MATS 2015: Are Your Units Ready? Outage Management for Power Plants July 15, 2014 Stephanie Sebor.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
METAL CAN SURFACE COATING MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June CFR PART 63, SUBPART KKKK June 2006 June 2006.
Advertisements

METAL FURNITURE SURFACE COATING MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
METAL COIL SURFACE MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 40 CFR PART 63, SUBPART SSSS May 2006 May 2006.
IRON & STEEL FOUNDRY MACT COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
Impacts of the New Boiler MACT Rules Les Oakes King & Spalding.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency April 13, 2011 Final Rules to Reduce Air Toxics from Boilers.
ECMPS Reporting Requirements under the MATS Rule
North Carolina Division of Air Quality - Mercury Regulations, Emissions, and Deposition Modeling in North Carolina Presented for 6th Annual Unifour Air.
Harmonization of Parts 60 and 75
EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
MEETING YOUR MERCURY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2007 ARIPPA Conference Presented By: AVOGADRO Environmental Corporation.
RECLAIM Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting (MRR)
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
Previous MACT Sub Categories EPA has recognized differences in other industry rules by using sub-categorization: – Differences in processes – Differences.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
MCIC Workshop 2012 Complying with NC Air Quality Regulations Boiler MACT/GACT and 112j Steve Schliesser Division of Air Quality Environmental Engineer.
Wes Thornhill, Chief Industrial Chemicals Section Air Division
Division of Air Quality Update on EPA Boiler MACT Rules Steve Schliesser Environmental Engineer March 2012.
April 15, 2015 Betty Gatano, P.E. Permitting Section North Carolina Division of Air Quality, Raleigh, NC (919)
Air Protection Branch 1. 2 Air Quality Activities Support the Mission of the Air Protection Branch Monitor and Report Air Quality Data Analysis and Planning.
A History and Status of CEMS Applications in USEPA Regulations Dale Evarts US EPA December 16, 2002 Better Air Quality in Asian Cities 2002
Compliance Update NCMA 2015.
Sorbent Trap Sampling - Overview
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
INDUSTRIAL BOILER MACT (40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD)
INDUSTRIAL BOILER MACT RULE (Title 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD)
HAPs To Be Regulated: Mercury Only Electric utility steam generating units are uniquely regulated by Congress under 112(n)(1)(A) EPA was required to study.
December 4, Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
Air Quality Beyond Ozone and PM2.5 Sheila Holman North Carolina Division of Air Quality 6 th Annual Unifour Air Quality Conference June 15, 2012.
Pennsylvania Draft Regulations for the Control of Mercury From Coal-fired Electric Generating Units Allegheny Section- AWMA Air Quality Issues Workshop.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel.
Overview of Environmental Regulations and Drought Impacts in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT July 13, 2015.
American Legislative Exchange Council America’s Clean Air Success Story and the Implications of Overregulation November 28, 2012 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E.,
.1 Approach to Utility MATS August 22, 2012 ARIPPA Annual Tech Convention Harrisburg, PA Joel Millard Environmental Regulatory Specialist KVB-Enertec Products.
What the Clean Air Mercury Rule and Clean Air Interstate Rules Will Mean to You Jenna Glahn & Christine Heath ARIPPA Technical Symposium Gettysburg, PA.
Particulate Matter Monitoring Required by the Utility MATS Eric Swisher| | ext. 17 August 22, 2012 Presented to ARIPPA.
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC Boiler MACT Compliance Plans: Failure to Develop Plans Is Planning to Fail Susie Bowden|
Utility MATS Compliance: Considerations for Emissions Testing
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) Regulatory Update American Public Power Association June 8, 2010.
NSPS Residential Wood Heater Recommendations WESTAR Meeting Portland, OR November 18, 2009 Lisa Rector Senior Policy Analyst
Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina September 9, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission – Air Quality.
GHG BACT Analysis Case Study Russell City Energy Center May 2010 Donald Neal Vice President, EHS.
Best Available Retrofit Technology Rule - Colorado David R. Ouimette Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
Georgia’s 112(g) Experiences Eric Cornwell Acting Manager Permitting Program.
RECLAIM Seminar October 26, 2005 Judy B. Yorke, P.E., C.P.P. Yorke Engineering, LLC x25
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
Title V Operating Permits: A Compliance and Enforcement Tool Candace Carraway US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
1 Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal General Overview March 1, 2006 US EPA.
1 Recommendations of the Clean Energy Group on Utility MACT Issues Utility MACT FACA Meeting September 9, 2002 Robert LaCount The Clean Energy Group The.
Clean Power Plan – Now What? OCTOBER 16, 2015 FALL PR-MR & MARKETING MEETING.
Update on Methane Regulations Affecting Landfills Pat Sullivan Senior Vice President SCS Engineers Nov. 10, 2015.
Air Pollution Challenges Kentucky Coal Association April 29, 2013 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
Impacts of Environmental Regulations in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT January 26, 2016.
Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard For New Power Plants Presented by Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office of Air and Radiation.
1 The Exceptional Events Rule (EER) Overview Tom Link EPA – OAQPS Geographic Strategies Group Westar Meeting, San Francisco, February 25, 2009.
Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Senior Research Consultant Southern Company Birmingham, Alabama October 22, 2010 Coal-Fired Power Plants Environmental Control Technology.
1 Update on New Source Review (NSR) Activities and Priorities for Information Transfer and Program Integration Division April 7, 2004.
Gary J. Pendergrass, PE, RG Chair, Missouri Air Conservation Commission and Principal, GeoEngineers, Inc Missouri Air Compliance Seminar March 11,
APPA Conference Call on EGU MACT Rule January 20, 2011.
Complying with Periodic Emissions Monitoring Requirements
Clean Air Act Litigation Update State Air Director Meeting May 2015
Regulatory Update Mercury & Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
What is the Boiler NESHAP?
Department of Environmental Quality
Presentation transcript:

