated in chapter 3 of the EPA quality assurance document (http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs- docs/r5-final.pdf). The existence of such a plan would provide respondents with a means to ve rify that the quality assurance protocols as contained in the various test methods are met. Complete directions for the QAPP will be provided along with the CAA section 114 letter.

Comment: Commenters 0079, 0083, and 0093 questions th e validity of the proposed ICR stack testing and the likelihood that it will produce representative emissions data upon which to establish a MACT or to establish the best performing units. The commenter believes the variability of mercury emissions and the validity of data are issues that require resolution before facilities are required to respond to the ICR questionnaire and conduc t costly stack testing that will provide limited insight into best performing units, mercury emissions, and the data needed to establish a MACT. The commenter believes th at three, 2-hour stack tests will not be representative of either mercury emissions or the contro l efficiencies of the best controlled units. Longer term test and/or monito ring data, accurate measuremen t techniques, and appropriate averaging periods are critical to representative, va lid data collection for es tablishing the critical components of a MACT to ensure that the standa rd is appropriately se t and is achievable on a long-term basis with available control technolo gies. Commenter 0079 believes that there is a significant potential for the removal efficiency of an activated carbon injection system, as well as other emission control equipment, to decrease ov er time. The interrelationship between emission controls that are not mercury specific but have, in certain cases, ancilla ry benefits in mercury emission reduction, is not clear. Commenter 0079 does not believe the testing requirements will serve to qualify the data as re presentative of the average or th e particular unit over an extended time period. Actual fuel composition and unit oper ational characteristics cause variability that can only be quantified by repeat testing over time and at differing conditions. In this proposed ICR, there are no requirements to assess the accu racy of the measurements , temporal variability or fluctuations in emissions with changes in unit operating ch aracteristics. The commenter encourages EPA to tailor the ICR in such a manner that a sufficient amount of data is collected to allow it to assess some of the variables and anom alies that should be cons idered in establishing a12 tailored MACT, rather than a one-size-fits all approach to determining what the MACT should be based on a limited set of data.

Response: EPA does not agree with the commenters’ contention that EPA is not collecting sufficient data to establish the CAA section 112 (d) standards and that the Agency should take preliminary steps before moving forward with the proposed ICR. Furthermore, EPA believes that the data required in the propos ed ICR are sufficient to consider all relevant factors, including variability. As stated before, EPA has a propos ed CD that would require EPA to finalize CAA section 112(d) standards for EGUs by Novemb er 16, 2011, and, therefore, EPA is not in a position to delay the ICR.


### 2.8 Statistical representative ness of the units selected

Comment: Commenter 0071 stated that insufficient lignite -fired units had been included in the list of units to allow for subcategorization by co al rank (i.e., at least five units should be included).

Response: EAP disagrees. With the addition of Sa ndow Unit 5B noted above, there are at least five lignite-fired units on the list of units required to test for the three major HAP groups.

Comment: Commenter 0080 alleged that the selec tion process outlined by EPA has three critical biases. First, EPA’s criteria result in the selection of inappropr iately high proportion of fluidized bed combustion (FBC) units. FBC units are 33 percent of all te st sites but only 6 percent of all coal-fired units. Second, EPA’s criteria are no t representative of industry-wide coal usage with a si gnificant under-representation of subbituminous coals, a slightly overrepresentation of coal refuse, and a slight overrepresentation of b ituminous coals. The commenter believes that the units se lected should be more represen tative of coal usage across all EGUs. Third, EPA’s selection crit eria results in a non-representa tive size distribution, partially resulting from the excess number of FBC units se lected (which tend to be smaller than typical coal-fired units). The commenter recommended that EPA incorporate th e additional selection criterion of coal rank/fuel type and that EPA include “x” number of bituminous coal-fired units and “y” number of subbituminous coal-fired un its in each grouping, with the total number equaling 175.

Commenter 0089 requests that EPA provide data that demonstrates that the units selected for testing are fired with coal types that are repres entative of the inherent variability of mercury concentration between coal rank as well as the variability with in each coal rank.

Commenter 0094 alleges that the ICR will not produ ce a data set sufficient for development of MACT standards for subcategories of EGUs base d on coal rank and type of combustion unit and requests that the Agency gather the data nece ssary to support developm ent of MACT standards for subcategories.

Response: As stated in EPA’s supporting statement and the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, EPA based its selection of units to test by determini ng those units that are among the best performing units among all coal-fired EGUs for three of the HAP groupings, including metal HAP and PM. In discussions13 with several of the commenters, we were inform ed that we had, in fact, selected the best performing units in those three HAP groupings. We intend to establish the CAA section 112(d) standards based on 12 percent of th e entire category or subcategor y to the extent that we can establish that we have data on the best perfor ming 12 percent of units in a given category or subcategory. For this reason, the Agency is not changing the test list because we believe we have selected the best performing units for three of the HAP groups.

EPA will evaluate the data received from the pr oposed ICR, including coal rank data and boiler types, to determine what, if any, subcategories ar e appropriate. EPA believes that we will have sufficient data should subcategorization be warranted.


