INDUSTRIAL BOILER MACT (40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD)

1. INDUSTRIAL BOILER MACT(40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD) Atlanta, Georgia May 24, 2006

2. IMPORTANT DATES • Proposal Date – January 13, 2003 • Promulgation Date – September 13, 2004 • Compliance Date • Existing units - September 13, 2007 • New units – startup

3. INDUSTRIAL BOILER MACT • Source categories included: • Industrial Boilers • Institutional/Commercial Boilers • Process Heaters • Indirect-fired – combustion gases do not come in contact with process materials.

4. EMISSIONS LIMITSExisting Units • Existing large solid fuel units PM -- 0.07 lb/million Btu, OR TSM – 0.001 lb/million Btu HCl -- 0.09 lb/million Btu (~ 90 ppm) Hg – 9 lb/trillion Btu • Existing limited use solid fuel units PM -- 0.21 lb/million Btu, OR TSM – 0.004 lb/million Btu • No emissions standards for: • existing small solid fuel units • existing liquid fuel units • existing gaseous fuel units • No work practice standards

5. EMISSION LIMITSand WORK PRACTICE STANDARDSNew Units • New solid fuel units PM -- 0.025 lb/million Btu, OR TSM 0.0003 lb/million Btu HCl -- 0.02 lb/million Btu (20 ppm) Hg -- 3 lb/trillion Btu CO -- 400 ppm @ 7% oxygen (NOT FOR SMALL UNITS) • New liquid fuel units PM -- 0.03 lb/million Btu HCl -- 0.0005 lb/million Btu (large units) 0.0009 lb/million Btu (small and limited use units) CO – 400 ppm @ 3% oxygen (NOT FOR SMALL UNITS) • New gaseous fuel-fired units CO – 400 ppm @ 3% oxygen (NOT FOR SMALL UNITS)

6. COMPLIANCE OPTIONS • Conduct stack emission tests • Conduct fuel analysis • Emissions averaging • (large solid fuel units only) • Health-based compliance alternatives for HCl and TSM

7. COMPLIANCE TESTING • Performance tests (stacks tests) • Annual performance tests • Based on average of 3 test runs • Based on worst fuel type or mixture AND/OR • Fuel analyses • Initial and every 5 years • Each new fuel type • Based 90% confidence level of minimum 3 fuel samples • Based on worst fuel type or mixture

8. COMPLIANCE TESTINGPerformance Tests Requirements • Listed in Table 5 of Subpart DDDDD of Part 63 • Common EPA test methods for PM, TSM, HCl, mercury, and CO limits • EPA Method 1: sampling location/traverse points • EPA Method 2: velocity/volumetric flowrate • EPA Method 3: oxygen/CO2 concentration • EPA Method 4: moisture content • EPA Method 19: converting concentrations to lb/MMBtu by using F-factor • For PM • EPA Methods 5 or 17 • For TSM • EPA Method 29 • For HCl • EPA Method 26 or 26A • For mercury • EPA Method 29 or 101A • ASTM D6522-00 or PTC 19, Part 10 • For CO • EPA Methods 10, 10A, or 10B • ASTM D6522-00 (natural gas only)

9. COMPLIANCE TESTINGFuel Analysis Requirements • Listed in Table 6 to Subpart DDDDD • Required steps • Collect samples (using procedure in 63.7521(c) or ASTM D2234-00 • Composite fuel samples (63.7521(c)) • Prepare composite samples (ASTM D2013-01) • Determine heat content (ASTM D5865-03a) • Determine moisture content (ASTM D3173-02) • Determine HAP concentration (Listed method or equivalent) • Convert HAP concentration to lb/million Btu

10. COMPLIANCE TESTINGFuel Analysis Requirements (cont.) • Must use equation 8 to demonstrate compliance • One-sided z-statistic test • P90 = mean + (SD * t) • P90 = 90th percentile confidence level • Mean = Arithmetic average concentration in the fuel samples • SD = Standard deviation in the fuel samples • t = t distribution critical value for 90th percentile (0.1) probability for appropriate degrees of freedom (number of samples minus one) obtained from Distribution Critical Value Table. • Based on worst fuel type or mixture

11. SPECIAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS • New liquid fuel that burn only fossil fuel and do not burn residual oil (40 CFR 63.7506(a)) • Not required to conduct performance tests for PM and HCl • Must submit documentation • Must still demonstrate compliance with CO limit • Use of alternative test methods • Must petition EPA for approval (40 CFR 63.7)

