Compliance: New regulations for old boilers
Examining the new requirements for area source boilers, and why many schools, hospitals and small companies may need to submit EPA paperwork almost immediately.
December 18, 2013 at 03:00 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Many companies and institutions have boilers for heat or emergency and auxiliary power and have not been subject to much regulation other than a random state or county permit. That blissful state is now over. With the adoption of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler Area Sources (Area Source Boiler MACT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now regulates many of these small power plants. While the requirements are far less onerous than for large electrical generating units, they still require compliance demonstrations, control efforts and time-consuming paperwork to be filed with the EPA. Since many of these boilers are located at schools, hospitals and smaller companies which tend to lack large environmental staff to monitor these requirements, the possibility of enforcement actions and fines is significant.
Requirements for area source boilers
An area source boiler is an enclosed combustion vessel that heats water for power or warmth and does not emit sufficient quantities of pollutants to qualify as a “major source” under the Clean Air Act (CAA). By now, most owners know whether their boiler qualifies as a major source, so if you are unsure, then it is probably an area source boiler. There is no minimum threshold so the rules apply to an existing boiler of any size in a non-residential application. Fortunately, there are exemptions, including hot water heaters, electric boilers and boilers regulated under other laws. Gas-fired boilers are also exempt so long as they limit the use of liquid fuels only to start up boiler operations and emergencies when gas is cut off.
Once one determines that the rules apply to their boiler, the requirements vary depending on the age, the fuel and the size. For example, coal-fired boilers larger than 10 million BTU/hour (a measurement of heat input) must satisfy the most stringent requirements, including meeting emission limits for particulate matter, carbon monoxide and mercury; performing initial compliance measurements to determine their baseline emissions; and monitoring to document compliance. Existing boilers (i.e., boilers in operation before 2010) fueled by coal, oil or biomass larger than 10 mm BTU/hr must perform Energy Assessments to document that the system is energy efficient. In contrast, existing boilers fueled by oil or biomass smaller than 10 mm BTU/hr do not need to meet emissions limits, but must meet “work practice standards.” For the most part, these are periodic inspections to verify that the heating and air movement equipment is operating as efficiently as possible for optimum combustion.
Upcoming deadlines
All of these systems have paperwork requirements that must be submitted to the EPA almost immediately. The owners must submit an Initial Notification to the EPA by Jan. 20, 2014, a Notification of Compliance by July 18, 2014, and the Annual Compliance Certification by March 1, of every succeeding year. The larger coal-burning boilers require periodic compliance testing, but smaller oil and biomass boilers must document performance of their work practice standards.
These rules also must be evaluated by owners and developers of energy systems that use alternative fuels such as used cooking oil or recovered agricultural products. Many of these systems were designed to be smaller than the major source threshold in order to avoid the most stringent CAA rules, but would be regulated under these rules. In addition, such owners and developers must be certain that the alternative fuel that they plan to use does not constitute a “waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Not only would that place the source under the much more stringent waste incinerator rules, but it might also subject the operation to waste facility stilting requirements.
In short, the Area Source Boiler MACT rules are relatively easy to follow (for EPA rules), but many owners may not know that the rules apply to their sources because they do not have a history of being regulated. The new compliance dates are quickly approaching, and, while the EPA may be initially lenient, they may also want to create a few example cases to raise awareness of the rule. Many owners may simply switch to natural gas, but several will not have that choice due to the cost, the lack of availability, or because their business requires them to use alternative fuels. For those owners and their counsel, understanding these rules is essential.
Many companies and institutions have boilers for heat or emergency and auxiliary power and have not been subject to much regulation other than a random state or county permit. That blissful state is now over. With the adoption of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler Area Sources (Area Source Boiler MACT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now regulates many of these small power plants. While the requirements are far less onerous than for large electrical generating units, they still require compliance demonstrations, control efforts and time-consuming paperwork to be filed with the EPA. Since many of these boilers are located at schools, hospitals and smaller companies which tend to lack large environmental staff to monitor these requirements, the possibility of enforcement actions and fines is significant.
Requirements for area source boilers
An area source boiler is an enclosed combustion vessel that heats water for power or warmth and does not emit sufficient quantities of pollutants to qualify as a “major source” under the Clean Air Act (CAA). By now, most owners know whether their boiler qualifies as a major source, so if you are unsure, then it is probably an area source boiler. There is no minimum threshold so the rules apply to an existing boiler of any size in a non-residential application. Fortunately, there are exemptions, including hot water heaters, electric boilers and boilers regulated under other laws. Gas-fired boilers are also exempt so long as they limit the use of liquid fuels only to start up boiler operations and emergencies when gas is cut off.
Once one determines that the rules apply to their boiler, the requirements vary depending on the age, the fuel and the size. For example, coal-fired boilers larger than 10 million BTU/hour (a measurement of heat input) must satisfy the most stringent requirements, including meeting emission limits for particulate matter, carbon monoxide and mercury; performing initial compliance measurements to determine their baseline emissions; and monitoring to document compliance. Existing boilers (i.e., boilers in operation before 2010) fueled by coal, oil or biomass larger than 10 mm BTU/hr must perform Energy Assessments to document that the system is energy efficient. In contrast, existing boilers fueled by oil or biomass smaller than 10 mm BTU/hr do not need to meet emissions limits, but must meet “work practice standards.” For the most part, these are periodic inspections to verify that the heating and air movement equipment is operating as efficiently as possible for optimum combustion.
Upcoming deadlines
All of these systems have paperwork requirements that must be submitted to the EPA almost immediately. The owners must submit an Initial Notification to the EPA by Jan. 20, 2014, a Notification of Compliance by July 18, 2014, and the Annual Compliance Certification by March 1, of every succeeding year. The larger coal-burning boilers require periodic compliance testing, but smaller oil and biomass boilers must document performance of their work practice standards.
These rules also must be evaluated by owners and developers of energy systems that use alternative fuels such as used cooking oil or recovered agricultural products. Many of these systems were designed to be smaller than the major source threshold in order to avoid the most stringent CAA rules, but would be regulated under these rules. In addition, such owners and developers must be certain that the alternative fuel that they plan to use does not constitute a “waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Not only would that place the source under the much more stringent waste incinerator rules, but it might also subject the operation to waste facility stilting requirements.
In short, the Area Source Boiler MACT rules are relatively easy to follow (for EPA rules), but many owners may not know that the rules apply to their sources because they do not have a history of being regulated. The new compliance dates are quickly approaching, and, while the EPA may be initially lenient, they may also want to create a few example cases to raise awareness of the rule. Many owners may simply switch to natural gas, but several will not have that choice due to the cost, the lack of availability, or because their business requires them to use alternative fuels. For those owners and their counsel, understanding these rules is essential.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250