### 2.9 Proposed surrogate parameters for mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP

Comment: Commenter 0080 stated that in pr evious comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234- 028), it had noted that PM (specifically, total fi lterable PM) has been demonstrated to be a suitable surrogate for particulate phase metals. Particulate phase meta ls are those that are associated with fly ash, so that higher (or lowe r) PM emissions correlate with higher (or lower) metals emissions. Examples of the particulate phase metals include copper and arsenic. The commenter questioned the value of the followi ng proposed surrogates for trace metals: PM 2.5 , PM condensables, and TDS/TSS of FGD liquor. EPA dismissed this comment without adequate explanation and appears to have misunderstood pa rt of EPRI’s comment. EPRI requests that further consideration be given to this comment.

Response: We must consider the surrogate potentia l for all non-mercury metallic HAP, not just the particulate phase HAP as commenter has imp lied. Available information suggests that some of these HAP (e.g., selenium) do not always exhib it themselves in the particulate phase, so we are requiring additiona l PM testing (e.g., PM 2.5 , PM condensables) to be able to fully assess the surrogacy options.

We believe particle size may also play an impor tant role in developing surrogacy between PM and metals. As mentioned by the commenter, ther e are different methods for particle sizing in wet and dry stacks since there is no method available for particle si zing in wet stacks. A default method is to be used for wet stacks. We belie ve TDS and TSS information will enable us to estimate better final particulate size contained in water droplets; this data should aid in developing surrogates for the filterable PM 2.5 fraction.


### 2.10 Testing of sister units

Comment: Commenter 0080 and 0092 recomme nded that sister oil-fired units (identical units at the same facility burning the same fuel oil) not both be tested. Rather, the commenter 0080 recommended that resources would be more eff ectively utilized by substituting stack emissions measurements at other differe nt, untested oil-fired units.

Commenter 0082 stated that EPA’s new selection process for oil-fired units has significantly increased the burden on certain companies. The commenter recommended that EPA review their selection process to ensure that multiple units at a single facility are not subject to testing.14 Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Re sponse to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, we have tried to select for testing oil-fired units that are not low capacity factor units. However, because the Agency needs sufficient data to establish the CAA section 112(d) standards, some low capacity factor units may be required to test. For oil-fired units, EPA will consider reque sts to select alternative units on a case-by-case basis. We encourage EGU owners making such re quests to provide potentia l alternative units to test if feasible, as units will be required to test if no comparable alternative can be identified. Such requests must be made, by a Responsible Official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2, within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter . In addition, as noted elsewhere, EPA is amenable to companies within broader organiza tions finding alternative oil-fired units outside their company but within the organization as lo ng as the units are comparable and EPA is informed of, and agrees to, the substitution.

Comment: Commenter 0085 stated that its Hennep in Unit 2, Havana Unit 6, and Vermilion Unit 1 have the same configuration with regard to fuel source, air pollu tion control technologies, and activated carbon injection and th at all are on the list for dioxi n/furan testing. The commenter requested that only one of these uni ts be required to test as no discernibly different results are likely to be found. Further, the commenter reque sts that only one of its Havana Unit 6 and Vermilion Unit 1 be required to test for acid gas HAP, dioxin/furan or ganic HAP, and mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP testing

Response: Units selected for testing on the dioxin/f uran list were selected at random from among the entire coal-fired population. EPA w ill entertain substitutions for units on the dioxin/furan list as long as the po tential substitution fires similar coal, is similarly equipped, and is of a similar size. Units selected for te sting on the acid gas HAP, mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP, and non-dioxin/furan HAP lists were selected based on our determination that the units are among the best performing units for the particular HAP grouping. Therefore, no substitutions are being ente rtained for these units.

Comment: Commenter 0088 identified several identical oil-fired units and re quested that not all of them be required to test, gi ven the likelihood that no additional value would be obtained from the testing.

Commenter 0091 requested that only one of the thr ee identical units at its Mitchell Power Station (PA) be required to test.

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Re sponse to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, we have tried to select for testing oil-fired units that are not low capacity factor units. However, because the Agency needs sufficient data to establish the CAA section 112(d) standards, some low capacity factor units may be required to test. For oil-fired units, EPA will consider reque sts to select alternative units on a case-by-case basis. We encourage oil-fired EGU owners maki ng such requests to provide potential alternative units to test if feasible, as units will be requi red to test if no compar able alternative can be identified. Such requests must be made, by a Responsible Official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2, within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 11 4 letter, and must be approved by EPA. In addition, as noted elsewhere, EPA is amenable to companies within broader organizations15 finding alternative oil-fired units outside their co mpany but within the organization as long as the units are comparable and EPA is inform ed of and agrees to the substitution.


