U"lity Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Mercury and the Environment University of Richmond School of Law

Transcription

1 U"lity Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Mercury and the Environment University of Richmond School of Law Michael G. Dowd Director, Air Division Virginia Department of Environmental Quality March 28, 2012

2 The Road to MATS aka the U"lity MACT 1990: Clean Air Act Amendments required EPA to issue standards to reduce toxic air emissions from many sources, and to study whether to do so for power plants 1998: EPA released the UAlity Toxics Study Report to Congress 2000: EPA listed power plants for regulaaon under the Clean Air Act (CAA) air toxics provisions EPA determined it was appropriate and necessary to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from power plants Mercury cited as pollutant of greatest concern but other toxics of potenaal concern include arsenic, chromium, cadmium, nickel, hydrochloric acid, dioxin/furan 2

3 The Road to MATS 2005: EPA reversed power plant finding EPA determined it was neither appropriate nor necessary to regulate HAP emissions from power plants and removed those units from the CAA secaon 112(c) source category list EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which regulated mercury from power plants through a cap and trade program under CAA secaon : DC Circuit Court vacated EPA's acaon removing power plants from the secaon 112(c) source category list and CAMR 2011: EPA under consent decree to propose toxics standards for power plants by March 2011 and issue final standards by December 16, 2011 (published in FR February 16, 2012) 3

4 Affects Coal and Oil Fired Electric U"lity Steam Genera"ng Units Electric GeneraAng Unit [EGU] means a fossil fuel- fired combusaon unit of more than 25 megawa[s electric (MWe) that serves a generator that produces electricity for sale. Fossil Fuel = coal and oil 4

5 New vs Exis"ng EGUs New EGUs: must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in pracace by the best controlled similar source - Commence construcaon aaer May 3, 2011 ExisAng EGUs: must be at least as stringent as the average emission limitaaon achieved by the best performing 12 percent of exisang sources in the source category The EPA also must consider more stringent beyond- the floor control opaons for new and exisang units 5

6 Basic Requirements of MATS Coal- Fired EGUs Mercury: numeric emission limit would prevent 91% of mercury in coal from being released to the air Acid gases: HCl numeric emission limit as a surrogate, with an alternate surrogate of SO 2 Non- mercury metallic toxic pollutants such as arsenic and chromium: numeric emission limit for total PM as a surrogate, with alternate surrogate of total or individual metal air toxics Organic air toxics (including dioxin): Work pracace standards, instead of numeric standards, due to low- detected emission levels. Would ensure opamal combusaon, prevenang dioxin/ 6 furan emissions

7 Emission Limits for Coal- fired EGUs New Coal- Fired Unit Not Low Rank Coal New Coal- Fired Unit Low Rank Virgin Coal Exis"ng Coal- Fired Unit Not Low Rank Coal Exis"ng Coal- Fired Unit Low Rank Virgin Coal Pollutant Lb/MWh Lb/MMBtu Lb/Mwh Lb/MMBtu Lb/MWh Lb/MMBtu Lb/MWh Lb/MMBtu PM Total 7.03E- 03 N/A 7.03E- 03 N/A 3.0E E E E- 02 Total Non Hg Metals 6.0E- 05 N/A 6.0E- 05 N/A 5.0E E E E- 05 Individual HAPs Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies HCl 4.0E- 04 N/A 4.0E- 04 N/A 2.0E E E E- 03 SO2 4.0E- 01 N/A 4.0E- 01 N/A 1.5E E E E- 01 HF N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hg 2.0E- 07 N/A 4.0E- 05 N/A 1.3E E E E- 06 7

8 Basic Requirements of MATS Oil- Fired EGUs Acid gases: Numerical HCl and HF emission limits Metal air toxics: Numerical emission limits for total metal air toxics (including Hg) with individual metal air toxics as alternate Organic air toxics (including dioxin): Work pracace standards, instead of numeric standards, due to low- detected emission levels. Would ensure opamal combusaon, prevenang dioxin/furan emissions. 8

9 Affected Facili"es Na"onwide 525 Power Plants EsAmated 1,200 coal- fired units (45% percent of naaonwide electricity generaaon) EsAmated 150 oil- fired units (1% of naaonwide electricity generaaon) 9

10 Loca"on of Coal and Oil Power Plants Source: National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS 4.10 MATS) (EPA, December 2011) and EPA s Information Collection Request (ICR) for New and Existing Coal- And Oil-Fired Electric Utility Stream Generation Units (2010) 10

11 Why Control Mercury Emissions? Fish Advisories for Mercury are Everywhere 11

12 MATS IN VIRGINIA 12

13 The Clean Air Act s Federal- State Partnership EPA Establishes Major Clean Air Programs NaAonal Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Criteria pollutants Technology Driven Standards NSPS, MACT States implement, permit and enforce 13

14 DEQ Will Likely Ask SAPCB for Authority to Seek Delega"on of MATS Program Virginia has refused delegaaon of only 9 out of 125 MACT standards DelegaAon refused when number of sources covered are so great that DEQ lacked resources to adequately implement 14

15 DEQ Path for Obtaining Delegated Authority for MATS Present to SAPCB at November 2012 meeang along with any other federal regulaaons promulgated during the previous year Upon SAPCB approval the regulaaon is incorporated by reference into the Virginia air regulaaons Once the amended regulaaon has been published, DEQ formally requests delegaaon of the regulaaon from EPA DEQ anacipates becoming the delegated authority for the MATS rule by early

