|
Coalition for
Responsible Waste Incineration | HAP | Incinerator | Energy recovery units | Waste burning kilns | Burn-off ovens | Small rural incinerators |
| HCl (ppmv) | 29 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 130 | 150 |
| CO (ppmv) | 2.2 | 150 | 710 | 80 | 78 |
| Pb (mg/dscm) | 0.0026 | 0.002 | 0.0027 | 0.041 | 1.4 |
| Cd (mg/dscm) | 0.0013 | 0.00041 | 0.0003 | 0.0045 | 0.26 |
| Hg (mg/dscm) | 0.0028 | 0.00096 | 0.024 | 0.014 | 0.0029 |
| PM (mg/dscm) | 13 | 9.2 | 60 | 33 | 240 |
| D/F total (ng/dscm) | 0.031 | 0.75 | 2.1 | 310 | 1600 |
| D/F TEQ (ng/dscm) | 0.0025 | 0.059 | 0.17 | 25 | 130 |
| NOx (ppmv) | 34 | 130 | 1100 | 120 | 210 |
| SO2 (ppmv) | 2.5 | 4.1 | 410 | 11 | 44 |
Boiler proposed rule
The industrial boiler proposed rule is being developed under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing to regulate five pollutants: particulate matter (PM); hydrochloric acid (HCl); mercury; carbon monoxide (CO); and dioxin/furans (D/F). PM is used as a surrogate for all metals except mercury, CO is used as a surrogate for non-dioxin organic hazardous air pollutants, and HCl is used as a surrogate for acid gases. EPA has divided the category into eleven subcategories. These are shown in the table below. EPA is proposing that coal, biomass, or residual oil units that have a design heat capacity of 250 MMBtu/hr or greater be required to install and operate PM CEMs. EPA is also proposing to require CO CEMs for all units that have a design heat capacity of 100 MMBtu/hr or greater. Facilities with CO CEMs are required to meet the standards using a 30-day rolling average. The proposed rule will require facilities to meet the standards at all times, including startup, shutdown, and malfunctions. EPA used a straight emissions approach to select the top performers and a 99% upper prediction limit (UPL) to set the standards. This is a slightly different approach than was taken in the CISWI rule. The UPL is a statistic designed to predict whether the facility will pass the next test. This statistic also tends to give lower numbers than does an upper limit (used to set the CISWI standards). It is interesting that the Agency used two different statistical methods to develop standards for these two rules. The proposed standards (D/F standards are corrected to 7% oxygen, CO standards are corrected to 3% oxygen, the rule is silent on the other three standards) for existing sources are as follows.
| Fuel | Unit | PM (lb/mm Btu) | HCl (lb/mm Btu) | Hg (lb/mm Btu) | CO (ppmv) | D/F TEQ (ng/dscm) |
| Coal | Pulverized | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.000003 | 90 | 0.004 |
| Stoker | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.000003 | 50 | 0.003 | |
| Fluidized bed | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.000003 | 30 | 0.002 | |
| Biomass | Stoker | 0.02 | 0.006 | 0.0000009 | 560 | 0.004 |
| Fluidized bed | 0.02 | 0.006 | 0.0000009 | 250 | 0.02 | |
| Suspension burner/Dutch oven | 0.02 | 0.006 | 0.0000009 | 1010 | 0.03 | |
| Fuel cell | 0.02 | 0.006 | 0.0000009 | 270 | 0.02 | |
| Liquid | 0.004 | 0.0009 | 0.000004 | 1 | 0.002 | |
| Gas | Other gas | 0.05 | 0.000003 | 0.0000002 | 1 | 0.009 |
It should be noted that EPA choose not to set numerical standards for the new and existing natural gas and refinery gas boiler subcategories. Instead, they choose to set a work practice standard that requires an annual tune up. They are also proposing a work practice standard (annual tune up) for all existing sources that have a design heat capacity of 10 MMBtu/hr of less. In addition, EPA is proposing that all major sources conduct an energy assessment to identify cost-effective energy conservation measures.