### 2.11 Certifications required

Comment: Commenters 0077 and 0087 stated that in response to comments submitted by a number of environmental groups, EPA states EGUs w ill need to certify (1) that “the fuel that is fired during testing is repr esentative of the fuel that is burne d routinely at the EGU,” (2) that all of the pollution control equipment is operated in accordance with manufactu rers’ specifications and requirements for proper operation during emissi ons testing, and (3) that the pollution control equipment is operated to optimize reduction of the pollutants for which the equipment is designed. Commenters state th at the ICR’s supporting statemen t does not contain the exact language of these certifications so specific comments are impossible. However, as these certifications are described by EPA, they are unw orkable. The first ce rtification involves the “representativeness” of the fuel being burned during stack testing. Coal is not homogeneous. Indeed, coal characteristics vary greatly among coals taken from the same seam. Even greater differences occur among different coal seams. Furthermore, many EGUs burn coals from more than one source. How is an EGU to determin e if the coal being bur ned on a given day is “representative?” By what crite ria is representativeness determ ined? The second certification would require control equipment to be opera ted in accordance with the manufacturers’ specifications and requirements for proper ope ration during emissions testing. However, manufacturer’s specifications are not always followed during normal operations of an EGU. Rather, utilities tend to operate a unit’s control equipment so as to comply with all emission standards. The third certific ation would require a unit’s pollution control equipment to be operated to optimize the reduction of pollutants for whic h the equipment is designed. CAA requirements do not require pollutant reductions to be optimized, instead, stack emission limits are set and a source must comply with those limits. For these reasons, NRECA believes these certifications are an unworkable requirement. Instead, ICR testing should be based on “representative performance (i.e., performan ce based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source.” ( See 40 CFR § 63.7(e).)

Response: EPA acknowledges that more clarity is n ecessary for the certification requirement. However, EPA also believes that it is important that the data be obtained, as the commenter notes, under normal operating conditions. That is , the coal rank should not have been changed just for the period of the test ing, the control equipment should not be operated outside of the manufacturer’s specifications, and the control equipm ent should be operated so as to effect optimum pollutant reductions required to comp ly with the source’s permitted emissions limitations – the last two conditions of which should, in fact, be normal operating conditions. EPA merely wants confirmation that these conditions have been met.


### 2.12 Fuel sampling requirements

Comment: Commenters 0082 and 0100 stated that EPA’ s requirement for fuel sampling at oilfired units is unnecessarily complex. Because most oil-fired units will have sufficient oil on-site for the testing and would be supplied from only one tank, there is no expectation that there would be any variability in the oil analyses. The commenter recommended that EPA require only one oil sample per run.16 Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that only one fuel sample per run is necessary for those units that are fed from just one tank and th at have enough fuel in that tank to complete emissions testing. Units fed from more than one tank or from more than one shipment or delivery of fuel will need to follow th e sampling program contained in the ICR.

Comment: Commenter 0088 requested clarification as to whether EPA’s request for fuel test data in Part II includes fuel test data for natural gas that is co-fired in oil-fired units. The commenter also requested that EPA prorate emissi ons data to the percent oil burned or otherwise remove the effect of the natural gas to ensure the best-performing 12 per cent represent emissions performance actually achieved by oil-fired units.

Response: The proposed ICR requires EGUs to conduc t testing while burning oil only if the unit ever burns, or is permitted to burn, oil by itself. If a unit must blend oil with natural gas pursuant to its permit, the unit must test unde r its permitted operati ng conditions. EPA will consider the appropriate manner in which to consid er units that co-fire oil and natural gas after the data have been collected and we develop the proposed standard. EPA is not requiring any fuel analyses for natural gas.

Comment: Commenter 0098 requested that EPA recons ider the requirement of “one analysis per run” to allow for a composite sample anal ysis for each test as a cost saving measure.

Response: EPA seeks a composite sample for each run in order to best assess potential surrogacy between fuel and emissions. As with most testing requirements, we will consider proposed alternatives on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the commenter should propose his alternative approach to us, remembering to describe its impact on emi ssions and provide data that demonstrates little, if any, variability in fuel constituents.

Comment: Commenter 0101 requested clarification of the language in Part III, section 3.2 where it states, “...must report the analysis separa tely for each of the 12 samples...” However, Part III, section 2.0, states “...one fuel sample (comprised of three composite samples, each individually analyzed) of the fuel used during a stack test (one composite sample per test run).” The commenter interprets this to require a total th ree fuel samples for each unit test, one per test run. If this is a correct interp retation, please replace the referen ce of 12 samples with 3 samples, or clarify in the ICR the number of samples required.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the language lacks consistency and needs clarification; that consistency and clarification will be included in the CAA section 114 letter.


### 2.13 Some companies bear a dispropo rtionate share of the testing burden

Comment: Commenters 0066 and 0090 stated that EPA should have attempted to distribute the testing costs across a broader utility base so some companies are not comparatively more financially impacted than other companies.

Response: Because the selection approach for certai n HAP groups is based on the selected units being among the best performers, all units in th ose groups that are select ed will be required to conduct the specified emissions testing.17 

### 2.14 EPA significantly altered the list of units to be tested, impacting on companies’ budget process

Comment: Commenters 0066 and 0089 stated that the ch ange in units selected for testing requires a large unplanned change to the 2010 budget with very little time to plan for it. This may result in cutting or delaying other needed projects to make room for the ICR testing.

