The good news is that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finally announced air quality standards for emissions from industrial boilers and incinerators. These standards are an improvement from the 2007 rules adopted by the Bush administration that were laughed out of court.
In response to a September 2009 court order, EPA issued the proposed rules in April 2010, prompting significant public input. The proposed rules followed a period that began in 2007, when a federal court vacated a set of industry specific standards proposed during the Bush Administration. Based on the public input received following the April 2010 proposal, EPA made extensive revisions, and in December 2010 requested additional time for review to ensure the public’s input was fully addressed. The court granted EPA 30 days, resulting in today’s announcement.
EPA announcement, February 23, 2011
The bad news is the new rules are much weaker than the ones announced in September and withdrawn in December.
The regulations are designed to improve air quality and public safety by reducing emissions of soot (particulate matter), nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, ammonia and hazardous air pollutants (hydrogen chloride, chlorine and mercury). Even though the new regulations also cover small (area) producers, the primary targets are large industrial sources including pulp and paper production, mined mineral refinement processing, cement manufacturing, and industrial incinerators.
The timeline for the rules has become a case study in equivocation. "Final" rules for industrial boilers and incinerators were issued on September 30, 2010. When the industry and Republicans shrieked, squealed, and tore their clothing, the EPA withdrew the new rules and then went to court to stall any new regulation for 15 months. The court rejected the delay and gave the agency until this week to come up with new "final" rules. The agency complied, but left the door open to further compromise.
The E.P.A. withdrew the earlier rule in December, saying it needed another 15 months to refashion the rule to respond to complaints and new data. A federal judge rejected the extension, saying the agency had already spent three years developing the regulation, and ordered it to produce a new rule by this week.
The agency grudgingly met the deadline but said it would remain open to comments and proposals for changes from lawmakers, businesses and citizens.
New York Times, February 23, article by John Broder
Despite scaling back the regulations, the industry has expressed disappointment that compliance will require any cost to protect public health. However, the industry spokesperson was delighted that even further weakening might be possible.
Bob Bessette, president of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, said it appeared that the E.P.A. had provided some relief for operators of smaller units but nonetheless called it a “terrible disappointment” because it was not clear that its standards could be met at a reasonable cost.
He noted that because the new rule was so different from the previous version, E.P.A. would immediately reopen it to comment.
“This is a good plan given our nation’s current economic challenges,” Mr. Bessette said. “It makes much more sense for E.P.A. and all stakeholders to revisit key challenges, take additional time and get the rule right.”
New York Times, February 23, article by John Broder
Fred Upton, Republican kingpin of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, managed to take himself away from the industry gift basket of champagne, caviar, and gold bullion long enough to tell the EPA to ignore the courts. Delay and dilute, he mumbled with his mouth overflowing.
"We cannot afford to rush sweeping regulations that have the potential to do more harm than good."
The harm Upton is worried about is corporate profit margins, not the health of people living near these plants.
The EPA promises to reconsider the new "final" rules.
EPA is initiating a reconsideration process with respect to certain aspects of the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources for Major Source Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; the NESHAP for new and existing sources for Area Source Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers; and standards of performance for new Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units and emission guidelines for existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units published in the final rules section of today’s Federal Register.
The logic here borders the surreal. Because the new final rules (circa February 2011) are so much of a departure from the previous final rules (circa September 2010), the EPA is opening a new comment period that could set the stage for even more substantial weakening of the regulations. At this rate, when the regulatory dust finally settles, the final final rules may be weaker that the pathetic ones issued by the Bush administration.
It is difficult not to view the handling of the industrial boiler and incinerator regulations with considerable dismay. The EPA is essentially allowing most of the life cycle costs for air pollution generated by industrial combustion processes to be passed on to the public in the form of health risks from known toxic substances.
The same particulate matter and toxins are also slated to be regulated in new air quality standards for power plants. The end result will likely be the same. Even though coal-fired power plants are the largest industrial source of mercury emissions in the United States and commercial technology to cut mercury and other toxins from stack emissions is widely available, the pressure to dilute the regulations will be even greater for power plants than for industrial boilers and incinerators. I can hear the canards coming.
: : : : : :
Update: Some have questioned the critical assessment of the new rules just announced by the EPA. Let me emphasize several points.
First, the regulatory actions by the EPA on industrial boilers and incinerators is extraordinary. Sound rules were issued on September 30, 2010 after years of wrangling in court over lax standards adopted by the Bush administration in 2007. Those regulations were abruptly rescinded two and half months later in December and the EPA filed a petition to delay any new rules for 15 months, which would leave the Bush administration rules in effect until 2012. The court rejected the petition and agency reluctantly issued new rules on February 23. These new rules, while still an improvement over Bush era regulations, are weaker than those issued in September and the agency issued an extraordinary notice of reconsideration, concurrently with the release of the new regulations. That notice of reconsideration, which I can find few precedents for, states that the new rules are being subjected to a new public comment period, which means they are likely to undergo further revision (weakening). To those that question the tone of my report, I humbly ask you to identify what part of this process gives you confidence in the eventual rules?
Second, there is another reason to worry about the agency's backpedaling on regulations for emissions from industrial boilers and incinerators. Congressional Republicans are pressing the agency for further weakening of the regulations. From The Hill:
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) raised the specter late Wednesday of taking action in Congress to change the Environmental Protection Agency’s final air pollution regulations for industrial boilers, which the lawmaker said were issued hastily amid a looming court-ordered deadline.
And here is an interesting attack. Upton is using the sudden withdrawal of the previous regulations and agency petition for a delay revised standards as proof of a flawed process.
But Upton said he lacked confidence in the regulations because the agency was under such a tight deadline to issue them.
“How can anyone have confidence in rules that the EPA was admittedly unprepared to issue just weeks ago?” Upton said, adding later, “The EPA was operating under court order to meet this week’s deadline, but we continue to believe sound policymaking should trump arbitrary timelines.”
In other words, the agency compromised on the regulations as a gesture of cooperation with the Republicans and their industry allies. That compromise is now being used to further criticize the agency and bolster demands for further weakening of pollution standards for known hazardous substances. Senate Republicans (and Mark Warner) are also pushing for weaker regulations.
Given the continuing political pressure and the EPA's extraordinary notice of reconsideration issued concurrently with the new regulations, I see little reason to believe that the final product of this regulatory hash will be a significant improvement over Bush era rules.
Keep in mind that the primary focus of these rules is mercury. Mercury released into the atmosphere from combustion processes settles into soil and runs off into lakes, streams, and oceans, leading to high levels of methylmercury in fish. Because mercury poses a severe threat to neurological development, women who are pregnant or breastfeading are encouraged to avoid or severely limit fish and shellfish consumption. The Centers for Disease Control has found that approximately 6% of women of childbearing age and children under age 5 in the U.S. population have unacceptably high levels of mercury in their blood. The primary source point for mercury exposure in the U.S. is industrial emissions from combustions sources (boilers, incinerators, power plants). Reducing this exposure is the focus of these regulations and to-be-released regulations covering power plants.