National Emission Standards for 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, 2009 
 i 

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/duplicate trains during the testing..................................... 6 

2.4 Schedule and burden............................................................................................... 6 

2.5 Units owned/operated by small systems should 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 representativeness of the units selected................................................ 12 

2.9 Proposed surrogate parameters for mercury 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 disproportionate share of the testing burden.................. 16 

2.14 EPA significantly altered the list of units to be tested, 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 following publication of the first draft of the 

ICR and not further responded to herein............................................................................27 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. List of Commenters on the Proposed Information Collection Request for the 

NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 

Proposed on November 10, 2009 (74 FR 58012) ................................................................2 
 ii 

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 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

EGU Coal- and oil-fired electric 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 achievable control technology 

MW Megawatt 

MWe Megawatt electric equivalent 

NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutant 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

PM2.5 PM with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 μ

PM10 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 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

TDS Total dissolved solids 

TSS Total suspended solids 
 1 

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 collection request (ICR) for a new data 

collection for coal- and oil-fired electric utility 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 information 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 commenter were submitted to EPA’s Air and Radiation 

Docket. Some commenters also submitted supplemental information and data to support their 

comments. EPA responded to each substantive comment, made appropriate changes to the ICR, 

and submitted the ICR to the Office of Management 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 the 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 comment summaries are grouped by topic in sections. 
Version 4 2 EPA Internal Review Draft: 03NO2009

Table 1-1. List of Commenters on the Proposed Information Collection Request for the 

NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility 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 Technical Support, 

Lakeland Electric 

0073 12/09/2009 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (We Energies) 

0074 12/10/2009 Don Keisling, 

Westmoreland Partners, 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 Safety (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 Group 
Table 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, Environmental, Health & Safety, 

NiSource 

0084 12/10/2009 Kent Bolivar, 

EI International 

0085 12/10/2009 

Ben C. Trammell, Jr., 

Managing Director, Regulatory 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 Office 
 5 

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

2.1 Selection of 50 random units for 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 ownership 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, suggesting that such values should be reported as “zero.” 

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

Response: As discussed in the Response to Comments document for the July 2, 2009, draft ICR, 

EPA has no basis for determining the top performing 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 likely 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 reporting non-detect values as zero. Such an 

arbitrary designation would be misleading, as detection limits are a function 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 quantifiable in the near future, as 

equipment and process improvements are made. EPA believes having respondents report the 

value obtained, the detection limit, and the process by which the detection 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 impact 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 randomly-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 testing 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 operating agent or has ownership stake so as to be 

able to select the unit best suited for testing (and, thus, minimizing costs). Commenters also 

suggested that sufficient information was already available to EPA through the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI), Toxics Release Inventory (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 for assessing baseline risks in the Residual Risk 

program, augmenting those data based on actual test data (where available) 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 section 112(d) standard so sources in the subject 

category will have been collecting HAP data reflecting 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 data, nor report them to 

States which then report them to the NEI. Further, 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 all of the necessary individual HAP. Thus, EPA 

believes that gathering these data is necessary to conduct a credible assessment of the emissions 

of this important source category. 

EPA is amenable to the suggestion that alternative units be allowed 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 notifying 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/duplicate 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 utilized. The commenters allege that the requirement for duplicate or 

paired trains should be eliminated because it has no technical justification and adds tremendous 

cost and complexity to the ICR testing. The commenters also stated that EPA did not consider 

that using duplicate or paired trains 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 paired/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 undermine the industry’s ability to comply with the 

time frame established in the ICR. We believe that the drilling of new ports and whatever else 

may be required for paired trains could potentially 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 submittal of the available data is inadequate to 

conduct a thorough search, collect, review, quality assure, and enter the information. The 
 7 

commenter recommended that 6 months be allowed for this effort. Commenters 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 allow 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 enter 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 difficult, if not impossible, to select and engage a 

vendor and have all the tests completed within the required 8-month timetable, even assuming 

there will be sufficient testing industry capacity.