Response: EPA made the change in selection pro cess based on comments received on the first draft of the ICR. Further, companies should be aware that draft ICRs are subject to change, including the units selected, based on comments r eceived. In this case , for three of the HAP groupings, EPA selected the best performing units to test and substitution is, therefore, not available.


### 2.15 Selection of specific units for the testing

Comment: Commenter 0066 opposed the selection of H oot Lake Plant Unit 2 (HLP2) based on their belief that it is not a su itable, and possibly infeasible, test location to conduct this testing.

Response: Units selected for testing on the dioxin/f uran list were selected at random from among the entire coal-fired population. EPA w ill entertain substitutions for units on the dioxin/furan list as long as the po tential substitution fires similar coal, is similarly equipped, and is of a similar size. With regard to the speci fic unit cited, EPA believes that acceptable data may be obtained from this site.

Comment: Commenter 0067 indicated that the ICR id entifies the four San Juan Generating Station units in NM as having hot-s ide electrostatic precipitators for particulate control. Over the past two years the hot-side elec trostatic precipitators have been removed from service on all of the four units and replaced with a baghouse on each unit.

Response: The San Juan units were selected based on their having new FGD controls, not on the type of PM control installe d. However, given the informati on, these four units have been placed on the list for required non-mercury metallic HAP and mercury testing due to the fact that they have some of the newest PM controls.

Comment: Commenter 0068 questioned the selection of Colstrip Units 3 and 4 for “NonDioxin/Furan and Organic HAP” testing as unnecessary as both units receive and burn coal from the same source and are fed this fuel with a common belt system. They have identical designs, identical pollution control, and identical emission standards. Therefore, testing one of the two twin units - Unit 3 - for the three HAP groups of interest should give EPA representative data.

Response: Colstrip Unit 4 was selected for the sp ecified testing based on the fact that its reported “boiler date” is 04/01/1986 which made it one of the 175 newest units. Colstrip Unit 3 was randomly selected from among the units not co mprising the set of units selected as being among the top performers.

Comment: Commenter 0069 indicated that a number of its units selected for testing all currently operate with an activ ated carbon injection (ACI) syst em for mercury control. The18 commenter is uncertain if US EPA contemplated ACI being injected for these units and, therefore, if the data captured will result in information useful to USEPA and requests that USEPA reconsider if these units are valuable test sites.

Commenter 0070 stated that its Newton Station Unit 2 began injecting ACI on July 1

, 2009, to comply with the Illinois EPA Multi-pollutant Standards rule.

Response: EPA would expect that all of the units tested would operate with all installed emission control systems operating normally and according to permit conditions. The presence of ACI does not alter our determination that these units should be tested.

Comment: Commenter 0069 indicated that its Grant Town Units 1A and 1B were selected for testing in three categories which would be a fina ncial burden for this facility. The commenter requested that the units be required to test for only one of the three categories. If the number of testing categories cannot be reduced, the commen ter requested that testing be allowed at the common stack with both units on.

Commenter 0089 indicated that it’s Seward Units 1 and 2 are identical circulating FBC units with identical emissions controls and share a common stack. The commenter requested that testing be allowed at the common stack during periods when both boilers are being operated simultaneously at conditions repr esentative of 90 percent or better of normal maximum load.

Response: As the units were selected based on the criteria stated above for best performing units, EPA does not feel it appropria te to exclude any of the units from the specified testing. However, testing at the common stack is allowa ble for both the Grant Town and Seward units. The respondent will be required to prorate the HAP emissions among the two units when entering the data into the ERT for submission to EPA.

Comment: Commenter 0069 indicated that its Wauke gan Unit 17 was retired in 2007 and requested that it be removed from the test list.

Response: As noted elsewhere, EPA will entertain suggested alternative sites for testing for units not identified and selected as best perfor mers as long as the coal rank, boiler type, and emission controls are similar. Commenter 0069 should suggest such an alternative for EPA approval.

Comment: Commenter 0070 indicated that its Sioux Unit 2 is currently being retrofitted with a wet FGD system that is to be operational in late 2010. Based on EPA ’ s tentative schedule for stack testing, this testing would have to be completed prior to the FGD tie in

. Performing testing under the unit’s current configuration will not relate accurate impacts of any proposed MACT limits as this unit will be using the new FGD prior to any MACT sta ndard proposal. Performing testing prior to the installation of the FGD will not produce representative data as EPA explains it is looking for. Given the fact that the proposed testing will produce unrepresentative data, the commenter indicated that the proposed testing for Sioux Unit 2 should be removed from the list.

Response: As noted earlier, EPA is requiring testing of these units so as to be able to acquire data with which to assess the impact of the st andard. Thus, testing of this unit will provide useful data.19 Comment: Commenter 0071 stated that its Sand ow Unit 5 selected for acid gas, non dioxin/furan, and non-mercury metallic and mercury HAP testing is really two boilers (Units 5A and 5B) with separate pollution control syst ems and stacks that serve a common boiler.

