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 _at_ 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 _at_ 3 oxygen (NOT FOR SMALL UNITS)
• New gaseous fuel-fired units
• CO 400 ppm _at_ 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 TESTING Performance 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 gt 100 million Btu/hr
• Annual CO tests for other new units
• Exempt data from lt50 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 sources 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 EPAs Air Toxics Risk Assessment
  Reference Library (http//www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/ris
  k_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 lt 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
• OECAs 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 EPAs 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_at_epa.gov fried.gregory_at_epa.gov
• Risk Contact
• Scott Jenkins
• 919-541-1167
• jenkins.scott_at_epa.gov

24

• ANY QUESTIONS?