Companies across a very wide swath of industrial sectors would be affected by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rule tightening refrigerant leak detection rates for commercial and industrial cooling units. Upcoming changes would affect many types of businesses, from manufacturers in the pharmaceutical, frozen food, dairy product, and petrochemicals industries to smaller businesses using refrigerated warehousing, such as supermarkets and warehouse clubs, to owners of air-conditioned buildings.

The leak rate requirements have been in place since 1990. They were instituted to reduce emissions of Class 1 and Class II ozone-depleting refrigerants into the atmosphere and encourage their recycling. The current Section 608 rule (of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) sets annual leak trigger rates of 35 percent for industrial process refrigeration and commercial refrigeration appliances, and 15 percent for commercial comfort cooling appliances.

Companies with appliances having annual leak rates that exceed those triggers must take certain steps, including repair or replacement of the unit, verification of repairs, and recordkeeping. The proposed rule the EPA issued on Dec. 15, 2010 would reduce the leak repair trigger rate from 15 to 10 percent for comfort cooling appliances, and from 35 to 20 percent for commercial refrigeration appliance and industrial process refrigeration appliances.

EPA Boosts Biomass in Facilities

Companies considering replacing coal- and oil-burning energy systems with biomass just got a boost from the EPA.

The agency said it would delay for three years a decision on whether companies that build biomass-burning facilities to generate energy must obtain a permit prior to that construction. A requirement to obtain such a permit was to have gone into effect Jan. 2, 2011. After that date, companies owning large, stationary sources of air emissions would have had to obtain what is called a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or PSD permit if greenhouse gas emissions, when added to other Clean Air Act emissions such as nitrogen oxide or toxic chemicals, pushed the plant over a threshold. Starting July 1, 2011, companies would have had to obtain Title V permits if GHG emissions alone, including from biomass, exceeded certain limits.

Both those deadlines now go out the window, as they apply to biomass, at least for three years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson erased the biomass permitting requirements under pressure from the forestry industry and their Democratic allies in Congress. Obtaining permits was to be required originally as part of the EPA’s suite of actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions from industrial and commercial sites.

A number of U.S. manufacturing and energy companies have either built or are considering biomass facilities. The Southern Company, a major power producer, has already begun construction of biomass-to-electricity plants in Texas and will do so elsewhere in the South, including converting existing coal facilities.

Dow Corning announced last summer it would build a biomass plant in Michigan to produce energy and steam. “Our biomass project is still on the table,” said Jarrod Erpelding, a Dow Corning spokesperson. “It doesn’t appear that this ruling accelerates our timeline at all. We’re expecting to have final feedback on environmental permits by the end of the quarter.”

EPA Considering Restrictions on Some Foam Building Materials

A popular green building material is under fire at the EPA. Foams that contain hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) were the subject of a hearing in early January.

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam and extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam are used primarily for thermal insulation boards in buildings. Those foam insulation products, which have considerable energy-saving properties, are used in “green roofs” for commercial and industrial buildings, radiant floor heating systems, and ultra-energy-efficient buildings.

HBCD is a suspected bad actor, and the EPA is moving forward under the Toxic Substances Control Act to perhaps ban use of the chemical. The agency issued an action plan last April and held a meeting on Jan. 5 in Washington to get industry input.

The problem is that there is no current substitute for HBCD in EPS and XPS. This raises concerns that if those construction materials are no longer available, their substantial green values will disappear along with them.