Solid Waste Authority warns EPA draft limits could force costly retrofits, earlier closure of REF‑1

The Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County was briefed on proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revisions to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for large combustor units and directed staff to seek broader industry and legislative help to extend the federal comment period and evaluate impacts.

Executive Director Dan Pelowitz said EPA’s draft would apply to existing waste‑to‑energy units that combust more than 250 tons per day, including the Authority’s Renewable Energy Facility 1 (REF‑1) and Renewable Energy Facility 2 (REF‑2). “We support all environmental standards intended to protect public health where necessary. I want to make that clear,” Pelowitz said, adding the concern is “where and how they’re established and whether they’re achievable or not.”

Pelowitz told board members the proposed rule would lower emission limits and remove longstanding exclusions for startup, shutdown and malfunction periods. He warned that change, combined with EPA’s expectation of continuous operation of emissions monitors, could produce frequent permit exceedances even where plants have historically complied.

Why it matters: REF‑1 was permitted in the 1980s, refurbished in 2010 and has an operating contract that the Authority has planned to extend through 2029 while building a replacement. Pelowitz said spending large sums to retrofit an older facility that may operate only a few more years raises difficult budgeting and planning questions.

Details of authority’s concerns

- Retrofit costs: Pelowitz said REF‑1 likely would need “advanced selective non‑catalytic reduction technology” at an estimated $10–$15 million and substantial upgrades to baghouses and reagent systems. REF‑2 would likely need similar but smaller upgrades. Pelowitz also cautioned that some retrofit technologies are proprietary and not widely available.

- Monitoring and enforceability: EPA’s draft assumes continuous operation of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS). Pelowitz said CEMS outages and maintenance are normal; treating each outage as a violation could produce multiple unavoidable exceedances annually and would require redundant systems with additional capital and operating costs.

- Operational impacts and landfill planning: If REF‑1 were shut earlier than planned or not replaced, Pelowitz said landfill life would shorten from an estimated 2054 to 2044 — a reduction of about 10 years — increasing the likelihood of hauling waste out of county or siting new landfill capacity.

- Emissions examples: Pelowitz cited nitrogen oxide figures showing REF‑2 often operates well below proposed limits while REF‑1 operates higher (he cited an example NOx value of about 142 parts per million at REF‑1 versus about 32.6 at REF‑2). He said carbon monoxide is especially difficult to control during startup and shutdown.

Board directions and next steps

Board members asked staff to pursue several actions. Pelowitz said staff will request a 60‑day extension of EPA’s comment period, coordinate test protocols with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the plant operator (Covanta) to evaluate operational mitigation, and work with industry groups including the Waste‑to‑Energy Association (WTEA) and the Florida Waste‑to‑Energy Coalition. He also said the Authority will consider letters to the congressional delegation asking for assistance.

Legal and financial exposure

In response to a question on penalties, staff said fines vary by pollutant and duration and can range from thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per violation; Pelowitz added the Authority could face large one‑time capital needs and ongoing costs and said he would not knowingly operate plants in a way that knowingly produces violations.

Board comment and support

Commissioner Weiss and others urged pursuit of the extension and broader outreach. Pelowitz asked for board guidance before any litigation, noting industry organizations have already initiated legal action; he recommended working through those coalitions rather than the Authority filing independent suit.

Ending

The board directed staff to move forward with requests for an extension, coordinate testing with FDEP and the operator, and collaborate with industry partners and the congressional delegation to ensure the Authority can provide informed comments to EPA and evaluate financial implications.