Massachusetts’ Power Plant Mercury Regulations

Sharon WeberMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

WESTAR Fall Business Meeting - September 22, 2005 - San Diego, CA

September 22, 2005 2

Mercury Policy Context

New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers’ Regional Mercury Action Plan 50% reduction by 2003 75% 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, 2005 3

MA Hg Emissions: Point Sources

Sewage Sludge

Incinerators260 lbs./year

26%

Municipal Waste Combustors558 lbs./year 57%

Coal-fired Utilities

166 lbs./year17%

Control efforts•2000 regs. 3X more stringent vs. federal•90-98% control•Source separation regs.

Control efforts: P2 • Health care• Products

September 22, 2005 4

MA Hg Emissions: Area Sources

050

100150200250300350400

po

un

ds

September 22, 2005 5

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, 2005 6

Major Provisions Effective May 11, 2001

Standards Output-Based Emission Rates - SO2, NOx, CO2

Annual caps for CO2 (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, 2005 7

Mercury Standard Setting Process

Regulation 310 CMR 7.29: Emissions Standards for Power Plants: promulgated May 11, 2001 http://www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/daqc/files/regs/7c.htm#29

Mercury coal/emissions baseline testing: 2001-2002Stakeholder meetings: Aug/Sep/Oct 2002, Jan 2003Feasibility Report: December 2002 http://www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/daqc/daqcpubs.htm#other

Proposed regulation: September 2003Final regulation: released May, effective June 4, 2004 http://www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/daqc/daqcpubs.htm#regs

September 22, 2005 8

Mercury Data Collection

Sampling for concentration of mercury and chlorine in each shipment of coal received at the 4 coal-fired facilities from May 2001-August 2002Sampling 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 2001-2002, and summer 2002)

September 22, 2005 9

Brayton 1 Emissions Test Results250 MW, Bituminous Coal

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 average

individual tests and average

tota

l M

ercu

ry (

mic

rog

ram

/dsc

m)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Inle

t to

Ou

tlet

Cap

ture

(%

)

total Hg inlet

total Hg outlet

% capture

September 22, 2005 10

Average Baseline Mercury Results by Unit

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

MT NRG 8 BP1 BP2 BP3 SH1 SH2 SH3

To

tal

Me

rcu

ry (

mic

rog

ram

s/d

sc

m)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Inle

t to

Ou

tle

t C

ap

ture

(%

)

inlet

outlet

% capture

September 22, 2005 11

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”

85-90+% removal of flue gas Mercury is feasible

September 22, 2005 12

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, 2005 13

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, 2005 14

Control Feasibility Report Economic Conclusions

Mercury controls are economically feasible Sorbent-based mercury controls costs are

similar to historically accepted NOx control costs (mills/kWh)

Multi-pollutant regs (like MA’s) improve cost-effectiveness

September 22, 2005 15

Final Mercury StandardEffective June 4, 2004

Form of the standard Output-based and % control efficiency options

Level of the standard Phase 1: 85% or 0.0075 lb/GWh by 1/1/2008 Phase 2: 95% or 0.0025 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, 2005 16

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 ashUnits shutting down can use early or off-site reductions to 2010. Facilities emitting less than 5 lb in 2001 can use early or off site reductions to phase 2.

September 22, 2005 17

Expected Annual Reductions due to 2001 and 2004 Standards

Mercury: 85% (about 155 pounds)

SO2: 50-75% (about 56,000-84,000 tons)

NOx: 50% (about 15,000 tons)

CO2: 10% (about 1,954,000 tons, implemented on-site or off-site)