12. COMPLIANCE MONITORING • Continuous compliance based on monitoring and maintaining operating limits • Operating limits • For PM, TSM and mercury limits • Opacity (for dry systems) • Existing units – 20% opacity (6 minute average) • New units – 10% opacity (1 hour block average) • Control device parameters (for wet systems) • Established during initial compliance test • Fuel (type or mixture) • When compliance based on fuel analysis • For HCl • Scrubber parameters (pH, pressure drop, liquid flow, sorbent injection rate) • Established during initial compliance test • Fuel (type or mixture) • When compliance based on fuel analysis

13. COMPLIANCE MONITORING (cont.) • CO Monitoring (new units only) • CEM for large units > 100 million Btu/hr • Annual CO tests for other new units • Exempt data from <50% load and based on 30-day average.

14. Additional Compliance Provisions • Emission Averaging • Only existing large solid fuel units • Initial compliance based on maximum capacity • Continuous compliance on a 12-month rolling average basis • Each monthly calculation based on monthly fuel use and previous compliance test results for each boiler • Must maintain, at a minimum, the emission controls employed on the effective date

15. Additional Compliance ProvisionHealth-Based Compliance Alternatives • Alternative compliance options available for the HCl limit and the total selected metals limit (TSM) • HCl: emissions of HCl and Cl2 • TSM: emissions of manganese • Sources that comply with source-wide health-based alternative for HCl do not have to comply with the technology-based HCl limit on an individual boiler basis • Sources that comply with source-wide health-based alternative for manganese can ignore manganese when determining compliance with the TSM limit on an individual boiler basis

16. How to Comply with Health-Based Compliance Options • Lookup table analysis • Site-specific risk assessment

17. How to Conduct a Lookup Table Analysis: Overview • Determine maximum hourly emission rates from each appropriate subpart DDDDD boiler or process heater • HCl and Cl2 or Mn • Calculate total emission rate for source • Locate appropriate allowable emission rate from lookup table • Compare source’s emission rate with allowable emission rate

18. How to Conduct a Lookup Table Analysis: Emissions Determination • Emissions tests • HCl alternative: Must test for HCl and Cl2 • TSM alternative: Must test for Mn • Fuel analysis • HCl alternative: Assume all chlorine detected emitted as Cl2 • TSM alternative: Assume all Mn detected is emitted

19. How to Conduct a Site-Specific Risk Assessment • Refer to EPA’s Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html) • General outline of process: • Collect emissions information (HCl, Cl2, Mn) • Identify relevant source parameters for modeling • stack heights, stack diameters, gas exit velocities, etc. • Perform dispersion/exposure modeling • Calculate an estimate of risk to the individual most exposed (Hazard quotient (HQ) for Mn and hazard index (HI) for HCl and Cl2) • HQ: The ratio of a level of exposure for a single substance to a reference level (e.g., RfC) for that substance • HI: The sum of more than one hazard quotient • You are eligible for the alternative compliance option if your maximum chronic inhalation HI or HQ is < 1.0

20. Petitions For Reconsideration • Three petitions for reconsideration were received • General Electric Company • Joint petition • NRDC • EIP (Environmental Integrity Project) • EIP • Two petitions for judicial review • Jointly filed by NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP • Issues same as in reconsideration petition • American Public Power-Ohio (and 6 municipalities) • EPA exceeded its authority in imposing standards on small municipal utility boilers

21. GE Petition • Issue • Requests clarification that the rule allows for testing at the common stack rather than each duct to the stack • No opportunity to provide comments since the proposed rule did not contain regulatory text for the emissions averaging provision • Common stack testing is handled on a case-by-case basis by OECA/Regions • OECA’s general policy is that each duct to a common stack must be tested • Proposed amendment allowing testing of common stack in certain situation – October 31, 2005

22. NRDC – EIP Petition • Seeking reconsideration on: • Lack of standards for all HAP emitted on all subcategories • Health-based compliance alternatives • Granted petition and requested comment on June 27, 2005 • Published final action on December 28, 2005 • Retained health-based compliance alternatives

23. INFORMATION AND CONTACT • Implementation tools (timelines, initial notification, state/local contacts, Q/A) and information on the MACT rulemaking for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers and process heaters is available on EPA’s web site at: • www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html • An electronic version of public docket (including public comments) is available at: • www.regulations.gov • Search for docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058 • Contact: Compliance Contact: • Jim Eddinger Greg Fried (OECA) • 919-541-5426 202-564-7016 • eddinger.jim@epa.govfried.gregory@epa.gov Risk Contact Scott Jenkins 919-541-1167 jenkins.scott@epa.gov

24. ANY QUESTIONS?