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