Boiling uncertainty

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA;Washington, D.C.; www.epa.gov) proposed new emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by industrial boilers and solid-waste incinerators (CISWI) based on the performance of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The so-called “boiler MACT” final rules were signed by the EPA Administrator on February 21, 2011. On May 18, 2011, however, EPA published a notice delaying the effective date of the major source rule, pending the completion of reconsideration or judicial review, whichever is earlier.

Fueling the postponement was a plea by a range of interests — small businesses, lawmakers, even the U.S. Small Business Administration — with a convincing list of complaints. EPA acknowledged problems with its methodology and data and is reconsidering the standards. The reasons for the objections are many. “These rules, if implemented, will be costly to a broad spectrum of industry — both to capital and operating budgets,” explains Tom McGowan, president of TMTS Associates (Atlanta, Ga.; www.tmtsassociates.com) and an expert in the field of air pollution control (APC). “Many of the boiler owners have not had experience with the complex CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring systems) that will be required under the regulations.” Making matters worse, some of the initial standards, like 1 ppm CO, would not be achievable when you take into account both combustion issues and CEMS drift, he adds. Furthermore, the limits in the latest set of regulations have caused concern with equipment vendors about whether they can be met at all. Like most of his peers, McGowan expects to see some further loosening and rationalization of the very tight emission limits, but the rest is up in the air.

“With everything that is happening in the courts and on ‘the Hill’, there continues to be considerable uncertainty with regard to what will actually come out and when,” says Robert D. Besette, president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO; Warrenton, Va.; www.cibo.org). Among his concerns is the possibility that once a final rule is enacted, there could be unreasonable competition for engineering and equipment supplies with the utilities who may have to comply at the same time with their MACT and Cross States air pollution rules. As such, CIBO is still looking at and suggesting to its members a decision-making timeline, which can be found with the online version of this article.*

For now, McGowan says, “Smart companies are studying the regulations and comparing them to past stack data, and in some cases, running tests tuned to assure test data have detection limits that are at or below the planned stack limits. If boilers are way out of compliance, it might be better to replace the boiler and add the new APC system, rather than retrofit the existing one. In other cases, the extra cost will result in a shutdown of the facility due to lack of capital and loss of profit due to higher ongoing operating costs.” There is no motivation to replace APC now, he warns, because one could find out later it was not required, or worse yet, more additional regulations could render the improvements ultimately inadequate. Unfortunately, he says, “There are no easy rules of thumb in evaluating this, as boiler age, efficiency, type of fuel, fuel cost and capital cost all have to be factored in.”

There is, however, a very important limit that should not be overlooked. Minor HAP sources that operate boilers with <10 ton/yr of a single HAP or <25 ton/yr of a combination of HAPs have not been relieved of impending deadlines* for the Boiler Area Source NESHAP, 40 CFR 63 Subpart JJJJJJ.

Rebekkah Marshall

 

*Suggested decision making timeline for major sources and deadlines for area sources can be found in the Web Extras tab at the top of this article

 

 

 

A copy of EPA‘s signed final rules can be downloaded at: www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/