Posted on November 24, 2017 by Steve Kohl
Long ago and in what seems like a faraway place, the D.C. Circuit vacated the NESHAP for boilers and the NSPS for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWO) units. (See “EPA in the D.C. Circuit – Where Has All the Deference Gone”, ACOEL Blog, September 23, 2008). The demarcation between boilers and other process heaters and CISWI units is whether or not they burn waste. The D.C. Circuit held that EPA had improperly drawn that line. Since the source categories are mutually exclusive under the Clean Air Act, the improper line drawing resulted in the improper definition of each source category, resulting in the demise of the rules. Fast forwarding (sort of) to 2013, EPA finally promulgates a new and improved boiler NESHAP and new NSPS rules for new and existing CISWI units. These rulemakings were only made possible by the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule which defines what is or is not a waste when burned. It takes the entirety of 40 C.F.R. Part 241 to provide this definition and the processes for determining if something is a waste or a fuel.
Now comes the fun part. An existing boiler burning clean wood had to be in compliance with the NESHAP by early 2016, but the same existing boiler burning “dirty” wood categorized as a waste under the NHSM rule didn’t have to comply with the NESHAP since it is not a boiler but an incinerator. Well, it must have to comply with CISWI existing incinerator standards, right? Well no. In fact, there really aren’t any applicable NESHAP requirements for existing boilers burning waste.
The CISWI standards for existing units, 40 C.F.R Part 60, subpart DDDD, are §111(d) guidelines, which additionally must address the requirements enacted for incinerators in §129 of the CAA. Those who have followed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) about which much has been written, including several ACOEL blogs (Is You Is Or Is You Ain’t Transformative?, Unprecedented Program Leads To Unprecedented Response, Pulling the Plug on Greenhouse Gas Emissions), recognize that most states were in the process of developing state implementation plans (SIPs) to implement the CPP when the Supreme Court stayed the rule. That’s because the CPP was also a §111(d) “guideline” for existing electric steam generation units. Actual application of the CPP was dependent upon SIPs approved by EPA which implement the guidelines or, if a state defaults, a federal implementation plan (FIP) implementing the CPP guidelines. Similarly, the CISWI standards for existing units must be implemented through approved SIPs or a FIP. The SIPs or FIP required to implement the CISWI standards for existing units are required to be in place within five years, or February 7, 2018 and compliance is required by that same date. However, no such SIP has been approved and no FIP finally promulgated. Polite inquiries to EPA have provided no insight to the ultimate timing.
The delay in taking final agency action to implement CISWI standards for existing sources creates some interesting circumstances. A state may recognize that through a renewal or a reopener of a facility’s Title V permit it should incorporate CISWI requirements, but it really can’t since there isn’t a federally enforceable requirement for CISWI. Subpart DDDD guidelines contain some provisions for determining whether certain sources qualify for an exemption from CISWI under §129. If they are exempt from CISWI, then they should be complying with the currently applicable boiler NESHAP, but there really isn’t any applicable rule for determining the validity of an asserted exemption. Subpart DDDD guidelines also provide that if a waste-burning source does not want to comply with CISWI and instead intends to comply with an applicable NESHAP, it must cease burning waste six months in advance of the date its chooses to switch from being a CISWI source to a NESHAP source. So if that dirty wood burning boiler doesn’t intend to comply with CISWI as of the ostensible compliance date of February 7, 2018, should it have switched to clean wood in July of 2017 even though there was no applicable rule requiring the six month period?
Final promulgation of the FIP or approval of the submitted SIPs would not appear to be a heavy lift since the proposed FIP and the submitted SIPs essentially mirror subpart DDDD. So the delay to what is now four years and nine months out of the five years allowable under the CAA is somewhat incomprehensible. It begs the question, “What’s happening with this §111(d) rule?”
Tags: incinerator, boiler, wood waste
Air | Clean Air Act | Solid Waste