MATS 2015: Are Your Units Ready? Outage Management for Power Plants July 15, 2014 Stephanie Sebor

© 2014 Winston & Strawn2 Emission Limits Monitoring and Testing Requirements Startup and Shutdown Work Practice Standards Tune-up Work Practice Standards Electronic Reporting Compliance Extensions MATS Litigation Topics

© 2014 Winston & Strawn3 MATS sets emission limits for three categories of pollutants: –Hg All EGUs must comply with the Hg emission limit. –Acid gases (HCl or SO2) Default: HCl May comply with SO2 emission limit if equipped with a wet or dry FGD or DSI and an SO2 CEMS. –Non-Hg HAP metals Filterable PM, Total non-Hg HAP metals, or Individual non-Hg HAP metals MATS emission limits must be met at all times, except during periods of startup and shutdown, during which work practice standards apply. MATS Emission Limits

© 2014 Winston & Strawn4 MATS Emission Limits Non-Mercury Metallic HAPAcid Gas HAP Mercury Regulatory Option Filterable PM Total HAP Metals Individual HAP Metals HCl Surrogate SO 2 Surrogate Existing Non- Lignite Units lb/MMBtu 0.30 lb/MWh lb/MMBtu lb/GWh See Table 2 to Subpart UUUUU lb/MMBtu lb/MWh 0.20 lb/MMBtu 1.5 lb/MWh 1.2 lb/TBtu lb/GWh Existing Lignite Units lb/MMBtu 0.30 lb/MWh lb/MMBtu 0.50 lb/GWh lb/MMBtu lb/MWh 0.20 lb/MMBtu 1.5 lb/MWh 4.0 lb/TBtu lb/GWh New Units (Revised Limits) lb/MWh lb/GWh See Table 1 to Subpart UUUUU lb/MWh 1.0 lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh

© 2014 Winston & Strawn5 Depending on the pollutant or surrogate selected, compliance may be demonstrated using either a CMS or stack testing –Hg – Use either Hg CEMS or Hg sorbent trap –SO2 – Must use SO2 CEMS –HCl, PM and non-Hg HAP metals – Use either CEMS or quarterly stack testing All continuous monitoring systems must be operated during startup and shutdown. Each quarterly stack test must be completed within 80 to 100 calendar days after the previous test –Can skip stack testing in quarters during which less than 168 boiler operating hours occur, but at least one test must be conducted per calendar year. Monitoring and Testing Requirements

© 2014 Winston & Strawn6 EPA assumed that “EGUs should be considered to be operating normally at all times electricity is generated.” Variable emissions that occur after startup ends but before an EGU has reached a stable operating load will be counted by CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring systems. –Sorbent trap monitoring systems cannot differentiate between startup/shutdown emissions and normal operation. Default diluent capping –Without diluent cap values at low CO 2 or high O 2 concentrations, emission rates calculated using EPA’s F- factor methodology will be inaccurately high, approaching infinity. –MATS currently allows default diluent caps to be used to calculate Hg emission rates, but not for other pollutants. Should I elect to demonstrate compliance using CEMS?

© 2014 Winston & Strawn7 EGUs must comply with work practice standards, rather than the MATS emission limits, during startup and shutdown. Startup ends when any of the steam from the boiler is used to generate electricity for sale over the grid or for any other purpose (including onsite use). –Under the current definition, startup ends at 1 MW. Shutdown begins either when none of the steam from the boiler is used to generate electricity for sale over the grid or for any other purpose (including onsite use), or at the point of no fuel being fired in the boiler, whichever is earlier. Startup and Shutdown Work Practice Standards

© 2014 Winston & Strawn8 Once a unit converts to firing coal during startup, all applicable control technologies must be engaged, except dry scrubber and SCR, which may be started “appropriately to comply with relevant standards applicable during normal operation.” –SNCRs, WFGDs, ESPs, and limestone injection systems in CFBs must be engaged upon firing coal, regardless of temperature restrictions or manufacturers’ specifications. EGUs must operate all applicable control technologies while firing coal during shutdown. –No exception for SCRs, DFGDs, or any other air pollution control devices. Operation of Air Pollution Control Devices