TRI additions
On April 6, 2010, EPA proposed to add 16 chemicals to the list of toxic chemicals subject to reporting under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. All sixteen have been classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program. A list of the chemicals can be found in the Federal Register notice. Comments will be accepted until June 7, 2010.
Case-by-case MACT comment period extended
On April 29, 2010, EPA extended the comment period for the proposed rule to amend the way the Agency handles case-by-case MACT emission limits under section 112(j) of the Clean Air Act. Comments will now be accepted until May 27, 2010.
PC MACT
The Portland cement industry is urging EPA to recognize that the natural variability of mercury concentrations in limestone should be considered when setting the floor standards. Other observers have suggested that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the courts. In the middle of all of this is an effort by industry to postpone the June 6, 2010, deadline for signing the final rule until December so that additional data can be collected to support these ideas. Industry maintains that the current recession and severe winter has made it difficult to gather the data necessary to support their position. Industry is also arguing that EPA should have conducted a risk-risk analysis of this rule. This idea is that reducing one risk raises another risk.
Region 5 and 8 Administrators named
President Obama selected Susan Hedman to be the next Regional Administrator for Region 5. Ms. Hedman has been the environmental counsel for the Illinois Attorney General since 2005. Prior to that, she was a senior policy advisor on energy and recycling at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, a staff attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center, and the research director for the University of Maryland Center for Global Change. One the same day, President Obama announced that James Martin had been selected to be the Regional Administrator for Region 8. Mr. Martin most recently was the Executive Director of Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources. Prior to that, he was the Executive Director of Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment and managed a non-profit organization that focused on energy, public lands, and water issues.
Climate change – legislation
Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) scheduled the release of their climate change bill for April 26, 2010. There was considerable optimism that this bill would contain sufficient compromises to allow for passage of climate change legislation this Congress. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided that the Senate needed to take up immigration reform sooner rather than later. Senator Graham does not believe that immigration reform can pass in the Congress and decided that if the Democrats were not willing to put a priority on climate change legislation, he would withdraw his support. As such, no new legislation has been introduced. During the same time period, several “disasters” occurred that will have an impact on any energy legislation. There was an explosion in a West Virginia coal mine that killed 29 miners. There was an explosion on an offshore oil rig that killed 11 people and is currently releasing large amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Sierra Club took this opportunity to point out the need to move away from “dirty, dangerous, and deadly energy sources.” While it probably a little too early to declare any climate change legislation dead, the political decision to push immigration reform and the two explosions will certainly make it harder to develop compromise legislation.
Climate change – regulations
On April 12, 2010, EPA proposed four different actions adding to or modifying the current reporting requirements for green house gas emissions. One was to modify the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule to require facilities to provide the name, address and ownership status of their U.S. parent company; their primary and all other applicable North American Industry Classification System code(s); and an indication of whether any of their reported emissions are from a cogeneration unit. In the second, EPA proposed to revise the greenhouse gas reporting requirements for fluorinated greenhouse gas emissions from electronics manufacturing, the production of fluorinated gases, and the use of electrical transmission and distribution equipments. In the third, EPA proposed to require reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from onshore petroleum and natural gas production, offshore petroleum and natural gas production, natural gas processing, natural gas transmission compression stations, underground natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas import and export terminals, and distribution. In the fourth, EPA is proposing a rule to require reporting of carbon dioxide injection and geological sequestration. Comments on all four proposed rules will be accepted until June 11, 2010.
At a John Hopkins University forum on climate change, Gina McCarthy, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation, stated that the Agency should have guidance for the states on what constitutes best available control technology (BACT) for greenhouse gases by the end of 2010. She indicated that there were a number of options on the table and that none of them have been eliminated. She stated that fuel switching has never been required by the Agency and that BACT is generally applied to the design of the facility.
