1 The Clean Air Rules of 2005 Bill Wehrum U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Clean Smokestacks Act Benefits Update Division of Air Quality March 17, /17/2010.
Advertisements

Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
Chicago, Illinois Clean Air Interstate Rule - CAIR.
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Reducing Regional Transport of Emissions and Helping States Achieve the PM2.5 and Ozone NAAQS Beth Murray Clean Air Markets.
Steve Moorman Mgr Business Development, Advanced Technologies Babcock & Wilcox CO2 Emission Reduction from Coal Fired Plants FutureGen 2.0 CO2 Capture.
EPA’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rules for Reducing GHG Emissions from Power Plants Presentation to ACPAC June 16,
National and State Trends for Natural Gas and Electricity Prices Talina R. Mathews Department for Energy Development and Independence.
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
Emissions Reductions Beyond the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) Emissions Reductions Beyond the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) Environmental Management Commission.
Sara Jones 24NOV08. Background  In most conventional combustion processes, air is used as the source of oxygen  Nitrogen is not necessary for combustion.
NOx Sources and Control Methods CE/AE 524B Air Pollution J. (Hans) van Leeuwen.
Control of Sulfur Oxides Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun
The Massachusetts Approach to Power Plant Clean-up Policy Making and Standards Setting to Reach Clean Air Sonia Hamel Massachusetts Executive Office of.
Control of Nitrogen Oxides Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun. Specific sources of NO x Combustion sources Automobiles Boilers Incinerators High-temperature industrial.
The ProRak™ Advantage An introduction to Hg Process Monitoring and Feedback Control.
Title 4 Compliance Options ©2002 Dr. B. C. Paul. Band aide Approach  Buy Credits –Have been abundant because of aggressive compliance – could be running.
“Acid” in the Atmosphere Pollution and Impact on Ecosystems.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division Mercury Planning in Georgia Daniel Cohan Georgia Air Quality & Climate Summit May 4, 2006.
Mercury in the Great Lakes Region Sponsored by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s Environment, Economy and Trade and Pollutants and Health.
Mercury Pollution Mark Bentley David Herr NSF April 2011.
CHEAPER AND CLEANER: Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants, Delivering Health, Environmental and Economic.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
Air Pollution Control Board October 1, 2008 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., DEE, QEP Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management We Protect.
Improving Air Quality: Controlling Stationary Sources Chapter 13 © 2007 Thomson Learning/South-WesternThomas and Callan, Environmental Economics.
Department of the Environment A History of Power Plant Controls in Maryland What Did We Learn? – Where do We go Next? Part 1 – Background and Historical.
Energy Environment Human Health U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation Proposed Air Pollution Transport Rule Reducing Air Pollution.
Indiana Energy Association Environmental Issues Impacting Coal Fired Power Plants September 12, 2013 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., BCEE, Commissioner IN Department.
Mirant Mid-Atlantic MWAQC Technical Advisory Committee Briefing January 21, 2005.
American Legislative Exchange Council America’s Clean Air Success Story and the Implications of Overregulation November 28, 2012 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E.,
Modeling the Co-Benefits of Carbon Standards for Existing Power Plants STI-6102 Stephen Reid, Ken Craig, Garnet Erdakos Sonoma Technology, Inc. Jonathan.
Update on Multi-pollutant Legislation Richard Long, Region 8 Wrap Meeting Nov. 14, 2001.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Report on Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units In response to 15 NCAC 02D.2509(b)
Office of Air and Radiation Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities July 2006.
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) Office of Air and Radiation May 2005.
Experiences in Emissions Cap and Trade and the Clear Skies Act of 2003 Rona Birnbaum, US EPA, Clean Air Market Programs MARAMA Air Quality Meeting, August.
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
1 EPA’s Proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule Consideration of Issues Associated with Possible Expansion of IAQR to the West Patrick Cummins, WGA Background.
Mercury in the West* Land and Water Fund of the Rockies and Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense January 2003 *The information in this presentation.
Air Quality Issues Workshop 8-hour Ozone Update Allegheny Mountain Section of the Air & Waste Management Association Kathryn Z. Klaber May 23, 2006.
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Reducing Power Plant Emissions for Cleaner Air, Healthier People, and a Strong America May 2005.
1 Potential Impacts of a National SO 2 Program WRAP Forum June 3, 2004.
NACAA Fall Meeting October 2012 Innovative and Replicable Initiatives - The Colorado Clean Air/Clean Jobs Act Will Allison, Director CDPHE Air Pollution.
1 Colorado BART APCD. 2 Class 1 Areas National Parks and Wilderness Areas 12 in Colorado 4 National Parks 8 Wilderness Areas.
Session 853 Extending Organizational Capacity & Capability to Evaluate Federal Environmental Research Programs Research Contributions to Outcomes & Accountability.
Missoula Air Quality Conformity Analysis Required by Federal and Montana Clean Air Act – Transportation-specific air quality requirements enacted in Federal.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
Sustainable Air Quality Michael Roberts February 4, 2002.
ICI Boilers EPA Meeting November 21, Why control ICI boilers? Important source of SO 2 and NO x emissions Cost-effective emission reductions achievable.
Clear Skies and Other Multi-Pollutant Bills Sam Napolitano Clean Air Markets Division Presentation to Westar Business Meeting September 18, 2003 Outlook.
Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT.
U S Environmental Protection Agency
National and Regional Programs to Reduce Ozone Transport Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee April 27, 2005.
Progress Energy Issues Overview April 25, 2006 Don Cooke Sr. Environmental Coordinator.
Driving Forces Behind the Adoption of Pollution Control Technologies in the Electricity Sector : A U.S. Perspective Meredith Fowlie University of Michigan.
Clear Skies Act of 2003 Western regional Air Partnership April 2-3, 2003.
2.14.  In 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established  Required to set and enforce air quality standards  Air quality standard –
PROPOSED FINE PARTICULATE ATTAINMENT/ NONATTAINMENT DESIGNATION RECOMMENDATIONS This proposal is available on the DEP Website at
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Research on Potential Environmental Impacts of Oxy-fuel Combustion at EPA Chun.
Rose Flores University of Houston – Downtown Biology 1312.
Sorbent Polymer Composite Mercury and SO2 Control Installation and Full Scale Performance Update John Knotts - W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
1 Long Range Transport of Air Pollution Air pollution can travel hundreds of miles and cause multiple health and environmental problems on regional or.
1 Clean Air Act Regulation, Technologies, and Costs NARUC/BPC/NESCAUM Power Sector Environmental Regulations Workshop David C. Foerter Executive Director.
Monetized Visibility Benefits
A History of Power Plant Controls in Maryland What Did We Learn
Table 1. Linkages between emissions of SO2 and NOx and important environmental issues From: Acidic Deposition in the Northeastern.
Air Quality & SO2.
Dr. Tanveer Iqbal Associate Professor,
Maryland's Air Quality: Nitrogen Reductions and the Healthy Air Act
Clean Air Interstate Rule Office of Air and Radiation
CAIR Update WESTAR October 2, 2008.
Presentation transcript:

1 The Clean Air Rules of 2005 Bill Wehrum U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation

2 CAIR Health and Environmental Benefits: Benefits over 25 Times Greater than Costs By 2015, CAIR will result in $ billion in health benefits each year, preventing: 17,000 premature deaths 22,000 non-fatal heart attacks 12,300 hospital admissions 1.7 million lost work days 500,000 lost school days. Almost $2 billion in improved visibility benefits each year. Other non-monetized benefits – reductions of mercury emissions, acid rain, nitrification, eutrophication, and more. In 2015, CAIR will cost about $3.6 billion a year. Implementation beyond 2015 leads to higher annual benefits and costs.

3 CAIR and Other Major Air Pollution Rules Since 1990: Annual Emission Reductions at Full Implementation *These reductions are calculated from 2003 levels and do not reflect the full phase in of the acid rain program. Full implementation for mobile source rules is Full implementation for the CAIR is between 2020 and 2025.

Clean Air Interstate Rule and Other Major Air Pollution Rules Since 1990: Annual Benefits Notes: NOx SIP Call benefits are inflated from 1990 dollars and represent the higher range of projected final rule benefits. A discount rate of 3% is used for the benefits calculation. For CAIR, an alternative 7% discount rate would yield roughly $86 billion of benefits in Benefits of CAIR will continue to increase post-2015

5 CAIR and Other Major Air Pollution Rules Since 1990: Annual Private Compliance Costs at Full Implementation Notes: Annual Costs are EPA projections. NOx SIP Call costs were inflated from 1990 dollars. Full implementation for mobile source rules is CAIR represents a substantial investment in cleaner air, and projected benefits are over 25 times greater than the projected costs.