Response: On December 20, 2008, a number of environmental 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 nondiscretionary duty under CAA section 304(a)(2), by 

failing to promulgate final MACT emissions standards 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 noted in the November 5, 2009, Response to 

Comments document issued following the July 2, 2009, draft of the ICR, EPA has been in 
 8 

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 proposed CD, EPA must sign for publication in the 

Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking setting 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. Consistent 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 any revisions to the time-frames required 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 compliance with Parts I and II is sufficient. 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 and we do not think it is 

appropriate for this proposed ICR to include within the burden estimate time for sources to 

organize that information. Also, because Title V requires sources to submit reports that contain 

much of the emissions information we are requesting, the EGUs should not have to review the 

underlying emissions monitoring data to provide the information that is required in the proposed 

ICR. We acknowledge, however, that some information we are requesting is not required 

pursuant to Title V permit requirements. For this reason, we are revising the burden estimate in 

the ICR and now estimate that Parts I and II will require between 45 and 65 hours, depending 

upon the size and complexity of the unit. Our prior estimate was that submission of the 

information from Parts I and II would take approximately 40 hours. We do not think it is 

appropriate to extend the time for completing Parts I and II because, as stated above, we intend 

to process and analyze the Parts I and II data in advance of receiving the test data. We note that 

commenters are arguing both that EPA 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 within 8 months under the revised proposed ICR. 

With regard to the 60/80/100 percent 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 testing 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 requirements 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. Respondents must contact EPA within 4 weeks of receipt 

of the ICR to request an alternative schedule. 

EPA continues to believe that the proposed ICR schedule is workable and notes 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 proposed ICR. We have significantly reduced the 

amount of testing we proposed to require in the July 2, 2009, version of the proposed ICR. For 
 9 

this reason, and because we are including flexibility 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 believe 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, emissions 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 emissions 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 results, 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 dispatch considerations. Additionally, the commenter 

requested clarification that companies 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 provided within 2 days of the source becoming aware 

of the need to switch the schedule for testing units. 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 that 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 smaller utility systems (i.e., those with 

three or fewer units on the test lists) should be allowed to submit their 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 consider proposals to aggregate units and 

testing deadlines among several companies to allow for better coordination of the limited number 

of qualified testing companies. For example, EPA might allow established organizations, such 

as the commenter, to be treated as one entity for scheduling purposes and to coordinate stack 

testing. This approach would increase 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 would at the same time submit a schedule for 

testing each participating member’s selected units. The commenter also requested that EPA 

consider “company” at the parent company level 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 the schedule. EPA would also be amenable to 

this approach for finding alternative test sites (i.e., if a non-best performing unit selected at one 

company is not suitable for testing for one reason or another, EPA would encourage the 
 10 

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 performing units may not be substituted). Further, 

EPA concurs with the commenter’s suggestion of the consideration at the parent company level 

rather than at the subsidiary level. 

2.6 Oil-fired units 

Comment: Commenter 0071 suggested that the oil-fired MACT apply only to those units whose 

owners indicate to the Energy Information Administration that oil is the primary fuel. 

Response: EPA has not decided on an applicability definition at this time. EPA will evaluate 

the December 2000 listing as part of the rulemaking process and determine the scope of the final 

CAA section 112(d) standard. 

Comment: Commenter 0092 stated that it is wasteful to incur costs to support the possible 

installation of new emission controls on oil-fired units, many of which will be operating less and 

less or not at all in a few years due to their advanced ages, and their decreasing reliance in the 

dispatch order of units. 

Response: EPA must gather data to support development 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 listed HAP on the CAA section 112(b) list for 

which CAA section 112(d) standards must be set 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 that the restricted time allowed for 

completing ICR responses increases the likelihood that 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 114 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 the ERT. Commenter 0077 believes that if these 

problems are not fixed before EGUs must submit stack sampling data, the quality will be 

compromised. 

