Approaches to addressing variability

1
Recommendations on the Utility Air Toxics
MACT   Final Working Group Report October 2002  
  Working Group on the Utility MACT Formed Under
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Subcommittee
for Permits/New Source Reviews/Toxics     Submitte
d to   Clean Air Act Advisory Committee
2
EPA's December, 2000 Regulatory Finding

• HAP of "greatest potential concern" - mercury
• HAP's of "potential concern for carcinogenic
  effects" - "arsenic, and a few other metals
  (e.g., chromium, nickel, cadmium)"
• "Three additional HAP's that are of potential
  concern" - dioxins, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen
  fluoride
• "it is possible that future data collection
  efforts or analyses may identify other HAPs of
  potential concern"

3
EPA Actions

• Met with various stakeholder groups April 2001
• Convened the Utility MACT working group August of
  2001

4
Membership of Utility MACT Working Group

• Six members representing State/Local/Tribal
  Agencies
• Eight members representing Environmental
  Organizations
• Fourteen members representing Industry
• One member representing Control Equipment Vendors
• Two members representing coal interests,
  producers and Unions
• WEST Associates added last summer in order to
  bring to the table Western interests
• Nine Workgroup Members are full CAAAC members

5
Working Group

• Purpose Recommendations to EPA to maximize
  benefits of rule in a flexible framework at a
  reasonable cost.
• Approach
• Obtain active participation from stakeholders
• Determine the most effective ways to address
  mercury issues and
• Consider strategies to simplify the regulations
  and allow flexibility, while maintaining
  environmental benefits

6
Working Group (Cont.)

• Formed for initial period of one year.
• First meeting August 2001.
• Subsequent meetings nearly every month through
  October, 2002.
• Goal consensus of opinion on identified issues.
• Quickly determined there was a divergence of
  opinions.
• Refocus
• Identify issues.
• Thoroughly discuss issues.
• Clearly identify stakeholder positions.
• Today report the issues and the stakeholder
  positions.

7
Issues

• 1. Subcategories for mercury,
• 2. Floor levels for mercury,
• 3. Beyond-the-floor levels for mercury,
• 4. Format of mercury standard,
• 5. Compliance method (monitoring) for mercury,
• 6. Compliance time,
• 7. Non-mercury HAP, and
• 8. Oil-fired units.

8
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

9
Summary Of Positions

• IGCC Units Industry believes they are not
  subject to MACT States/Locals and Environmental
  support separate subcategory.
• FBC units Environmental, Industry and Texas
  support separate subcategory States/Locals do
  not.
• Lignite States/Locals and Industry support
  separate subcategory for lignite plants
  Environmental do not.
• Bituminous and subbituminous Majority Industry
  Group, Equipment Vendors and Texas support
  separate subcategories States/Locals,
  Environmental and CEG do not.
• Chlorine content WEST Associates supports
  further subcategorization by chlorine content.

10
MACT Floor Levels For Mercury

• Issue how to calculate the mercury MACT floor
  level, considering the ICR data and variability
  (of mercury and other chemicals in coal, in
  measurements, in sampling, 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

11
Summary Of Positions

• Environmental
• FBC 0.19 lb/TBtu
• IGCC 0.54 lb/TBtu
• All others 0.21 lb/TBtu
• States (except Texas)
• 0.4 0.6 lb/TBtu or
• 90 removal
• Equipment Vendors
• Bituminous 90 removal
• Subbituminous 70 removal

12
Summary of Positions (Cont.)

• Industry Approach 1
• FBC 2.0 lb/TBtu or 91 removal
• Bituminous 2.2 lb/TBtu or 73 removal
• Subbit. 4.2 lb/TBtu or 31 removal
• Lignite 6.5 lb/TBtu or 47 removal

13
Summary of Positions (Cont.)

• Industry Approach 2
• FBC 2.0 lb/TBtu or 91 removal
• Bituminous
• Saturated stack 2.2 lb/TBtu or 55 removal
• Wet Stack 3.2 lb/TBtu or 63 removal
• Hot Stack 3.7 lb/TBtu or 62 removal
• Subbituminous 4.2 lb/TBtu or 31 removal
• Lignite 6.5 lb/TBtu or 47 removal

14
Non-mercury Hap

• Issue whether EPA must set standards other than
  for mercury
• No consensus on this issue
• Environmental and States (except Texas) believe
  EPA must regulate non-mercury HAPs
• 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

15
Compliance Time

• Issue applicability of statutory provisions
  allowing extensions from presumptive 3 year
  compliance time.
• Limited discussion during the Working Group
  process, primarily by industry which stated 5-8
  years may be required depending upon extent of
  required retrofits.
• Consensus Utility MACT regulation may require
  extensive retrofits. CAA provides additional
  time to install controls in some circumstances,
  which may be triggered here.

16
Approaches to Addressing Variability

• Representativeness of Stack Tests
• Worst-case performance
• Averaging time
• Control technology parameters
• Format of standard (30-day ave., annual)
• Correlation of mercury andsomething else
• Statistical approach(es)

17
So Where Does This Leave Us?

• Multiple approaches have been, and can be, used
  to address variability.
• More analyses on each potential approach
  warranted.
• Approaches may be combined.
• Advice/recommendations from the members on the
  approach to be taken are welcomed.

18
Topics for Further Investigation

• Approaches to addressing variability
• IPM and other modeling

19
THANKS

• To EPA For Providing The Opportunity To Meet And
  Discuss The Issues
• To All the Stakeholders For Their Participation

20
All Meeting Summaries, Presentations, Documents
and Data Can Be Found on Website

• http//www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.
  htmlTEC