1. Department of Environmental Quality
November 5, 2015
Department of Environmental Quality

2. Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina
November 5, Presented to the Environmental Management Commission
Division of Air Quality
Steve Schliesser
Department of Environmental Quality

3. Presentation Summary
Purpose: Address 2 state-only mercury rule provisions
- 15A NCAC 02D (b) and (c), Mercury Control Plans
North Carolina and EPA mercury rules summary
Findings of mercury emissions, controls, and deposition
Discussion and DAQ recommendation whether to approve or disapprove the Mercury Control Plans
Department of Environmental Quality

4. Acronyms EGU = Electrical generating unit
CSA = NC Clean Smokestacks Act
CAA = Clean Air Act
CAMR = EPA Clean Air Mercury Rule
MATS = EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
MACT = Maximum Achievable Control Technology
SO = Sulfur dioxide
FGD = Flue gas desulfurization, SO2 / mercury control
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SCR = Selective catalytic reduction, NOx / mercury control
SNCR = Selective non-catalytic reduction, NOx / mercury control
PM = Particulate matter
ESP = Electrostatic precipitator, PM control
Department of Environmental Quality

5. North Carolina and EPA Mercury Rules
2002, CSA set EGU SO2/NOx emission caps, not mercury
, DAQ reports on mercury to EMC and ERC
2005, EPA EGU CAMR under CAA Section 111 with trading
2006, EMC adopted CAMR with state-only provisions
2008, CAMR vacated by D.C. Circuit Court, toxic pollutants like mercury regulated under Section 112
Department of Environmental Quality

6. NC and EPA Mercury Rules – cont’d
2012, EPA replaced CAMR with MATS under Section 112
- Based on maximum achievable control technology
- 90% mercury control without trading
- April 2015 compliance date
2014, D.C. Circuit Court upheld several MATS points, but disagreed on EPA’s failure to consider cost
June 2015, Supreme Court remanded MATS to D.C. Circuit Court, for EPA ignoring cost, with mixed signals on whether to:
- Include co-benefits with benefits,
- Stay, remand or vacate
MATS rule stays in place until decided otherwise
Department of Environmental Quality

7. Mercury Emission Control
Early 2000s, 2/3 NC mercury emissions from coal- EGUs
2012 DAQ Mercury Report Highlights
, 70% reduction in NC EGU mercury emissions
Modeling evaluated NC’s deposition from NC sources
- In 2005, 16% of NC deposition from NC sources
- In 2016, 3% of NC deposition from NC sources with CSA controls meeting MATS
2015 Update
, 89% reduction in NC EGU mercury emissions
Department of Environmental Quality

8. NC EGU Mercury Emission Trend from CY 2002 - 2013
Department of Environmental Quality

9. Assess 02D .2511(b), Mercury Control Plans
Requirement
Duke and Progress submit Control Plans by Jan. 1, 2013
Controls for NOx (SCR / SNCR) and SO2 (wet FGD) also considered “mercury controls”
Identify controls, operation schedule at earliest date, and un-controlled units to be shut down by Dec. 31, 2017
Response
Each submitted plans in Dec identifying controls / schedule, 8 facilities shut down 3 years before deadline
Recommendation:
EMC finds that the 02D .2511(b) requirements are met
Department of Environmental Quality

10. Assess 02D .2511(c), Mercury Control Plans
Requirement
DAQ Director review plans and recommend to EMC
EMC only approve if control plan achieves maximum emission reduction feasible without mercury allowances (i.e., emission trading)
Response
To point of maximum control, EPA EGU MACT sets limits with 90% mercury control on continuous basis with NC EGU MATS compliance tests in fall 2015
To point of no allowances, EPA rule prohibits trading
Recommendation:
EMC approve the mercury control plans
Department of Environmental Quality

11. Questions?
Steve Schliesser
NC DAQ Environmental Engineer
DAQ Clean Smokestack Act website:
EPA EGU MATS website:
Duke Energy’s Coal Plant Decommissioning Program:
program.asp
Department of Environmental Quality

12. Department of Environmental Quality

13. 02D .2511(b), Mercury control plans
Duke Energy and Progress Energy shall each submit a mercury control plan to the Director by January 1, The plan shall identify the technology proposed for use at each unit owned or operated by the utility; the schedule for installation and operation of mercury controls at each unit; and shall identify any units that will be shut down. For purposes of this Rule, controls for nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide installed in compliance with G.S D are considered to be mercury controls. The plan shall provide for installation and operation of mercury controls on all units at the earliest date that is technically and economically feasible. Any unit that has not installed controls as specified in an approved mercury control plan by December 31, 2017 shall shut down unless the Commission has approved additional mercury reductions at a facility that has achieved initial mercury reductions under G.S D in lieu of installing controls at the unit under the criteria set out in Paragraph (c) of this Rule.
Department of Environmental Quality

14. 02D .2511(c), Review and approval of plans
The Director shall review the mercury control plans submitted pursuant to Paragraph (b) of this Rule and shall recommend that the Commission approve the plans, disapprove the plans or conditionally approve the plans. The Commission shall only approve a mercury control plan if it finds that the plan achieves the maximum level of reductions in mercury emissions at each unit that is technically and economically feasible without reliance on mercury allowances obtained through the allowance trading system under Rule Reductions in mercury are technically feasible if control technology exists that can reduce mercury emissions beyond the level achieved by an electrostatic precipitator for that particular unit. Economic feasibility is determined by considering environmental and health impacts; capital cost of compliance; annual incremental compliance cost; and impacts on local, regional and state economy. The Commission may approve additional mercury reductions at a unit that has achieved initial mercury reductions under G.S D in lieu of installing mercury controls at a unit that has no mercury controls if the Commission finds that:
(1) installation of controls at the unit is not economically and technically feasible; and
(2) continued operation of the unit without mercury controls will not cause or contribute to mercury related health problems.
Department of Environmental Quality