Response: Based on the information provided, EPA will add Unit 5B to the three lists as this unit would meet the subject criteria.

Comment: Commenter 0072 requested th at their C.C. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant Unit 2 be removed from the list of oil-fired units for which testing is required. Th is unit has operated for only 50 hours over the past 2 years.

Commenter 0076 requested that the requirement to test its Edge Moor Un it 5 as its oil-fired capacity factor is less than 2 percent and th e unit will be expending annual and ozone season NO X allowances, SO 2 allowances, and RGGI CO 2 allowances to complete the required testing. EPA has not factored thes e costs into the burden.

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Re sponse to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, we have tried to select for testing oil-fired units that are not low capacity factor units. However, because the Agency needs sufficient data to establish the CAA section 112(d) standards, some low capacity factor units may be required to test. For oil-fired units, EPA will consider reque sts to select alternative units on a case-by-case basis. We encourage EGU owners making such re quests to provide potentia l alternative oil-fired units to test if feasible, as units will be requi red to test if no compar able alternative can be identified. Such requests must be made, by a responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2, within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter.

Comment: Commenter 0073 stated that its Pleasant Prairie Unit 1 is mischaracterized with regard to the control equipment installed. It is equipped similarly to its sister unit (Unit 2) and has SCR and wet FGD installed.

Commenter 0083 stated that the controls identifie d for its Bailly and R.M. Schahfer units are incorrect and that the testing requirements for those plants sh ould be reevaluated and revised.

Response: Based on the in-service da tes of the FGD systems on Pleasant Prairie Units 1 and 2 of November 2006 and March 2007, respectively, Unit 1 would be removed from the “random” 50 list and placed on the acid gas HAP list.

The controls identified by the commenter for th e Bailly and R.M. Schahfer facilities (i.e., NO X controls) are not germane to their selection for the respective tests and, th us, no changes need to be made.

Comment: Commenter 0074 requested that its Roanoke Valley Energy Facility Units I and II be removed from the list of facilities selected for testing because, based on test data, these units are believed to be synthe tic minor sources of HAP.

Response: EPA listed coal- and oil-fired EGUs as de fined in CAA section 112(a)(8). Thus, at this time, no exclusion is being made for sources that may be area sources of HAP.20 Comment: Commenter 0078 indicated th at their Rio Bravo Poso and Rio Bravo Jasmin units are identically designed units that fire a maxi mum of 45 percent petroleum coke. However, both are indicated as being required to test for all HAP. The commenter requests that they only be required to test one unit.

Response: As the units were selected based on the criteria stated above for best performing units, EPA does not feel it appropriate to exclude either unit from the specified testing unless they were to share a common stack.

Comment: Commenters 0081 and 0088 requested that EPA clarify the required sample location for units that share comm on pollution control devices.

Response: For units selected on the basis of the control device (e.g., acid gas and mercury and non-mercury metallic HAP), testing can be perfor med at the exit of the common control (or at the stack, if no additional controls are involved). For units that were selected on the basis of their age (e.g., non-dioxin/furan organic HAP), the company should contact EPA with further specifics.

Comment: Commenter 0083 indicated that its Bailly Units 7 and 8, selected for acid gas HAP testing, share a common FGD system and requested that testing at the common stack be allowed.

Response: As noted above, for units selected on th e basis of the control device (e.g., in this case, acid gas HAP), testing can be performed at the exit of the common c ontrol (or at the stack, if no additional controls are involved).

Comment: Commenter 0082 stated that EPA should not require testing of units with low capacity factors, units in cold re serve, or units that are not cu rrently burning co al or oil. Requiring such units to test could in crease emissions to the atmosphere.

Commenter 0089 requested that its Indian River Units 1, 2, and 3 be removed from the oil-fired test list as these units do not have an executable Power Purc hase Agreement (PPA), and does not expect one, for 2010 and, thus, will no t be able to commercially operate.

Commenter 0100 stated that EPA should not require a unit to run solely to provide test results.

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Re sponse to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, EPA will consider requests to select alternative units not identified and selected as best performers on a case-by-case basis. We encourage EGU owners making such requests to provide potential alte rnative units to test if feasible, as units will be required to test if no comparab le alternative can be identifie d. Such requests must be made, by a responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70. 2, within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter and submitted for approval by EPA.

Comment: Commenter 0085 stated that its Hennepin Unit 2 should have “baghouse, pulse” and “ACI” indicated as controls. Further, the commen ter indicated that its Ha vana Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 do not have electrostatic precipitators as PM controls.21 Response: EPA will make the requested changes. Base d on the noted addition of a fabric filter, Hennepin Unit 2 will be added to the merc ury and non-mercury metallic HAP test list.

