Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
Advertisements

Florida Department of Environmental Protection David Read Cement Subproject Manager Bureau of Air Regulation Cement Mercury Subproject.
EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
GHG BACT Analysis Deanna L. Duram, P.E., C.M. August 4, 2011 Air & Waste Management Association Southern Section Meeting trinityconsultants.com.
NARUC 2015 Winter Meeting February 16, 2015 Combined Heat and Power and the Clean Power Plan Bruce Hedman Institute for Industrial Productivity.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
MassDEP1 Environmental Business Council’s Health Care Seminar MassDEP’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ban Massachusetts Department of Environmental.
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
Cement Industry Environmental Consortium Carbon Capture and Reuse Project
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.
Wes Thornhill, Chief Industrial Chemicals Section Air Division
MERCURY: Air Emissions and Proposed Utility Rules Indiana Department of Environmental Management September 2004.
Generation Performance Standards Paul Hibbard, Lexecon, Inc.
Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Indiana Energy Association September 11, 2014 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management.
A History and Status of CEMS Applications in USEPA Regulations Dale Evarts US EPA December 16, 2002 Better Air Quality in Asian Cities 2002
Katrina Pielli U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CHP Partnership
Mercury in the Great Lakes Region Sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Environment, Economy and Trade and Pollutants and Health.
TRP Chapter Chapter 4.2 Waste minimisation.
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC
CHEAPER AND CLEANER: Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants, Delivering Health, Environmental and Economic.
December 4, Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD.
Policy Research Shop Support for the Policy Research Shop is provided by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Energy Efficiency in the Clean Power Plan Opportunities for Virginia Mary Shoemaker Research Assistant Spring 2015 VAEEC Meeting May 11, 2015.
Pennsylvania Draft Regulations for the Control of Mercury From Coal-fired Electric Generating Units Allegheny Section- AWMA Air Quality Issues Workshop.
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division;
Cost-Effective Strategies and Emerging Federal and State Regulations for Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E. Director,
Mirant Mid-Atlantic MWAQC Technical Advisory Committee Briefing January 21, 2005.
Star Symposium 2013 The Changing Reality of Energy Development Jeffery LaFleur, Vice President Generation Assets APCO/KYPCO October 22, 2013.
ACC Open Meeting – November 18, 2010 Four Corners Power Plant 1.
Overview of Environmental Regulations and Drought Impacts in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT July 13, 2015.
Air Emission Benefits of CHP Air Innovations Conference August 10, 2004 Joel Bluestein Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Prepared under contract.
Clean Water Act 319(g) Petition Kathy G. Beckett Midwest Ozone Group January 22-23, 2009.
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
Presented by: Pechanga Environmental Department Designing and Managing a Recycling Program Source Reduction Strategies for Tribal Solid Waste Programs.
MERCURY POLICIES: A VIEW FROM THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR Michael T. Rossler Indiana Energy Conference September 16, 2004.
California Energy Commission Sacramento 9/30 to 10/ Stationary CO 2 Sources Sequestration Data and Impacts on Total Emissions Coal-Fired Power Plant.
Ozone and Nitrogen Concerns in NM WRAP Ozone and NOx in the West November 11, 2009.
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.
Air & Waste Management Association September 13, 2012 The Cahaba Lilies Photo by Danny Smith U.S. Environmental Policy Issues and the Natural Gas Solution.
Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Indiana State Bar Association Utility Law Section September 4, 2014 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE Commissioner IN Department.
Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina September 9, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission – Air Quality.
Developing a Framework for Offset Use in RGGI Opportunities and Risks Dale Bryk, NRDC and Brian Jones, MJB&A – Northeast Regional GHG Coalition RGGI Stakeholder.
Environmental Issues in System Planning Jim Platts – ISO New England NARUC Summer Meeting – New York City July 15, 2007.
Stationary and Area Source Committee Update OTC Committee Meeting September 13, 2012 Washington, D.C. Hall of the States 1.
NACAA Fall Meeting October 2012 Innovative and Replicable Initiatives - The Colorado Clean Air/Clean Jobs Act Will Allison, Director CDPHE Air Pollution.
Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas Reporting Regulation 310 CMR 7.71 Stacy DeGabriele & Will Space MassDEP Climate Strategies December 10 th and 11 th, 2009.
EPA’s Proposed Clean Power Plan House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment February 12, 2015 Tegan B. Treadaway Assistant Secretary Office of.
WRAP States Four Factor Reasonable Progress Lee Gribovicz WRAP IWG Meeting March 10, 2009.
Massachusetts’ 4-Pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference - August.
California Energy Commission IEPR Lead Commissioner Workshop University of California, Irvine August 17,
Massachusetts’ EE/RE Set-Aside Program Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Air Innovations Conference August 12, 2004 – Chicago,
Indiana Energy Conference EPA Clean Power Plan—111(d) November 13, 2014 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, Commissioner IN Department of Environmental Management.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
PM 2.5 Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #1 South Coast Air Quality Management District June 8, 2006.
2/27/ % below 2005 by 2020 cap and trade 11/15/2007 set emissions targets by 11/15/08 ~60-80% cuts by ???? (2040?) cap and trade; C inventory, reporting.
Impacts of Environmental Regulations in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT January 26, 2016.
Industrial Footprint Project Carol Kraege Washington State Department of Ecology May 9, 2006.
Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard For New Power Plants Presented by Kevin Culligan Office of Air Quality Planning And Standards Office of Air and Radiation.
Greenhouse Gas Initiatives: progress and perspective Sandra Meier Environmental Energy Alliance of New York.
© 2015 Haynes and Boone, LLP Overview of the EPA Clean Power Plan Suzanne Beaudette Murray February 19, 2016 Tulane Environmental Law Summit.
MPCA Citizens’ Board Meeting: United States Steel Corporation-Keetac Air Emissions Permit Owen Seltz Industrial Division September 13, 2011.
Additional RACT Requirements for Major Sources of NO x and VOCs: Final Rule (25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and 129) RACT Overview and Implementation Presentation.
RACT 2 – Source Testing and Monitoring Requirements Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee August 4, 2016 Harrisburg, PA Tom Wolf, GovernorPatrick McDonnell,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Quality
Regional Climate Alliances Spring 2008
Chesterfield Neighborhood Coal Ash Update January 9th, 2019
Senator Dance Town Hall Coal Ash Update December 5, 2018
Presentation transcript:

Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September 22, San Diego, CA

September 22, Mercury Policy Context New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers’ Regional Mercury Action Plan 50% reduction by % reduction by 2010 Virtual elimination of anthropogenic discharges of mercury is long term goal MA Zero Mercury Strategy 75% reduction by 2010 Virtual elimination of anthropogenic discharges and use of mercury is long term goal

September 22, MA Hg Emissions: Point Sources Control efforts 2000 regs. 3X more stringent vs. federal 90-98% control Source separation regs. Control efforts: P2 Health care Products

September 22, MA Hg Emissions: Area Sources

September 22, Affected Facilities’ Contribution to Generation and Hg Emissions The 4 facilities subject to the power plant mercury regulations represent 8% of 2003 New England megawatts of generating capacity The 4 facilities emitted 17% of 2002 MA point source mercury emissions

September 22, Major Provisions Effective May 11, 2001 Standards Output-Based Emission Rates - SO 2, NO x, CO 2 Annual caps for CO 2 (tons) and Hg (lbs) Hg data collection for cap and 2003 proposed standard Hg control feasibility report by December 2002 Compliance schedules Dates depend on compliance approach standard path - 10/04 and 10/06 repowering path - 10/06 and 10/08 Hg cap effective at first compliance date

September 22, Mercury Standard Setting Process Regulation 310 CMR 7.29: Emissions Standards for Power Plants: promulgated May 11, Mercury coal/emissions baseline testing: Stakeholder meetings: Aug/Sep/Oct 2002, Jan 2003 Feasibility Report: December Proposed regulation: September 2003 Final regulation: released May, effective June 4,

September 22, Mercury Data Collection Sampling for concentration of mercury and chlorine in each shipment of coal received at the 4 coal-fired facilities from May August 2002 Sampling for concentration of speciated mercury at inlet (pre-ESP) and outlet (stack) of 8 coal-fired units (3 sets of tests in summer 2001, winter , and summer 2002)

September 22, Brayton 1 Emissions Test Results 250 MW, Bituminous Coal

September 22, Average Baseline Mercury Results by Unit

September 22, Mercury Control Feasibility Report – December 2002 “Evaluation of the Technological and Economic Feasibility of Controlling and Eliminating Mercury Emissions from the Combustion of Solid Fossil Fuel” % removal of flue gas Mercury is feasible

September 22, Control Feasibility Report Technology Conclusions (1) Mercury controls are technologically feasible Some existing US power plant units are achieving up to 98% mercury removal Some MA power plant units are already removing close to 90% of mercury Controls to meet MA SO2 and NOx standards are expected to achieve mercury reduction co- benefits

September 22, Control Feasibility Report Technology Conclusions (2) Mercury controls are technologically feasible DOE field testing shows >90% mercury removal MA Municipal Waste Combustors are removing 90% of mercury; some ≥ 95% removal Extensive funding for research has resulted in mercury control technologies that have reached the field testing stage

September 22, Control Feasibility Report Economic Conclusions Mercury controls are economically feasible Sorbent-based mercury controls costs are similar to historically accepted NO x control costs (mills/kWh) Multi-pollutant regs (like MA’s) improve cost- effectiveness

September 22, Final Mercury Standard Effective June 4, 2004 Form of the standard Output-based and % control efficiency options Level of the standard Phase 1: 85% or lb/GWh by 1/1/2008 Phase 2: 95% or lb/GWh by 10/1/2012 Demonstrating compliance with the standard Every other quarter stack tests 10/06-1/1/2008 CEMs required beginning 1/1/2008 Averaging time of the standard Rolling 12-month basis

September 22, Media Transfer & Off-Site Mercury Reductions Facility mercury caps include mercury emissions due to on-site re-burn of ash or off-site high temperature processing in Massachusetts (e.g., use of ash in cement kiln or asphalt batching plant) Mercury standards must be met while including mercury emissions due to on-site re-burn of ash Units shutting down can use early or off-site reductions to Facilities emitting less than 5 lb in 2001 can use early or off site reductions to phase 2.

September 22, Expected Annual Reductions due to 2001 and 2004 Standards Mercury: 85% (about 155 pounds) SO 2 : 50-75% (about 56,000-84,000 tons) NO x : 50% (about 15,000 tons) CO 2 : 10% (about 1,954,000 tons, implemented on-site or off-site)