6 National NO x and SO 2 Power Plant Emissions: Historic and Projected with CAIR Source: EPA

7 In the East, Regional Emissions Contribute Significantly to Local Nonattainment Problems Because emissions are often transported across state boundaries, both regional and local action is needed to address air quality issues. Federal action would significantly reduce the burden on state and local governments by addressing transport. Urban v. Regional Contribution to PM Concentrations ( Average, ug/m3) Washington St.Louis Birmingham Indianapolis Atlanta Cleveland Charlotte Richmond Bronx Baltimore Urban IncrementRegional Contribution

8 Areas Designated Nonattainment for Ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2004 Nonattainment areas for both 8-hour ozone and fine particle pollution Nonattainment areas for fine particle pollution only Nonattainment areas for 8-hour ozone pollution only 126 ozone nonattainment areas with 474 counties 47 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas with 224 counties

Ozone and Fine Particle Nonattainment Areas (March 2005) Projected Nonattainment Areas in 2015 after Reductions from CAIR and Existing Clean Air Act Programs Projections concerning future levels of air pollution in specific geographic locations were estimated using the best scientific models available. They are estimations, however, and should be characterized as such in any description. Actual results may vary significantly if any of the factors that influence air quality differ from the assumed values used in the projections shown here. Ozone and Particle Pollution: CAIR, together with other Clean Air Programs, Will Bring Cleaner Air to Areas in the East Nonattainment areas for both 8-hour ozone and fine particle pollution Nonattainment areas for fine particle pollution only Nonattainment areas for 8-hour ozone pollution only 104 ozone nonattainment areas with 408 counties 43 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas with 211 counties 5 ozone nonattainment areas 14 PM 2.5 nonattainment areas

10 Two Ways to Address Transported Emissions from Power Plants The President’s Clear Skies legislation is the preferred approach to achieving multi-pollutant emission reductions: –Multipollution caps apply to entire country. –Legislation can provide more certainty and less complexity. Use of existing Clean Air Act authority to address interstate transport of pollution: –Until legislation passes, our attainment deadlines and other problems related to power plant emissions demand we act now. –CAIR will provide very significant air quality attainment, health, and environmental improvements across the eastern U.S. in a highly cost-effective manner.

11 CAIR Implementation The Clean Air Interstate Rule uses an approach that is similar to the NOx SIP Call but contains improvements, including: –Fewer complexities –No Flow Control –Facility Level Compliance vs. Unit Level

12 In 2015, annual visibility benefits would be almost $2 billion for improvements in southeastern national parks, such as Great Smoky and Shenandoah, and forests. CAIR will reduce the number of acidic lakes ─ significant regional reductions in sulfur and nitrogen deposition are projected to benefit lakes and streams in the eastern U.S. *Note: The figure presents results for chronic acidity only in modeled lakes. As such, model results apply to a subset of lakes in the Adirondacks and cannot be generalized to all waters in that area. These results do not include lakes that experience episodic acidification, or short periods of low Acid Neutralizing Capacity or high acidity, during storms or snowmelt. A significant proportion of Adirondack lakes could still experience episodic acidification at levels potentially harmful to fish and other aquatic species. CAIR Delivers Considerable Environmental Benefits Northeast Region ─ Chronic acidity would be dramatically reduced by 2030 (only 1% of lakes would remain chronically acidic).* Adirondack Mountains ─ Eliminates chronic acidity from lakes in the Adirondacks* Southeast Region ─ Slows the rate of stream acidification. Reductions in nitrogen deposition will benefit sensitive coastal ecosystems. 21% 12% 0 %