Comment: Commenter 0088 noted specific low-capacity oil-fired units and recommended their removal from the test list. Th e units specifically noted are:

Bridgeport Harbor 2 (oil and gas unit; less than 1 percent oil capacity factor) East River 6 (oil and gas unit; less th an 2 percent oil capacity factor) Eddystone 4 (oil unit; less than 1 percent unit capacity factor) Edge Moor 5 (oil and gas unit; less than 2 percent oil capacity factor) Schuylkill 1 (oil unit; less than 2 percent unit capacity factor) Sewaren 2 and 4 (oil and gas units; less than 1 percent oil capacity factors)

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Re sponse to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, we have tried to select for testing oil-fired units that are not low capacity factor units. However, because the Agency needs sufficient data to establish the CAA section 112(d) standards, some low capacity factor units may be required to test. For oil-fired units, EPA will consider request s to select alternative oil-fired units on a caseby-case basis. We encourage EGU owners making such requests to provide potential alternative oil-fired units to test if feasible, as units will be required to test if no comparable alternative can be identified. Such requests must be made, by a responsible official as defined in 40 CFR 70.2, within 3 weeks of receipt of the CAA section 114 letter and submitted for approval by EPA.

Comment: Commenter 0089 requests that the requirement to conduct acid gas emissions testing at the Niles Power Plant Units 1 and 2 be re moved from the ICR. At its discretion, the commenter can route emissions from Niles Un it 1 or Unit 2 through a research-grade (i.e., medium efficiency) partial-plant capacity wet scrubber that was instal led, with bypass, as a voluntary pollution control project in the early 1990s. The discre tionary use of the wet scrubber is reflected in language included in the plant’s Title V operating permit.

Response: Based on the information provided, Niles Units 1 and 2 will be removed from the acid gas HAP test list.

Comment: Commenter 0090 stated that its Big Sa ndy Unit 2 and Muskingum River Unit 5 will not have their FGD systems installed to meet the HAP testing schedule and, thus, should be removed from the list.

Response: Based on the information provided, these two units will be removed from the list.

Comment: Commenter 0090 requested that testing requi rements for all like units listed at their Cardinal, Gavin, Amos, Mitchell, and Kammer Plan ts be revised such that only one unit at each facility need be tested.

Response: As the units were selected based on the criteria stated above for best performing units, it is not appropriate to exclude any of the units from the specified te sting. Units that share a common stack may potentially test and cal culate emissions as discussed above.22 Comment: Commenter 0093 indicated that its P.L. Bartow Units 1, 2, and 3 have been retired and, thus, should be removed from the test list. Further, the commenter st ated that it’s Anclote Units 1 and 2 have duct configurations such that HAP testing may not be feasible.

Response: EPA will remove the P.L. Bartow units fr om the list but will rely on the commenter to find substitute units for the Anclote units.

Comment: Commenter 0095 indicated that its Rodem acher Units 3a and 3b are identical circulating FBC units with identi cal emissions controls. The comme nter requested that testing be allowed at only one unit.

Response: As the units were selected based on the criteria stated above for best performing units, it is not appropriate to exclude either unit fr om the specified testing. However, testing at a common stack would be allowable if this is the configuration.

Comment: Commenter 0098 indicated that its Bay Front Unit 5 has not burned petroleum coke since September 2009 and has no petroleum coke on-si te. The unit is planned for retirement and replacement with a biomass gasification system in late 2011 or early 2012. The commenter requests that the unit be re moved from the test list.

Response: EPA will remove the subject unit from the list due to the fact that no petroleum coke is available.

Comment: Commenter 0099 has a concern that is speci fic to its J.H. Campbell Unit 1. Unit 1 shares a common stack with Unit 2. The commenter does not have, nor can it install, ports to meet test location criteria for Unit 1, by itsel f. However, the commenter does have the opportunity to test Unit 1 duri ng a scheduled Unit 2 outage in March 2010. However, the commenter will require a back up plan in the unlikely event that problems arise. As a back up plan, the commenter would propos e to test the combined stac k with both Units 1 and 2 in operation. With EPA’s concurrence, the commen ter would collect the process data and fuel samples for each unit, as required by ICR. The commenter looks forward to working with EPA on this case-by-case alternative.

Response: EPA is amenable to the commenter’s fi rst approach. With regard to the second approach (“back up plan”), commenter does not i ndicate whether a control device is shared along with the stack or just the stack. EPA would n eed additional information before approving the back-up plan.

Comment: Commenter 0101 stated that it’s W.H. Sa mmis Units 3 and 4 (SA3 and SA4) were selected for the 50 “random” testing. Howeve r, these units, along with Units SA1 and SA2 are currently being retrofit with a common FGD sy stem, installation of which will be completed during the period May – June 2010. Testing of indivi dual units prior to the FGD is not possible. The commenter requests to delay the testing until Fall 2010 and that the common stack be tested with all units being operational.

Response: Given that a new FGD system is currentl y being installed, these units would not be available during the test period as the commenter notes. We reque st that the commenter select two substitute units at the Sammis facility for the 50 “random” testing.23 Comment: Commenter 0101 states that its Bay Shore Unit 1 has neither test ports nor access for testing in the stack. The commenter requests ap proval to use modified test methods at this location, using a heated Teflon liner for the probe, and heated Teflon lines from the outlet of the sample probe to the inlet of the impinger trains.

