UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS

AUTHORS PRAVEEN AMAR BILL O’SULLIVAN JOHN PAUL

THANKS TO EPA FOR PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION; ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE “MINI” WORK-GROUPS

PRIOR STAPPA/ALAPCO POSITIONS JUNE, 1998 LETTER TO EPA ON THE ICR JUNE, 2000 LETTER TO ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER ON THE REGULATORY DETERMINATION MARCH, 2001 MEETING WITH EPA MAY, 2002 STAPPA/ALAPCO MULTI- POLLUTANT STRATEGY PRINCIPLES

JUNE, 1998 LETTER TO EPA ON THE ICR EPA “should seriously consider also requiring the analysis of other chemicals of concern in the coal, ash, and flue gases. Most of the cost of stack testing is related to the labor of obtaining the samples and the supporting measurements, not the analysis of the mercury. To add the analysis of arsenic and other chemicals of concern would add insignificantly to the overall cost. The collection of these samples represents an opportunity for obtaining statistically representative data on other chemicals very cost-effectively.”

JUNE, 2000 LETTER TO ADMINISTRATOR BROWNER “STAPPA and ALAPCO believe a regulation is warranted and strongly recommend that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish standards to control emissions of HAPs from electric utilities, including, but not limited to, mercury. Other pollutants you may wish to consider addressing include dioxin, arsenic, nickel and acid gases.”

MARCH, 2001 MEETING WITH EPA – Minimal subcategorization of the industry; – The most stringent levels of mercury control possible; – A multi-pollutant approach; – Limited flexibility by the sources so as to enhance the States ability to implement the standards; – Early compliance encouraged through the use of incentives; and – No trading of toxics.

MAY, 2002 STAPPA/ALAPCO ENERGY PRINCIPLES “Given the significant contribution of power plant emissions to public health and environmental problems in the U.S., the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) believe that, if properly structured, a comprehensive, integrated control strategy for electric utilities is an appropriate approach that will offer multiple important benefits.”

EPA's 12/2000 Regulatory Finding HAP of "greatest potential concern" - mercury HAP's of "potential concern for carcinogenic effects" - "arsenic, and a few other metals (e.g., chromium, nickel, cadmium)" "Three additional HAP's that are of potential concern" - dioxins,hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride "it is possible that future data collection efforts or analyses may identify other HAPs of potential concern"

EPA's 12/2000 Regulatory Finding Hazardous PollutantEstimated TPY Arsenic 61 TPY Chromium 73 TPY Lead 75 TPY Manganese 164 TPY Mercury 46 TPY Hydrogen Chloride143,000 TPY Hydrogen Fluoride 19,500 TPY

COAL HAP GROUPINGS MERCURY FINE PARTICULATE HAPS ACID GAS GAPS ORGANIC HAPS

SURROGATES: FINE PARTICULATE HAPS - 3 options Fine particulates mass emissions Total particulate mass emissions, (if insufficient fine particulate test data) Representative metal HAP or HAPs (Example--arsenic for semi-volatile and chromium for nonvolatile)

SURROGATES: ACID GAS HAPS - Two options HCl SO2 - CEM advantage.

SURROGATES: ORGANIC HAPS CO at this time - CEM advantage. Test organic HAPs to confirm minimization

COAL SUBCATEGORIES Should not be necessary Lignite may be acceptable Bituminous and subbituminous should be combined Not based on size of power plants

FORMAT OF MERCURY MACT LIMIT FOR COAL Combined standard (rate or % reduction) Rate should be output based (mg/MWhr) Rate could be input based (lb/trillion btu) % reduction based on air pollution control inlet and outlet testing

FLOOR FOR HG MACT LIMIT FOR COAL Rate standard alone - 1 lb per trillion btu % reduction standard alone - about 85% Combined standard - within following ranges

COMBINED STANDARD RANGES Lb/trillion Btu or %TPY Remaining 1.0 or 85%11.5 TPY 0.9 or 85%11 TPY 0.8 or 85%10.5 TPY 1.1 or 90%11 TPY 1.0 or 90%10 TPY (mid range) 0.9 or 90%9 TPY 0.8 or 90%8.5 TPY

BEYOND THE FLOOR FOR HG FROM COAL--CONSIDERATIONS Criteria pollutant emission information - tests, RACT limits, NSPS limits, BACT/LAER determinations Co-benefits of other HAP emission reductions Technology transfer (MSW incinerators)

BEYOND THE FLOOR FOR HG FROM COAL--CONSIDERATIONS Pilot and full-scale demonstration tests Post-standard technology innovation (lowers cost, increases effectiveness) Magnitude of utility HAP emissions

BEYOND THE FLOOR MERCURY MACT STANDARD - RANGE Lb/trillion Btu or %TPY Remaining 0.8 or 90%8.5 TPY 0.8 or 95%7.5 TPY 0.6 or 90%7.5 TPY 0.4 or 90%7.0 TPY 0.6 or 95%5.5 TPY 0.4 or 95%4.5 TPY

COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION for Hg MACT CEMs when proven - monthly avg or 12- month moving avg Quarterly testing in interim - Avg of 4 quarterly avgs, 3 tests/quarter EPA Method 29 - Hg and other metals

TYPES OF MERCURY CONTROL EXPECTED Fabric filtration (can be polishing filter after ESP) Wet or dry scrubbing Activated carbon

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER HAPS FROM COAL: TOTAL PARTICULATES Floor lb/million btu (NSPS) Beyond the Floor lb/million btu (BACT)

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER HAPS FROM COAL: ACID GASES (SO2) Floor - 90 % SO2 (NSPS) Beyond the floor - 95% SO2 (BACT)

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OTHER HAPS FROM COAL: ORGANIC HAPS (CO) Floor ppm 24 hour avg (RACT) Beyond the floor - consider BACT/LAER determinations

OIL HAP RECOMMENDATIONS Oil heavier than No 2 Good combustion and particulate control Total particulate or individual metal (nickel) surrogate 100 ppm CO floor for organic HAPs Same particulate limit as coal if total particulates are surrogate

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Data sufficiency Variability of data Special concern about PIC variability Relationship of MACT to RACT, NSPS, BACT, and LAER Air pollution control technology: Innovation, implementation, and technology transfer

The Relationship Between Regulations and Implementation of NO x Control

NESCAUM Report: Key Findings “ We Know More about Mercury and Mercury Control than We Did When We Decided to Regulate Auto Emissions and Pollution from Power Plants”