PFPI-BiomassIsTheNewCoal-April-2-2014

To test whether the industry emission factors for HAPs are valid, we compared the industryemission factor for hydrochloric acid, a HAP emitted in large quantities by biomass burning, withactual emissions data from 46 operating plants. We found that the industry factor significantlyunderestimates HCl emissions from real plants, suggesting that biomass power plants that useindustry emission factors to claim minor source status for emissions of air toxics should probably inmany cases be regulated as major sources.The fix: The EPA and the states should require that HAPs emissions are estimated at thepermitting stage based on emissions factors that are transparently derived, with a generous marginfor error that assumes emissions are likely to spike at the very times (such as startup and shutdown)when they are least likely to be measured. Most facilities are probably major sources for HAPs, andshould be regulated as such.Loophole 6: Weak testing requirements mean air toxics limits aren’t enforceableWe found that the lack of accountability for plants claiming to be “synthetic” minor sources forHAPs continues once plants are operating, because many permits only require minimal testing forhazardous air pollutants. Because emissions testing and enforceable limits don’t even come intoeffect until several months after a facility starts operating, people living in the vicinity of a plantmay have to undergo months of excessive and unknown pollution emissions while the facility rampsup. According to EPA, a permit that lacks testing requirements for HAPs is unenforceable, andthus invalid, but EPA has failed to exercise oversight over state-issued permits that claim areasource status for HAPs.The fix: A recent decision by EPA on a bioenergy facility in Hawaii makes it clear that if a facilitywants to be regulated as a synthetic minor source (for criteria pollutants or HAPs) it must conducttesting that represents its true emissions, including during startup and shutdown. The permit mustbe written to require such testing, otherwise it is not federally enforceable, and is thus invalid. Forlimits to be truly enforceable, there should be ongoing monitoring with results revealed in realtime, so that states and citizens can know when and if a facility is violating its permit.Loophole 7: EPA rules blur the line between biomass facilities and incineratorsLax regulation of biomass burners compared to waste incinerators is especially significant becausenew EPA rules make it easier to burn contaminated materials in biomass burners. EPA’s “waste”rule allows garbage and other waste materials including plastics, tires and other wastes to be burnedwith minimal emissions controls and with no obligation to report emissions of heavy metals andother air toxics. The EPA admits that the new rules mean that wastes that are just as contaminatedas the dirtiest coals available can be burned as biomass with no special provisions or disclosure.EPA has also announced that it is likely to remove any requirement that construction anddemolition debris, which includes wood treated with copper-chromium-arsenate preservatives, betested for contamination, trusting that industry “sorting” procedures will effectively removecontaminated material before it is burned as fuel. Since biomass plants do not have to meet any10