Commenters 0079, 0080, and 0090 requests that the requirement that the QAPP be sent to EPA 

for approval be clarified. 
 11 

Response: EPA acknowledges the concerns of the commenters. 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 limited number of highly 

qualified emissions testers; that only those highly qualified emissions testers can provide high 

quality data; that the extended time period given for conducting and reporting emissions testing 

somehow increases the likelihood that highest quality data will be provided; and that the ERT 

does not function properly. Commenters fail to provide evidence that corroborates their alleged 

concerns regarding emissions testers and data. All identified ERT issues have been reviewed 

and corrected. We encourage respondents and their emissions testing firms to review the ERT 

instructions thoroughly, prior to beginning emissions testing. We believe a majority of questions 

and reported problems concerning the ERT would have 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 responsibility of the respondent. We recommend 

each respondent devise a quality assurance 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 verify 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 the 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 conduct 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 that three, 2-hour stack tests will not be 

representative of either mercury emissions or the control efficiencies of the best controlled units. 

Longer term test and/or monitoring data, accurate measurement techniques, and appropriate 

averaging periods are critical to representative, valid data collection for establishing the critical 

components of a MACT to ensure that the standard is appropriately set and is achievable on a 

long-term basis with available control technologies. 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 over time. The interrelationship between emission 

controls that are not mercury specific but have, in certain cases, ancillary benefits in mercury 

emission reduction, is not clear. Commenter 0079 does not believe the testing requirements will 

serve to qualify the data as representative of the average or the particular unit over an extended 

time period. Actual fuel composition and unit operational 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 accuracy of the measurements, temporal variability 

or fluctuations in emissions with changes in unit operating characteristics. 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 anomalies that should be considered in establishing a 
 12 

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 proposed ICR are sufficient to consider all relevant factors, including 

variability. As stated before, EPA has a proposed CD that would require EPA to finalize CAA 

section 112(d) standards for EGUs by November 16, 2011, and, therefore, EPA is not in a 

position to delay the ICR. 

2.8 Statistical representativeness 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 coal rank (i.e., at least five units should be 

included). 

Response: EAP disagrees. With the addition of Sandow 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 selection process outlined by EPA has three 

critical biases. First, EPA’s criteria result in the selection of inappropriately high proportion of 

fluidized bed combustion (FBC) units. FBC units are 33 percent of all test sites but only 6 

percent of all coal-fired units. Second, EPA’s criteria are not representative of industry-wide 

coal usage with a significant under-representation of subbituminous coals, a slightly 

overrepresentation of coal refuse, and a slight overrepresentation of bituminous coals. The 

commenter believes that the units selected should be more representative of coal usage across all 

EGUs. Third, EPA’s selection criteria results in a non-representative size distribution, partially 

resulting from the excess number of FBC units selected (which tend to be smaller than typical 

coal-fired units). The commenter recommended that EPA incorporate the 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 units 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 representative of the inherent variability of mercury 

concentration between coal rank as well as the variability within each coal rank. 

Commenter 0094 alleges that the ICR will not produce a data set sufficient for development of 

MACT standards for subcategories of EGUs based on coal rank and type of combustion unit and 

requests that the Agency gather the data necessary to support development 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 determining 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 discussions 
 13 

with several of the commenters, we were informed 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 the entire category or subcategory to the extent that we can 

establish that we have data on the best performing 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 proposed ICR, including coal rank data and boiler 

types, to determine what, if any, subcategories are 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 previous comments (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-

028), it had noted that PM (specifically, total filterable PM) has been demonstrated to be a 

suitable surrogate for particulate phase metals. Particulate phase metals are those that are 

associated with fly ash, so that higher (or lower) 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 following proposed surrogates for trace metals: PM2.5, 

PM condensables, and TDS/TSS of FGD liquor. EPA dismissed this comment without adequate 

explanation and appears to have misunderstood part of EPRI’s comment. EPRI requests that 

further consideration be given to this comment. 

Response: We must consider the surrogate potential for all non-mercury metallic HAP, not just 

the particulate phase HAP as commenter has implied. Available information suggests that some 

of these HAP (e.g., selenium) do not always exhibit themselves in the particulate phase, so we 

are requiring additional PM testing (e.g., PM2.5, PM condensables) to be able to fully assess the 

surrogacy options. 