Response: As demonstrated in the industrial bo iler and CSIWI ICR activities, EPA remains available for discussion of proposed alternatives to existing test methods. With respect to this commenter’s specific request, we are amenable to exploring legitimate means of collecting the data; however, as with other case-by-case decisi ons, we will need a better understanding of the obstacle(s) and the commenter’s approach fo r overcoming those obstacles, as well as a description of the anticipated impact on emissions of using the proposed approach. The commenter should provide this inform ation to us as soon as possible.


### 2.16 Comments on specific questions

Comment: Commenter 0075 suggests that EPA co mpletely drop questions 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 in Part I as these questions will not be informative for setting MACT standards. For example, questions 22 and 23, which refer to guaranteed emission rates from vendors, are particularly burdensome yet provide no inform ation on the actual emissions at a unit. Additionally, the commenter suggests that EPA re duce the scope of ques tions 8a through 8g in Part II. These questions request listing of all testing and repo rts for any pollutants whereas in question 12, EPA only seeks data for a few potential surrogates and HAP. The commenter specifically cites the volumes of NO X data that are available through compliance tests for their installed NO X controls. Finally, the commenter states that it should not be burdened with reporting information that is already being re ported elsewhere (e.g., to the EIA on forms 860 and/or 923). Commenter 0101 suggests also dropping questions 17 and 20.

Commenter 0081 alleged that EPA continues to reque st data that will have little or no useful bearing on the MACT standard development. The commenter specifically notes questions 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23 of Part I and questions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Part II.

Commenter 0090 alleges that much of the info rmation sought by EPA does not appear to be relevant to the MACT setting process. Further, the commenter states that much of the requested data is already available to EPA through other sources.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters for th e most part. With regard to the Part I questions, the data in question 15 will be used to assess whether an output-based format (i.e., lb/MWe) is appropriate. EPA believes that the basic information requested in question 16 should be readily available; however, if it is not, as commenter suggests, then EPA will accept those data that are readily available (e .g., general type of catalyst, gene ral type of reductant, etc.). Question 17 will allow us to follow-up with vendors that provided emission control equipment for demonstration projects, if necessary. Data fr om demonstration projects may prove useful in evaluating the data obtained through the ICR as de monstration projects of ten lead to full-scale installations. Question 18 w ill allow us to determine the range of conditions for which technologies have been employed, if even just for a demonstration project. Question 20 will allow us to better evaluate the lim itations, if any, of emission cont rols installed specifically to reduce emissions of HAP. Question 21 will allow us to assess State opinions on emission levels24 should adequate emissions data not be availabl e. Questions 22 and 23 will provide similar information from vendors of emission control equipment. Question 24 provides a basis for current reporting requirements. Question 25 will provide information useful in assessing the impact of the standard.

With regard to the Part II questions, the data in question 2, EPA is interested in those data that are available to the company; if the company does not have the information information, it may be so noted. For questions 4, 5, and 6, EPA is inte rested in only those coal analyses for which HAP constituent analyses were performed (e.g., Cl, F, Hg, other metallic HAP); shipments for which these analyses were not reported may be ignored. For question 8, EPA does not know which pollutants may serve as surrogates for th e HAP and, thus, cannot at this time eliminate most of the pollutants for which data may be avai lable. However, EPA agrees that data specific to NO X certifications that contains no additional data on other pollu tants is not useful to the Agency and need not be reported as part of this ICR. For ques tions 9 and 10, EPA is interested in obtaining information that may be of use in addressing issues related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Responses to questi on 11 will allow us to obtain CEMS data that may be used in various analyses, including that for variability.

EPA will clarify the questions as requested by the commenters.

Comment: Commenters 0077 and 0087 stated that tes ting for hexavalent chromium should not be required.

Response: The revised ICR was unclear on the status of testing for hexavalent chromium. This requirement has been removed.

Comment: Commenter 0101 requested clarification on the requirements in Part III, section 1.2, regarding the collection of process data (i.e., does EPA require 30 days of process information prior to the testing AND 30 da ys following the testing).

Response: This section has been clarified.



### 2.17 Selection of additional units

Comment: Commenter 0084 requested th at age, size, and proximity to population should be included in the selection criteria and that addi tional plants in Missouri should be selected to make appropriate measurements of their current HAP emissions. Response: EPA believes that its selection criteria, and the units selected, will be adequate to establish the MACT standard. Once standards are in-place, all units will be required to demonstrate compliance with the standards.


### 2.18 Specific testing questions

Comment: Commenter 0096 expressed a number of concer ns with regard to the ICR, including:

The ICR does not list a method for polycyclic organic material (POM ). They asked what method is required for POM and what the target POM analytes would be.25 EPA has specified testing for VOC, yet has not specified a method for VOC per se. Several methods are specified for various types of VOCs (i.e., formalde hyde, total hydrocarbons (THC), volatile HAP, semi-volatile HAP, etc.), but not for VOC. The commente r indicated that EPA needs to define VOC and specify the method.