16 Implementa"on of MATS DEQ determines faciliaes subject to rule Conduct compliance and enforcement acaviaes at affected faciliaes Amend Title V permits of affected faciliaes at appropriate Ame No special permilng required Sources are free to achieve as they see fit 16

17 Compliance Dates New EGUs must comply with MATS by April 16, 2012 ExisAng EGUs must comply by no later than April 16, 2015 Delegated states may approve up to one addiaonal year if needed to install controls Under certain circumstances, EPA may approve a 5 th year and is considering further steps if necessary to keep the lights on 17

18 How Will EGUs Comply? Control technologies to reduce these emissions include scrubbers, fabric filters, and acavated carbon injecaon Some EGUs will upgrade exisang controls such as electrostaac precipitators Some may install new controls such as fabric filters, dry sorbent injecaon, or acavated carbon injecaon Others may convert to natural gas or biomass and some older units may be shut down 18

19 Power Plants in Virginia Out of 33 power plants and 125 EGUs in Virginia, 16 power plants and 46 EGUs are potenaally affected Half of older Virginia EGUs may shut down or convert to natural gas or biomass rather than comply with MATS Virginia has no new EGUs. Dominion s Wise County plant (VCHEC) commenced construcaon prior to new source date of May 3,

20 Dominion s Wise County Power Plant 20

21 Wise County Plant s Permi[ed vs MATS Emission Limita"ons Pollutant EGU Standard for ExisAng Units Permi[ed Emission Limits Total PM 0.03 lb/mmbtu 0.01 lb/mmbtu HCl or lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu SO lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu (3 hr ) lb/mmbtu (24 hr) lb/mmbtu (30 day) Mercury lb/gwh lb/gwh 21

22 Other Air Regula"ons Impac"ng Power Plant and Hg Emissions Cross- State Air PolluAon Rule (CSAPR)? CAIR sall in effect 1 Hr Source Specific SO2 Standard (NAAQS) Will drive deep SO2 emissions at exisang coal plants Green House Gas New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)? 22

23 Other Source Categories with Regula"ons to Control Mercury Emissions Municipal Waste Combustors Medical Waste Incinerators Portland Cement Plants Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters Iron & Steel Foundries Electric Arc Furnaces Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants Commercial Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators Other Solid Waste Incinerator 23

24 Impact of MATS to Virginia EPA claims benefit to Va of $1 2.5 billion and prevenaon of 300 premature deaths in 2016 Impacts related to deposiaon Virginia Mercury Study (2008) Out- of- date but instrucave Established deposiaon baseline DeposiAon reducaons based on implementaaon of CAMR and CAIR, not MATS h[p:// vamercurystudy.html 24

25 H.B (2006) The Department of Environmental Quality shall conduct a detailed assessment of mercury deposi8on in Virginia in order to determine whether par8cular circumstances exist that jus8fy, from a health and cost and benefit perspec8ve, requiring addi8onal steps to be taken to control mercury emissions within Virginia. The assessment shall also include (i) an evalua8on of the state of mercury control technology for coal- fired boilers, including the technical and economic feasibility of such technology, and (ii) an assessment of the mercury reduc8ons and benefits expected to be achieved by the implementa8on of the CAIR and CAMR regula8ons. The Department shall report the final findings and recommenda8ons... no later than October 15,

26 MODELED MERCURY DEPOSITION IN VIRGINIA DURING % from global background 14% from nearby out-of-state EGUs 3% from in-state EGUs 3% from in-state non-egus 3% from nearby out-of-state non-egus 3% from remaining U.S., Mexico, and Canada 26

27 SUMMARY OF BASE YEAR MODELING RESULTS FOR VIRGINIA Contribution by Geographic Area 1% 3% 3% 14% Contribution by Geographic Area w/o Global Background 6% 1% 14% 13% 3% 2% 0% 12% 74% Virginia (EGU) Surrounding States (EGU) Remaining US Global Background Virginia (Non-EGU) Surrounding States (Non-EGU) Canada & Mexico Natural Sources Virginia (EGU) Surrounding States (EGU) Remaining US 54% Virginia (Non-EGU) Surrounding States (Non-EGU) Canada & Mexico 27

28 MERCURY DEPOSITION IN VIRGINIA Study predicted a 20.4% drop in mercury deposition in Virginia between and 2018, which follows implementation of federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Significant amount of deposition reduction due to out-of-state emissions reductions (>50%) 28

29 MERCURY DEPOSITION IN VIRGINIA Individual Virginia facilities do contribute to mercury deposition within the state, and the greatest impacts from in-state sources are near the source 29

30 30

31 FISH TISSUE IMPACTS Predicted drop in mercury deposition between and 2018 could result in reduction of mercury sensitive water bodies with fish consumption advisories from 13 to 9 or 10 based on current VDH 0.5 ppm average fish mercury concentration level 31

32 Effect of New EPA Air Rules on Virginia Coal Genera"on Coal generaaon at following VA faciliaes likely will cease in next few years: GenOn Potomac River (482 MW) Dominion Yorktown Units 1 and 2 (323 MW) Dominion Chesapeake (595 MW) Dominion Bremo Bluff (227 MW) Dominion Alta Vista (63 mw) Dominion Hopewell (63 MW) Dominion Southampton (63 MW) AEP Glyn Lyn (335 MW) AEP Clinch River (705 MW) Over 2800 total megawa[s 32

33 QUESTIONS? 33