PFPI-BiomassIsTheNewCoal-April-2-2014

then the load is considered to 100% glued wood. This method shall be employed once every 5 loads persupplier.” 101As tractor-trailer loads of wood are typically 20 – 22 tons, this method of checking the “woodstream” (presumably the material being fed to the plant on the conveyor belt) is likely tocharacterize only a tiny fraction of the material burned. Even done properly, such tests are unlikelyto be representative; and it seems unlikely that adequate oversight will occur. As we discussbelow, new rules proposed by EPA are likely to increase burning of construction and demolition(C&D) waste while removing any requirement for testing at all.Contaminated wastes burned as biomass: EPA declines to regulateThe bioenergy industry is growing fast, and looking for new sources of fuel. Construction anddemolition debris, as well as municipal and industrial wastes, are especially attractive fuels giventheir disposal often generates “tipping fees” that can constitute a significant portion of a biomasspower plant’s income. For instance, the 25 MW (net) Taylor Biomass plant, a wood andgarbage-fueled power plant proposed in Montgomery, New York, estimates that tippingfees for wastes range from $50/ton to over $80/ton, and a 2008 IRS evaluation of the facility’seligibility for tax credits 102 reports that Taylor anticipated receiving $50 for each ton of MSW itreceived. The Taylor project was permitted under rules governing municipal waste incinerators,though their name suggests they are a biomass plant. 103For the purposes of distinguishing “waste” from “biomass,” EPA relies on a part of the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) known informally as the “waste rule.” 104 As part ofdetermining whether a material is a waste, EPA compares contaminant levels in the material tothose in “traditional” fuels. An early draft of EPA’s waste rule, from March 2011, explains: “nonhazardoussecondary materials (NHSM) that contain contaminants that are not comparable in concentration tothose contained in traditional fuel products or ingredients would suggest that these contaminants are beingcombusted as a means of discarding them, and thus the non-hazardous secondary material should be classified asa solid waste.” 105This definition is problematic for the expanding bioenergy industry. Under the Clean Air Act andcourt precedent, any facility that burns any solid waste at all is an incinerator and must meetincinerator emission standards, which are, as discussed previously, somewhat more restrictive thanthose applicable to conventional biomass boilers (Table 7). Further, “waste incineration” doesn’t101New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Air Title V Facility permit for ReEnergy Black River, LLC.Permit ID: 6-2240-00009/00007. Effective date 5/20/2013.102Internal Revenue Service. Letter ruling on qualification of Montgomery LLC for federal for tax credit. June 11, 2008.103Our report on the Taylor facility, which evaluates claims made by the company in its application for a $100 million “cleanenergy” loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy, is available at http://www.pfpi.net/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/PFPI-Gasification-and-DOE-loan-guarantees.pdf.104 The current version of the rule, and amendments, are available at http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/define/index.htm10540 CFR Part 241. Identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste; proposed rule. Federal RegisterVol. 75, NO. 107. Friday, June 4, 2010. p. 3187154