EPA has described two different le vels of non-dioxin/furan organi c HAP testing. The base level (170 units) includes carbon monoxide (CO), THC, and VOC. Fifty of these units will be required to test for POM, nitrogen oxides (NO X ), formaldehyde, methane, oxygen (O 2 ), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in addition to CO, THC, and VOC. Again, VOC has not been defined nor the method specified.

For the 170 units with the base level of CO, THC, VOC, is meth ane required to be tested in conjunction with the THC?

EPA suggests that Method 23 will be used for dioxins/furans and PCBs. Please specify any sampling, recovery, and analytical modifications to EPA Method 23 th at will need to be made to accommodate PCB measurement.

As allowed in the previous Bo iler and CISWI MACT ICR program , the commenter requests that EPA Method 316 be allowed as an alternative for formaldehyde measurements.

Oxygen and CO 2 are required for all method groupings (except the minimum non-D/F organics group). The specified method(s) for O 2 and CO 2 are EPA Method 3A or 3B. Most coal-fired EGUs have installed CO 2 CEMS. If the CEMS data is used for CO 2 , will a continuous on-line O 2 measurement also be required, or will integrated bag samples collected concurrently with the isokinetic sampling be acceptable?

Will continuous mercury monitoring system data be acceptable, as stated for other CEMS?

EPA needs to clearly define data reporting re quirements at the outset, preferably in draft documents. Any data handling or reporting requirements that differ from those established in the method need to be clear before testing is impl emented. Preferably such information will be provided in draft documents to allow for proper scheduling and budgeting. We conclude that all testing will be performed as desc ribed in the test methods and th at no special treatment of train fractions will be required.

Response: EPA notes that the existing section 114 letter and its encl osures identify test methods whose results are used to calculate VOC emi ssions and that provide results for key POM emissions. Many of the commenter’s concerns have been raised – and addressed – in our online Guideline Document 51 for the industria l boiler and CISWI ICR (available at http://epa.gov/ttn/emc/guidlnd.html). We expect to initiate and maintain a similar guideline document for this ICR effort. Specific clarific ations will be provided in the CAA section 114 letter and enclosures.

Comment: Commenter 0096 encouraged EPA to examine security issues for the FTP site that will be sued to upload data. The commenter’s recent experience with the Boiler MACT/CISWI data submittals via the FTP site indicated that submitted data could be manipulated by others.26 Response: EPA will provide the necessary security.27 

## 3.0 Other comments that were a ddressed following publication of the first draft of the ICR and no t further responded to herein

Comment: Commenters 0071, 0077, and 0083 stated that th e ICR should be directed at mercury only.

Response: See section 2.1 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenters 0071, 0093, and 0100 stated that units blending ranks of coal should not be included in the test matrix because the blend at any given time would not be representative ove r the long term.

Response: See section 2.7.2 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenter 0071 stated that new units should not be included in the test matrix because these units would be uniquely equipped w ith control technology that is not pervasive on existing units and would not be repres entative of retrofit installations.

Response: See section 2.7 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenter 0071 stated that circulating fl uidized bed (CFB) units should be a separate subcategory because they use a sign ificantly different process to combust coal.

Response: See section 2.5.3 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenter 0089 requested that the mini mum sample duration and volume for the dioxin/furan testing be m odified to reflect reas onable test durations.

Response: See section 2.7 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenter 0089 requested that EPA provi de a more detailed summary of their methods for the MACT development.

Response: See section 2.5.2 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Comment: Commenter 0089 requested that data be obtained such that a percent reduction format may be developed.

Response: See section 2.5.4 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009- 0234-0063. EPA would further note that commenter’s suggested approa ch of using the mercury content and gross calorific value of the as-fired coal and the merc ury emission rates, while not adding to the burden28 of this ICR, still neglects two important poi nts. First, based on Court decisions (e.g., National Lime II
, Cement Kiln Recycling ), it is not totally clear that a percent reduction format meets the Court’s mandates in that it appears to be the emissions to the atmo sphere that “count” rather than how a facility achieved that emission level. Second, commenter’s reliance on the mercury level in the as-fired coal neglects to account for a ny mercury reductions that may have occurred during processing of the coal between the mine face a nd the end-user facilit y. Accounting for such mercury reductions would ultimately become an implementation issue of no little importance.

Comment: Commenters 0090 and 0100 suggested that EPA conduct the Part I and II portions of the ICR before embarking on the Part III emissions testing.

Response: See section 2.2.2 in the November 5, 2009, Response to Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-0063.

Note: additional comments were received relating to errors noted on EPA’s list of units with regard to fuel used, boiler type , control configuration, etc. To the extent the changes noted by the commenters impacted the decision on the un it’s selection, they have been addressed above. Otherwise, the changes will be made as a par t of the development of the database based on receipt of the ICR data.