After the 2007 Supreme Court decision requiring EPA to make an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, environmental groups challenged a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for a new electric generation unit in Utah, claiming that the court ruling required regulation of greenhouse gases based on an interpretation of “subject to regulation.” This was taken before the Environmental Appeals Board, which remanded the permit back to the agency stating that there was insufficient historical, binding interpretation of what “subject to regulation” meant. On December 18, 2008, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson issued a memo explaining EPA’s position that “subject to regulation” covered only those pollutants that require actual control of emissions and does not apply to pollutants whose emissions are simply monitored. What this meant was that simply asking a facility to monitor and report emissions did not trigger a requirement to limit emissions of those pollutants in a PSD permit. Environmental groups filed a petition for reconsideration, stating that this action did not follow the proper notice and comment process. EPA granted that petition and proposed a number of ways to interpret the phrase. On April 2, 2010, EPA published their responses. Basically, they came to the same conclusion that “subject to regulation” is meant to include “each pollutant subject to either a provision in the CAA or regulation adopted by EPA under the CAA that requires actual control of emissions of that pollutant.” The bottom line is that until EPA sets emissions limits for greenhouse gases, PSD permits cannot require any limits on greenhouse gas emissions. While that seems like a logical conclusion, it will prevent the use of PSD permits as a method for setting greenhouse gas emission limits for new facilities. However, this is a short-term victory because EPA is already in the process of developing emission limits for greenhouse gases.
Finally, a New Mexico judge agreed that the state’s Environmental Improvement Board does not have the authority to set limits on greenhouse gas emission without first establishing ambient air quality standards for these pollutants. This ended a petition by environmental groups to reduce state greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
Environmental Justice
As a part of the settlement with the Rosewood Neighborhood Association complaint (see the March Update), EPA was required to compile a list of complaints received. Since 1994, EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has received 300 complaints. More than 130 were rejected on jurisdictional grounds and 15 were dismissed on merit. None of these found any discrimination that would trigger sanctions. OCR continues to investigate 30 claims including 12 jurisdictional claims. Jurisdictional claims are supposed to be decided within 20 day of receipt. These 12 claims were received between January 2009 and March 2010. In addition, OCR is still investigating the first complaint it received, agreeing in January 1995 to investigate a petition filed in July 1994. Part of the problem is a struggle to settle on a legally defensible definition of what constitutes “disproportionate impact.” Disproportionate impact refers to policies that are seemingly neutral on the surface but in effect, discriminate on a minority population. Some of these problems are complex and sensitive, making it difficult to come up with a single policy that works for all situations.
In addition, OCR has failed to file annual reports with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for 2006, 2007, and 2008. These reports (known as MD 715) detail an agency’s internal affirmative employment and disability program plans. They include identifying problems in their hiring practices and showing how they are being corrected. The MD 715 for 2009 was filed on March 31, 2010.
For the first time, a historically black community has won the right for a hearing. Ironically, it was not part of the U.S. judicial system but from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Advocates for Environmental Human Rights (AEHR) filed a petition on behalf of the residents of Mossville, LA with OAS in 2005. On March 30, 2010, OAS agreed to hear the case over the strong objections of the U.S. government. The petition alleges that existing laws fail to recognize or remedy the significant pollution burden of pollutants released by 14 different industrial facilities in Mossville. AEHR has been asking the Department of Justice to address this complaint since 1996 and viewed the OAS petition as an option of last resort. AEHR stated that they did not file a petition with EPA’s OCR because of the office’s reputation for inaction.
CRWI meeting
The next CRWI meeting will be in San Francisco on May 17, 2010, in conjunction with the IT3 conference. The technical meetings will concentrate developing initial comments on the recently proposed boiler MACT, CISWI MACT, and definition of non-hazardous solid waste rules. For additional information, contact CRWI.
| About CRWI | Technical Information | CRWI Newsletter |
| Members | Operator Certification | CRWI
Comments |
| Mission Statement | Selected Citations | Links |