We believe particle size may also play an important role in developing surrogacy between PM 

and metals. As mentioned by the commenter, there are different methods for particle sizing in 

wet and dry stacks since there is no method available for particle sizing in wet stacks. A default 

method is to be used for wet stacks. We believe 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 PM2.5 fraction. 

2.10 Testing of sister units

Comment: Commenter 0080 and 0092 recommended 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 effectively utilized by substituting stack emissions 

measurements at other different, 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, Response 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 requests to select alternative units on a case-by-case 

basis. We encourage EGU owners making such requests to provide potential 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 organizations finding alternative oil-fired units outside 

their company but within the organization as long as the units are comparable and EPA is 

informed of, and agrees to, the substitution. 

Comment: Commenter 0085 stated that its Hennepin Unit 2, Havana Unit 6, and Vermilion 

Unit 1 have the same configuration with regard to fuel source, air pollution control technologies, 

and activated carbon injection and that all are on the list for dioxin/furan testing. The commenter 

requested that only one of these units be required to test as no discernibly different results are 

likely to be found. Further, the commenter requests that only one of its Havana Unit 6 and 

Vermilion Unit 1 be required to test for acid gas HAP, dioxin/furan organic HAP, and mercury 

and non-mercury metallic HAP testing 

Response: Units selected for testing on the dioxin/furan list were selected at random from 

among the entire coal-fired population. EPA will entertain substitutions for units on the 

dioxin/furan list as long as the potential substitution fires similar coal, is similarly equipped, and 

is of a similar size. Units selected for testing 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 entertained for these units. 

Comment: Commenter 0088 identified several identical oil-fired units and requested that not all 

of them be required to test, given the likelihood that no additional value would be obtained from 

the testing. 

Commenter 0091 requested that only one of the three identical units at its Mitchell Power Station 

(PA) be required to test. 

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Response 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 requests to select alternative units on a case-by-case 

basis. We encourage oil-fired EGU owners making such requests to provide potential 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, and must be approved by EPA. In 

addition, as noted elsewhere, EPA is amenable to companies within broader organizations 
 15 

finding alternative oil-fired units outside their company but within the organization as long as the 

units are comparable and EPA is informed 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 will need to certify (1) that “the fuel that is 

fired during testing is representative of the fuel that is burned routinely at the EGU,” (2) that all 

of the pollution control equipment is operated in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications 

and requirements for proper operation during emissions testing, and (3) that the pollution control 

equipment is operated to optimize reduction of the pollutants for which the equipment is 

designed. Commenters state that the ICR’s supporting statement does not contain the exact 

language of these certifications so specific comments are impossible. However, as these 

certifications are described by EPA, they are unworkable. The first certification 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 determine if the coal being burned on a given day is 

“representative?” By what criteria is representativeness determined? The second certification 

would require control equipment to be operated in accordance with the manufacturers’ 

specifications and requirements for proper operation 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 certification would require a unit’s pollution control equipment to be 

operated to optimize the reduction of pollutants for which 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., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the 

affected source.” (See 40 CFR § 63.7(e).) 

Response: EPA acknowledges that more clarity is necessary 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 testing, the control equipment should not be operated outside of the 

manufacturer’s specifications, and the control equipment should be operated so as to effect 

optimum pollutant reductions required to comply 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 that 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 the 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 emissions data to the percent oil burned or otherwise 

remove the effect of the natural gas to ensure the best-performing 12 percent represent emissions 

performance actually achieved by oil-fired units. 

Response: The proposed ICR requires EGUs to conduct 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 under its permitted operating conditions. EPA will 

consider the appropriate manner in which to consider 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 reconsider the requirement of “one analysis 

per run” to allow for a composite sample analysis 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 emissions 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 separately 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 three fuel samples for each unit test, one per test 

run. If this is a correct interpretation, please replace the reference 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 disproportionate 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 certain HAP groups is based on the selected units 

being among the best performers, all units in those groups that are selected 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 change 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 process 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 received. 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 Hoot Lake Plant Unit 2 (HLP2) based on 

their belief that it is not a suitable, and possibly infeasible, test location to conduct this testing.

