Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJudith Hoover Modified over 7 years ago
December 4, 2002 1 Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD
December 4, 2002 2 Purpose To provide update on utility MACT project
December 4, 2002 3 CAAAC Working Group Purpose Recommendations to EPA on Utility MACT 31 members Six State/Local/(Tribal) Agency representatives Eight Environmental Group representatives Seventeen industry representatives Goal -- consensus of opinion on identified issues Quickly determined there would be no consensus Refocus -- identify issues, thoroughly discuss issues, clearly identify Stakeholder positions
December 4, 2002 4 Issues identified by stakeholders Subcategories for mercury from coal-fired units Floor levels for mercury from coal-fired units (including variability) Non-mercury HAP from coal-fired units Beyond-the-floor levels for mercury from coal- fired units Format of coal-fired unit mercury standard Compliance method (monitoring) for mercury from coal-fired units Compliance time Oil-fired units
December 4, 2002 5 Subcategories for mercury Issue -- whether and how to subcategorize the source category “oil- and coal-fired electric utility steam generating units” Emission standards are set for each subcategory Consensus Oil- and coal-fired boilers should be separate subcategories No other consensus on this issue relating to coal-fired units
December 4, 2002 6 Summary of stakeholder positions on subcategorization Subcategorization by coal type Lignite States/Locals and Industry support separate subcategory Environmentals do not Bituminous and subbituminous Majority Industry Group, Equipment Vendors, and Texas support separate subcategories States/Locals, Environmentals, and CEG do not Chlorine content WEST Associates supports chlorine content subcategorization FBC units Environmental, Industry, and Texas support separate subcategory States/Locals do not
December 4, 2002 7 MACT floor levels for mercury Issue -- how to calculate the mercury MACT “floor level” for coal-fired units, considering the ICR data and variability (of mercury and other chemicals in coal, in sampling and measurements, and in operation of the best performing plants) Consensus New source floor is based on the best performing similar source No other consensus on this issue
December 4, 2002 8 Summary of stakeholder positions on MACT floors Environmental Groups Recommendations that lead to 2 - 7 tpy mercury emissions based on emission rate States (except Texas) Recommendations that lead to 10 - 15 tpy mercury emissions based on emission rate/percent reduction Equipment Vendors Recommendations based on percent reduction Essentially beyond-the-floor Majority Industry Group Recommendations that lead to 26 - 32 tpy mercury emissions based on emission rate/percent reduction
December 4, 2002 9 Approaches to addressing variability Multiple approaches have used on other MACTs, and can be used, to account for variability in data Worst-case performance Averaging time Control technology parameters Format of standard (30-day avg., annual) Correlation of mercury and…something else Statistical approach(es) More analyses on each potential approach warranted Approaches may be combined
December 4, 2002 10 Non-mercury HAP Issue -- whether EPA must set standards other than for mercury for coal-fired units No consensus on this issue Environmentals and States/Locals (except Texas) believe EPA must regulate non-mercury HAP Industry and Texas cite section 112(n)(1)(a) and believe that the lack of a health determination for non-mercury HAP precludes EPA from regulating anything but mercury
December 4, 2002 11 Other issues Beyond-the-floor mercury levels for coal-fired units No consensus Major Industry Group believes no beyond-the-floor is warranted ICAC based their recommendations on beyond-the-floor Others relatively non-committal Format of mercury standard for coal-fired units Stakeholders split Input vs. output Emission limit vs. percent reduction vs. both Also disagreement on averaging time – 30 days to annual
December 4, 2002 12 Other issues (cont.) Compliance method for coal-fired unit mercury standard No consensus Industry believes mercury CEM will not be available and that periodic, manual testing would be required Others believe CEM will be available and should be required Oil-fired units No general consensus Consensus on subcategorization from coal but no further Other issues similar to those of coal (e.g., floors, adequacy of data, HAP to be regulated)
December 4, 2002 13 The future Under settlement agreement, proposal of MACT rule on or before December 15, 2003 UNLESS multipollutant legislation enacted before then that amends CAA and eliminates MACT requirement Promulgation on or before December 15, 2003 Expect requests for extension to 3-year compliance schedule (normally December 15, 2007) Also, PM Transport Rule (similar to NO x SIP call) scheduled to run concurrent with MACT rule Materials relating to MACT at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html
Timeline: Electric Power Sector Faces Numerous CAA Regulations Phase II Acid Rain Compliance Mercury Determination Proposed Utility MACT New Fine PM NAAQS Implementation Plans Designate Areas for Fine PM NAAQS Ozone Acid Rain, PM 2.5, Haze, Toxics 1-hr Severe Area Attainment Date Compliance for BART Sources NSR Permits for new sources & modifications that increase emissions 99010203 04 05 0607 08 0910 11 1213 14 151617 OTC NO x Trading 1-hr Serious Area Attainment Date NO x SIPs Due Designate Areas for 8-hr Ozone NAAQS Section 126 NO x Controls 1 NO x SIP Call Red- uc- tions 00 18 Final Utility MACT Compliance with Utility MACT Assess Effectiveness of Regional Ozone Strategies Regional Haze SIPs due Latest Attainment Date for Fine PM NAAQS 3 Compliance for BART Sources Under the Trading Program Second Regional Haze SIPs due Marg- inal 8-hr Ozone NAAQS Attain- ment Date Possible Regional NO x Reductions? (SIP Call II) 2 Interstate Transport Rule to Address SO 2 / NO x Emissions for Fine PM NAAQS and Regional Haze Note: Dotted lines indicate a range of possible dates. 1 The D.C. Circuit Court has delayed the May 1, 2003 EGU compliance date for the section 126 final rule 2 Further action on ozone would be considered based on the 2007 assessment. 3 The SIP-submittal and attainment dates are keyed off the date of designation; for example, if PM or ozone are designated in 2004, the first attainment date is 2009 EPA is required to update the new source performance standards (NSPS) for boilers and turbines every 8 years Serious 8-hr Ozone NAAQS attainment Date Moderate 8-hr Ozone NAAQS Attainment Date 8-hr Ozone Attain- ment Demon- stration SIPs due In developing the timeline of current CAA requirements, it was necessary for EPA to make assumptions about rulemakings that have not been completed or, in some case, not even started. EPA’s rulemakings will be conducted through the usual notice-and-comment process, and the conclusions may vary from these assumptions. Additional HAP Regulation Under 112(d) and (f)
December 4, 2002 15 Clean Air Act Implementation 8-hr Ozone Standards 2003States recommend nonattainment designations 2004 EPA makes nonattainment designations 2005-09 New NO x Rule? 2007-08 SIPs due 2008-09 EPA finalizes SIPs PM 2.5 Standards 2003States recommend nonattainment designations 2004-05EPA makes nonattainment designations, completion of NAAQS review 2005EPA Issues SO x /NO x transport rule 2004-08States develop/submit SIPs 2008-09EPA finalizes SIPs Regional Haze Program 2007-08 States submit regional haze SIPs 2008-09 EPA approves SIPs 2013-18 Plants must install BART or comply with backstop trading program Mercury 2003Propose MACT standard 2004Finalize MACT standard 2004New plants must begin to comply 2007Existing plants must begin to comply
© 2023 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.