The Fabricator...February 2013
Most metal fabricators won't be
hit very hard by the EPA's final rule on air emissions from industrial boilers.
The final rule, issued in December, gives affected sources three years to come
into compliance with emissions limits on air pollutants such as mercury and
lead. But while there are somewhere around 14,000 industrial boilers
nationally, probably fewer than 1700 will face new emissions restrictions, and
some of them will be able to meet those restrictions by adding scrubbers to old
boilers. Boilers which run on fuel oil, coal or biomass are in the
"affected" category; those which use natural gas face no new
restrictions. All boilers will have to do periodic "tune ups." But that is not
a requirement anyone is terribly worried about.
The
final rule released on December 20, 2012 included a number of what the EPA
described as concessions on provisions included in the proposed rule issued in
March 2011. For example, the final rule allows facilities to use "alternative total selective metals emission
limits" to regulate metallic air toxics instead of using a
particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate, allowing more flexibility and
decreasing compliance costs for units that emit low levels of HAP (hazardous
air pollutant) metals. However, after the EPA took into account the changes it
made in the final rule, it said the estimated annualized cost of the amended
rule for the affected boilers would still be $1.19 billion. That was a decrease
of $130 million, but to the extent metal fabricators have decades old boilers
using one of the "bad" fuels, the capital costs could be heavy.
Bob Bessette, the President of the Council
of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO), which had been the lead group pressing the
EPA for moderation in the final rule, says,
"EPA made some significant modifications to its previous
rules. These changes will greatly improve the ability of facilities to
comply." But there appeared to be no easing of carbon monoxide and
hydrochloric acid standards, which is what the Industrial Energy Consumers of
America had asked for, in order to make it easier for coal-fired boilers to
stay in operation. In fact, in the final rule, the EPA appeared to tighten HCL
standards. The IECA had asked the EPA to replace numerical limits for CO and
HCL with work standards. The agency did not do that. Paul Cicio, President of
the IECA, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment.