© 2014 Winston & Strawn9 EPA announced reconsideration of the startup and shutdown work practice standards on November 16, 2012 –Proposed to allow SNCRs and limestone injection at CFBs to be engaged “as expeditiously as possible” after an EGU begins firing coal during startup. Still no exception for ESPs. –Proposed to no longer require engagement of SCR, dry scrubber, SNCR, and limestone injection at CFBs while firing coal during shutdown. EPA did not finalize these changes when it finalized the new source MATS reconsideration. Reconsideration of the SUSD Work Practice Standards

© 2014 Winston & Strawn10 EPA re-opened the public comment on the startup and shutdown work practice standards reconsideration on June 25, EPA’s analysis “could support defining the end of startup at coal-fired EGUs as occurring at 25 percent of nameplate capacity plus 3 hours or the start of electricity generation plus 6 hours, whichever comes first.” –Some EGUs cannot meet the MATS emission limits at EPA’s suggested end of startup, particularly CFBs, which have longer startup times. Over a year later, EPA has not yet finalized the proposed changes to the work practice standards. Reconsideration of the SUSD Work Practice Standards

© 2014 Winston & Strawn11 MATS does not address how the startup and shutdown work practice standards should apply to EGUs venting to a common stack. –Commenters have suggested that the startup and shutdown work practice standards apply to all units venting to a common stack when any one of the units is starting up or shutting down while any other unit is in operation. Reconsideration of the SUSD Work Practice Standards

© 2014 Winston & Strawn12 Two parts to a MATS tune-up: –Preventative maintenance work performed during outage –Boiler tuning work performed while the unit is operating MATS does not specify how soon the boiler tuning must be completed after the preventative maintenance work is completed. –It may be preferable to allow time between when the unit comes out of outage before conducting the boiler tuning work to allow the unit to become seasoned and normalized after the outage. Keep this timing in mind when scheduling initial compliance tune- up before MATS initial compliance deadline. EPA drafted the tune-up work practice standards with PC units in mind. –The tune-up work practice standards contain a number of requirements that do not apply to CFB units. Tune-Up Work Practice Standards

© 2014 Winston & Strawn13 MATS requires three types of reporting: semiannual compliance reports, quarterly stack test reports, and quarterly CMS reports. The first semiannual compliance report will cover the period from April 16, 2015 through December 31, 2015 and must be submitted to EPA by January 31, 2016 using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (“CEDRI”). Quarterly stack test results must be submitted to EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test using EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (“ERT”). Quarterly Hg CEMS and sorbent trap monitoring reports must be submitted 30 days after each calendar quarter using EPA’s Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (“ECMPS”) client tool. PM and SO2 CEMS data must be submitted to EPA 60 days following the end of each calendar quarter using CEDRI. Electronic Reporting

© 2014 Winston & Strawn14 CEDRI does not appear to have any specific reporting format for MATS reporting at this time. ECMPS does not yet support submission of Hg sorbent trap or SO2 CEMS data. –EPA is conducting beta testing of a MATS-friendly version of ECMPS Reporting stack test results, PM CEMS data, RCA/RRA data, and RATA data will be cumbersome and time-consuming due to limitations of the CEDRI and ERT systems. EPA is aware of these electronic reporting issues but has not yet revised the rule to streamline electronic reporting. Electronic Reporting

© 2014 Winston & Strawn15 One year extensions from state permitting authorities are available under § 112(i)(3)(B) where additional time is necessary for installation of controls. –EPA stated that these one-year extensions should be broadly available. EPA interprets installation of controls broadly –Installation of onsite replacement power, such as a simple cycle gas turbine. –Running a retiring unit for reliability reasons while related units are installing pollution control upgrades EPA recently reported that less than ¼ of utilities have requested compliance extensions. –Approximately 80 extensions have been granted to date. Deadline to submit an extension request is December 17, MATS Compliance Extensions

© 2014 Winston & Strawn16 OECA memo outlines limited circumstances under which a one- year extension for reliability purposes may be granted in an administrative order: –Where an EGU that otherwise would have been deactivated is required to operate in noncompliance with the MATS for an additional year, or –Where an EGU has a delay in installation of controls due to factors beyond the control of the owner/operator and is required to run for reliability purposes, or needs to operate because another unit has had such a delay. Timeline for obtaining an AO has already started. OECA cannot issue an AO until April 16, OECA memo is not legally enforceable and can be withdrawn at any time. MATS Compliance Extensions

© 2014 Winston & Strawn17 D.C. Circuit upheld MATS on April 15, 2014 –Court upheld EPA’s “reasonable and necessary” determination. –Court upheld process by which EPA established Hg emission limits. –Court held that a separate subcategory was not required to be established for circulating fluidized bed units. –Court held that EPA was not required to set separate standards for major sources and area sources of HAPs. MATS Litigation

18© 2014 Winston & Strawn Stephanie Sebor 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL (312) Questions?