December 4, 2002 1

Utility MACT

Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange

December 4, 2002

William H. Maxwell

Combustion Group/ESD

December 4, 20022

Purpose

To provide update on utility MACT project

December 4, 20023

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, 20024

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, 20025

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, 20026

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, 20027

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, 20028

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, 20029

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, 200210

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, 200211

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, 200212

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, 200213

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 NOx 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 IIAcid Rain

Compliance

MercuryDetermination

ProposedUtilityMACT

New Fine PM NAAQSImplementation Plans

Designate Areasfor Fine PM NAAQS

Ozone

Acid Rain, PM2.5, Haze, Toxics

1-hr Severe Area

Attainment Date

Compliance for BART Sources

NSR Permits for new sources & modifications that increase emissions

99 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

OTC NOx Trading

1-hr Serious Area Attainment

Date

NOx

SIPs Due

Designate Areas for8-hr Ozone NAAQS

Section 126 NOx Controls 1

NOx

SIP CallRed-uc-tions

00 18

FinalUtilityMACT

Compliancewith Utility MACT

Assess Effectiveness of Regional Ozone Strategies

Regional Haze SIPs due

Latest AttainmentDate 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 NOx Reductions?(SIP Call II) 2

Interstate Transport Rule to Address SO2/ NOx 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 AttainmentDate

8-hrOzone Attain-mentDemon-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, 200215

Clean Air Act Implementation

8-hr Ozone Standards2003 States recommend

nonattainment designations

2004 EPA makes nonattainment designations

2005-09 New NOx Rule?

2007-08 SIPs due

2008-09 EPA finalizes SIPs

PM2.5 Standards

2003 States recommend nonattainment designations

2004-05 EPA makes nonattainment designations, completion of NAAQS review

2005 EPA Issues SOx/NOx transport rule

2004-08 States develop/submit SIPs

2008-09 EPA finalizes SIPs

Regional Haze Program2007-08 States submit regional haze

SIPs

2008-09 EPA approves SIPs

2013-18 Plants must install BART or comply with backstop

trading program

Mercury2003 Propose MACT standard

2004 Finalize MACT standard

2004 New plants must begin to comply

2007 Existing plants must begin to comply