Response: Units selected for testing on the dioxin/furan list were selected at random from 

among the entire coal-fired population. EPA will entertain substitutions for units on the 

dioxin/furan list as long as the potential substitution fires similar coal, is similarly equipped, and 

is of a similar size. With regard to the specific unit cited, EPA believes that acceptable data may 

be obtained from this site. 

Comment: Commenter 0067 indicated that the ICR identifies the four San Juan Generating 

Station units in NM as having hot-side electrostatic precipitators for particulate control. Over the 

past two years the hot-side electrostatic 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 installed. However, given the information, 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 specified 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 comprising 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 activated carbon injection (ACI) system for mercury control. The 
 18 

commenter is uncertain if USEPA 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 financial 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 commenter 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 representative 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 appropriate to exclude any of the units from the specified testing. 

However, testing at the common stack is allowable 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 Waukegan 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 performers 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 standard 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 standard. Thus, testing of this unit will provide 

useful data. 
 19 

Comment: Commenter 0071 stated that its Sandow 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 systems 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 that their C.C. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant Unit 2 be 

removed from the list of oil-fired units for which testing is required. This unit has operated for 

only 50 hours over the past 2 years. 

Commenter 0076 requested that the requirement to test its Edge Moor Unit 5 as its oil-fired 

capacity factor is less than 2 percent and the unit will be expending annual and ozone season 

NOX allowances, SO2 allowances, and RGGI CO2 allowances to complete the required testing. 

EPA has not factored these costs into the burden. 

Response: As noted in the November 5, 2009, Response 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 requests to select alternative units on a case-by-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. 

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 identified for its Bailly and R.M. Schahfer units are 

incorrect and that the testing requirements for those plants should be reevaluated and revised. 

Response: Based on the in-service dates 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 the Bailly and R.M. Schahfer facilities (i.e., NOX

controls) are not germane to their selection for the respective tests and, thus, 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 synthetic minor sources of HAP. 

Response: EPA listed coal- and oil-fired EGUs as defined 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 that their Rio Bravo Poso and Rio Bravo Jasmin units 

are identically designed units that fire a maximum 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 common 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 performed 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 the basis of the control device (e.g., in this 

case, acid gas HAP), testing can be performed at the exit of the common control (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 reserve, or units that are not currently burning coal or oil. 

Requiring such units to test could increase 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 Purchase Agreement (PPA), and does not 

expect one, for 2010 and, thus, will not 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, Response 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 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 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 commenter indicated that its Havana Units 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 

and 8 do not have electrostatic precipitators as PM controls. 
 21 

Response: EPA will make the requested changes. Based on the noted addition of a fabric filter, 

Hennepin Unit 2 will be added to the mercury 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. The 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 than 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, Response 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 requests 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 removed from the ICR. At its discretion, the 

commenter can route emissions from Niles Unit 1 or Unit 2 through a research-grade (i.e., 

medium efficiency) partial-plant capacity wet scrubber that was installed, with bypass, as a 

voluntary pollution control project in the early 1990s. The discretionary 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 Sandy 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 requirements for all like units listed at their 

Cardinal, Gavin, Amos, Mitchell, and Kammer Plants 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 testing. Units that share 

a common stack may potentially test and calculate 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 stated 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 from the list but will rely on the commenter 

to find substitute units for the Anclote units. 

Comment: Commenter 0095 indicated that its Rodemacher Units 3a and 3b are identical 

circulating FBC units with identical emissions controls. The commenter 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 from 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-site. 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 removed 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 specific 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 itself. However, the commenter does have the 

opportunity to test Unit 1 during 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 propose to test the combined stack with both Units 1 and 2 in 

operation. With EPA’s concurrence, the commenter 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 first approach. With regard to the second 

approach (“back up plan”), commenter does not indicate whether a control device is shared along 

with the stack or just the stack. EPA would need additional information before approving the 

back-up plan. 