13 Visibility (2020) Under Clear Skies visibility in a large portion of the East and Midwest would improve 2-3 deciviews from current levels visibility along the southern Appalachian Mountains would improve more than 3 deciviews Clear Skies would improve visibility in the East and Midwest 1-2 deciviews beyond what is expected under existing programs Under Clear Skies the WRAP agreement will be honored and the emissions reductions are expected to take effect allow future growth in the West to occur without degrading visibility Deciview Change (On this map, a positive change in deciview is an improvement in visibility; an negative change in deciview is a decrease in visibility.) Deciview Change 1996 vs with Clear Skies Deciview Change 2020 Base Case vs. Clear Skies

tons 195 tons 120 tons Source: EPA 1990, 1996 NTI and EPA 1999 NEI. Short tons per year. Adjusted for gold mines in 1990 and *The 1990 and 1996 NEI did not include gold mining emissions data. The emissions shown here for gold mines in those years are assumed to be equal to emissions for those mines in 1999.EPA 1999 NEI Mercury Emissions Have Dropped 45% Since 1990

15 Average Mercury Concentrations for Top 24 Types of Fish Consumed in U.S. Commercial Seafood Market * Includes both canned light and albacore tuna * Source: Carrington and Bolger, 2002 cited in NESCAUM briefing to EPA

16 Mercury Emissions Are a Global Problem Source: Based on Pacyna, J., Munthe J., Presentation at Workshop on Mercury, Brussels, March 29-30, Global Mercury Emissions

Mercury Deposition in the U.S. Tons of Mercury 2001 deposition from U.S. utilities 2020 deposition from U.S. utilities after CAIR, Clean Air Mercury Rule & other Clean Air Act programs Tons of Mercury U.S. Mercury Deposition from U.S. Utilities Total Mercury Deposition in the U.S. Source: U.S. EPA 2005 = 2001total deposition in the U.S. from all sources, domestic and global = 2001 deposition in the U.S. from U.S. utilities

18 About 1,300 coal-fired generation units (~ 500 coal- fired power plants), representing about 305 GW of generation capacity Existing Controls: –Almost all units have particulate matter (PM) control devices –About one-third of capacity has SO 2 scrubbers –Most have initial NOx controls (low-NOx burners) –About one-third of the capacity (primarily in the east) will have advanced NOx control (SCR) when NOx SIP call is fully implemented Coal Fired Power Plants in the U.S.

19 Mercury Capture in Existing Equipment Removal in PM Controls Hg can be adsorbed onto unburned carbon surfaces, and captured in cold-side ESPs or FFs Capture in Wet Scrubbers Hg(II) capture depends on solubility of each compound; Hg(0) is insoluble and cannot be easily captured Capture enhanced by upstream SCR for bituminous coal-fired boilers

20 Emerging Mercury Control Technologies

21 Enhancing Hg Removal in Wet Scrubbers SCR – ongoing full-scale measurements: ~ % Hg removal for SCR + PM control + wet scrubber with bituminous coals; performance with low-rank coals uncertain. Effects of catalyst volume and aging and optimization of SCR for Hg capture need investigation. Oxidizing catalysts and chemicals – under development FGD chemical additive – tests have been conducted at 3 sites; (1)limestone forced oxidation (LSFO) scrubber - successful in suppressing Hg re-emission, which results from part of the Hg absorbed in the scrubber solution getting converted to the insoluble Hg(0). (2)magnesium-enhanced lime scrubber – not successful in suppressing Hg re-emission. (3)LSFO with SCR – without SCR, additive was successful in suppressing Hg re-emission (Hg removal in scrubber improved from 70% to 78%); there was no need for additive with SCR, in which case more than 90% of Hg was removed in the scrubber. Increase the amount of Hg(II) in flue gas Coal & Air Oxidizing Chemicals Wet Scrubber SCR Oxidizing Catalysts Residue Stack Ash PM Control

22 The extent of capture depends on: Sorbent characteristics (particle size distribution, porosity, capacity at different gas temperatures) Residence time in the flue gas Type of PM control (FF vs. ESP) Concentrations of SO 3 and other contaminants Sorbent Injection Sorbent injection + Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector (COHPAC TM ) Potential solution to ash reuse problems coal Option 2: Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) TOXECON™ System Option1 ESP coal sorbent injection fly ash + sorbent ESP sorbent injection fly ash (99%) fly ash(1%) + sorbent COHPAC™ Sorbent is injected upstream of the PM control device (ESP or FF) Collected fly ash and sorbent are mixed

23 Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) Activated carbon injection system Activated carbon storage and feed system ACI has successfully been used to reduce mercury emissions from waste combustors. Efforts are underway to transfer to coal-fired power plants. ACI is currently only being used in demonstration projects.