EPA Revises Air Pollution Rules

February 27, 2011  by in UnCategorized   

By Home Furnishings Business in Business Strategy on February 28, 2011 Responding to a court-ordered deadline, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a revised air pollution rules for industrial boilers last week.

Compared to earlier proposals, the new rules will make it easier and less expensive for domestic furniture producers to meet federal air quality standards.

The new regulations contain many provisions that were revised from the rules proposed last spring. The home furnishings industry was among groups that battled the original  proposed standards that were estimated to carry a $20 billion price tag for impacted business and industries.

Key changes in the rule impacting home furnishings manufacturers include:

* Area source boilers fired by "biomass, including dry wood fuel used by most furniture producers, will not be required to meet numeric emission limits as originally proposed. Under the revised rule, companies with area source boilers are required to perform a boiler tun-up every two years to improve combustion efficiency;

* For major source boilers, the revision includes a single solid fuel category instead of separate biomass and coal subcategories. The revised emission limits for major source boilers, including those that burn biomass, appear achievable using baghouse technology rather than an electrostatic precipitator coupled with carbon monoxide emission controls. The revision could reduce compliance costs from as much as $3 million per stack to around $200,000 per stack.

In a rule issued in tandem with the boiler rules, EPA stated that engineered wood residuals (or €œresinated wood€) are not considered a €œsolid waste.€ Therefore, combustion of resinated wood will be subject to the boiler emission standards, rather than EPA€™s more stringent emission standards for solid waste incinerators.

Bill Perdue, AHFA vice president of regulatory affairs, credits the commitment of AHFA€™s technical team with producing the environmental, health and financial details that were needed to prove the excessive industry burden and economic impact of the original boiler rule.  Team members included Barbara Nuckles, Ashley Furniture; Barry Branscome, Vaughan-Bassett; David Davis, Hooker Furniture; David Stout, Broyhill/Furniture Brands; Donna Musick, Hickory Chair; Mike Zimmerman, Sauder Woodworking; Rick Partlow, Harden Furniture; Justin Dusseault, Stickley; and Jesse Childers, Baker.

AHFA€™s advocacy efforts on the boiler rule began in 2002, when EPA first initiated rulemaking on air quality standards for industrial boilers.  The original rule proposed that companies retrofit even small industrial boilers with expensive add-on pollution control technologies. The controversial proposal was withdrawn following testimony from AHFA and other impacted industries.

EPA published a revised rule in September 2004 that, by definition, excluded 90 percent of the solid fuel, fire tube boilers used in the wood furniture industry. But EPA€™s efforts to develop a cost-effective standard provoked an outcry from environmental groups. In June 2007, the federal Court of Appeals in Washington sided with environmentalists, vacated the boiler rule and instructed the EPA to start over.

As the January 2011 deadline for finalizing the rule neared, AHFA capped off three years of lobbying efforts with a last-minute Washington visit in December to put industry executives face-to-face with key U.S. Senators. Executives who responded to AHFA€™s call included John and Wyatt Bassett, Vaughan-Bassett Furniture; Micah Goldstein, Stanley Furniture; Nuckles, Ashley Furniture; Reggie Propst, Kincaid Furniture; John Botsford, Furniture Brands International; and Gat Caperton, Gat Creek Furniture.

After hearing from industry executives describing the devastating implications of the proposed rule, the senators responded. They persuaded EPA to file a motion with the federal District Court in Washington seeking a 15-month extension of the deadline for finalizing the rule. Although the court rejected that motion, EPA€™s boiler rule strategy was impacted by the high level of interest in both houses of Congress.