Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group – March 4, 2003 –Washington DC

March 4, Background of regulation 310 CMR 7.29: Emissions Standards for Power Plants /7c.htm#29 Mercury coal and emissions testing results Mercury control feasibility report Mercury standard-setting process

March 4, Environmental Concerns Acid Deposition Climate Change Mercury Nitrification, Eutrophication Ozone PM 2.5 Regional Haze Visibility

March 4, Capacity Context

March 4, 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 Proposed compliance date for Hg standard will be October 1, 2006

March 4, SO 2 and NO x Standards SO 2 and NO x 2 phase SO 2 requirement 6.0 lb/MWh at first compliance date 3.0 lb/MWh at second compliance date 1.5 lb/MWh for NO x at first compliance date Compliance measured as a 12 month rolling average and monthly average at 2nd date

March 4, CO 2 Standards CO 2 Annual facility cap based on three years of data at first compliance date Annual facility rate of 1800 lb CO 2 /MWh at second compliance date Compliance measured as a calendar 12 month average

March 4, Implementation Compliance Flexibility Two Compliance Options - standard and repowering Averaging within facility Early reduction credit for SO 2 Use of SO 2 Allowances Off-site Reductions for CO 2 Greenhouse gas banking and trading regulation in development

March 4, Hg Data Collection Sampling for concentration of mercury and chlorine in each shipment of coal received at the 4 coal-fired facilities from May May 2002 Sampling for concentration of speciated mercury at inlet (pre-ESP) and outlet (stack) of 8 coal-fired units (3 sets of tests over one year)

March 4, Coal Mercury Data

March 4, Coal Chlorine Data

March 4, Hg Emissions Data Sampling for concentration of mercury at inlet (pre-ESP) and outlet (stack) of 8 coal- fired units Round 1: summer 2001 Round 2: winter Round 3: summer 2002

March 4, Brayton 1 Emissions Test Results 250 MW, Bituminous Coal

March 4, Average Baseline Mercury Results by Unit

March 4, 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 Hg is feasible daqcpubs.htm#other

March 4, Control Feasibility Report Technology Conclusions (1) Hg controls are technologically feasible Some existing US units are achieving up to 98% Hg removal Some MA units are already removing close to 90% of Hg Controls to meet MA SO 2 and NO x standards are expected to achieve Hg reduction co- benefits

March 4, Control Feasibility Report Technology Conclusions (2) Hg controls are technologically feasible DOE field testing shows >90% Hg removal MA Municipal Waste Combustors are removing 90% of Hg Extensive funding for research has resulted in Hg control technologies that have reached the field testing stage

March 4, Control Feasibility Report Economic Conclusions Hg controls are economically feasible Sorbent-based Hg controls costs are similar to historically accepted NOx control costs (mills/kMWh) Multi-pollutant regs (like MA’s) improve cost- effectiveness

March 4, Schedule for standard setting process Three stakeholder meetings: Aug/Sep/Oct 2002 Release of Feasibility Report: December 2002 Stakeholder feedback on Feasibility Report and input on regulation issues: January 2003 “Rule review” meeting to discuss working draft regulation: Spring 2003 Release of proposed regulation for public comment & hearing: June 2003 (as per 7.29 regulation)

March 4, Major Issues for Proposed Standard Form of the standard Units of the standard Level of the standard Averaging time of the standard Demonstrating compliance with the standard Waste issues Unit and facility specific issues