Comment: Commenter 0101 stated that it’s W.H. Sammis Units 3 and 4 (SA3 and SA4) were 

selected for the 50 “random” testing. However, these units, along with Units SA1 and SA2 are 

currently being retrofit with a common FGD system, installation of which will be completed 

during the period May – June 2010. Testing of individual 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 currently being installed, these units would not be 

available during the test period as the commenter notes. We request 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 approval 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 boiler 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 decisions, we will need a better understanding of the 

obstacle(s) and the commenter’s approach for overcoming those obstacles, as well as a 

description of the anticipated impact on emissions of using the proposed approach. The 

commenter should provide this information to us as soon as possible. 

2.16 Comments on specific questions 

Comment: Commenter 0075 suggests that EPA completely 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 information on the actual emissions at a unit. 

Additionally, the commenter suggests that EPA reduce the scope of questions 8a through 8g in 

Part II. These questions request listing of all testing and reports 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 NOX data that are available through compliance tests for their 

installed NOX controls. Finally, the commenter states that it should not be burdened with 

reporting information that is already being reported 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 request 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 information 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 the 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, general 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 from demonstration projects may prove useful in 

evaluating the data obtained through the ICR as demonstration projects often lead to full-scale 

installations. Question 18 will 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 limitations, if any, of emission controls installed specifically to 

reduce emissions of HAP. Question 21 will allow us to assess State opinions on emission levels 
 24 

should adequate emissions data not be available. 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 interested 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 the HAP and, thus, cannot at this time eliminate 

most of the pollutants for which data may be available. However, EPA agrees that data specific 

to NOX certifications that contains no additional data on other pollutants is not useful to the 

Agency and need not be reported as part of this ICR. For questions 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 question 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 testing 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 days following the testing). 

Response: This section has been clarified. 

2.17 Selection of additional units

Comment: Commenter 0084 requested that age, size, and proximity to population should be 

included in the selection criteria and that additional 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 concerns 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., formaldehyde, total hydrocarbons (THC), 

volatile HAP, semi-volatile HAP, etc.), but not for VOC. The commenter indicated that EPA 

needs to define VOC and specify the method. 

EPA has described two different levels of non-dioxin/furan organic 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 (NOX), formaldehyde, methane, oxygen (O2), and 

carbon dioxide (CO2) 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 methane 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 that will need to be made to 

accommodate PCB measurement. 

As allowed in the previous Boiler and CISWI MACT ICR program, the commenter requests that 

EPA Method 316 be allowed as an alternative for formaldehyde measurements. 

Oxygen and CO2 are required for all method groupings (except the minimum non-D/F organics 

group). The specified method(s) for O2 and CO2 are EPA Method 3A or 3B. Most coal-fired 

EGUs have installed CO2 CEMS. If the CEMS data is used for CO2, will a continuous on-line 

O2 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 requirements 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 implemented. 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 described in the test methods and that no special treatment of train 

fractions will be required. 

Response: EPA notes that the existing section 114 letter and its enclosures identify test methods 

whose results are used to calculate VOC emissions 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 industrial 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 clarifications 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 addressed following publication of 

the first draft of the ICR and not further responded to herein 

Comment: Commenters 0071, 0077, and 0083 stated that the 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 over 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 with control technology that is not pervasive on 

existing units and would not be representative 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 fluidized bed (CFB) units should be a 

separate subcategory because they use a significantly 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 minimum sample duration and volume for the 

dioxin/furan testing be modified to reflect reasonable 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 provide 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 approach of using the mercury content and gross 

calorific value of the as-fired coal and the mercury emission rates, while not adding to the burden 
 28 

of this ICR, still neglects two important points. 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 atmosphere 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 any mercury reductions that may have occurred during 

processing of the coal between the mine face and the end-user facility. 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 unit’s selection, they have been addressed above. 

Otherwise, the changes will be made as a part of the development of the database based on 

receipt of the ICR data.