Transcript No Slide Title

Cost-Effective Strategies and
Emerging Federal and State Regulations for
Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants
Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E.
Director, Science and Policy
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Western Regional Air Partnership Board Meeting
December 14-15, 2005
Palm Springs, California
Overview




What does NESCAUM do?
Public health and environmental impacts of
mercury: “monetized” benefits of mercury
reductions from coal-fired electricity generating
units (EGUs)
Control technologies and strategies for EGUs
Federal and state regulations for EGUs
Who we are

Our Members include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Economic Valuation of Human Health
Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions
from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants
February 2005 Report
Work undertaken by the
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis,
Dr. James Hammitt and Glenn Rice,
and by NESCAUM, Dr. Praveen Amar
Overview of NESCAUM Report

The report covers diverse areas of policyrelevant research including:
–
–
–
Mercury emissions (including changes from coal
plants), atmospheric transport and fate, modeling of
Hg deposition
Relationship between Hg deposition and
methylmercury levels in fish, current and future
exposures in humans to mercury in fish
Dose response functions, and finally, monetization of
benefits
What did this Report Monetize?

Monetized two end points:
–
–
IQ of children born to mothers with high blood-Hg
levels
Myocardial infarction and premature mortality
among adults
8 Regions
Other Marine
H
er
ic
A
m
an
rk
S
ha
is
h
od
ra
C
fis
h
bs
-K
P
er
ch ing
-O
ce
an
S
hr
im
p
S
al
m
on
O
ys
te
rs
C
ra
w
fis
h
C
at
fis
h
S
ca
llo
ps
S
ar
di
ne
s
C
la
m
s
Fl
at
C
al
ib
u
S
ab t
le
fis
h
R
oc
Tu
k
na fish
C
ra
bs can
-D
n
un ed
ge
ne
ss
P
ol
C
ra lock
bs
-S
n
C
ra ow
Lo bs
bs -Bl
ue
te
rS
pi
ne
y
r-
Lo
bs
te
or
df
S
w
Methylmercury Concentration (ppm)
Average Methylmercury Concentrations for
"Top 24" Types of Fish Consumed in the
U.S. Commercial Seafood Market
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Fish Type
†
an
n
Po ed
l lo
Sh ck
ri m
p
C
o
H d
a
Sw li b
or ut
df
Sa ish
Lo
lm
bs
o
t e Ca n
r-A tf
m ish
C e ric
ra
bs an
-B
l
Fl u e
a
R tfi sh
oc
kf
is
h
C
ra Sh
bs a r
-S k
n
Lo O o w
bs ys
t e te
r-S rs
p
Sc i ney
C
al
ra
lo
bs
p
C
-D la s
un m
ge s
Sa ne s
bl s
e
f
Pe Sar ish
rc din
h- e
O s
C
ra ce a
bs n
-K
C in g
ra
w
fis
h
Tu
na
-c
Percent† of Total Methylmercury in U.S. Market .
For "Top 24" Types of Fish in U.S. Commercial
Seafood Market, the Percentage of Methylmercury
Contributed by Fish Type
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fish Type
Estimate based on the product of per capita fish consumption rates and mean methylmercury
concentrations of each type of fish (Carrington and Bolger, 2002)
Spectrum of Health Effect Certainty
Persistent
IQ deficits
from fetal
exposures
above
MeHg RfD
Scenario 1
Persistent IQ
deficits in all
children from
fetal MeHg
exposures
Cardiovascular
effects and
premature
mortality in male
consumers of
non -fatty
freshwater fish
with high MeHg
levels
Cardiovascular
effects and
premature
mortality in
male fish
consumers
Cardiovascular
effects and
premature
mortality in all
fish consumers
$75M
$194M
$48M
$1.5B
$3.3B
Scenario 2 $119M
$288M
$86M
$2.3B
$4.9B
(26 TPY)
(18 TPY)
Decreasing Certainty
Increasing Benefit
Spectrum of Certainty of Causal Association of Health Effect
with Mercury Exposure with Estimated Benefit Overlay
In Millions ($M) and Billions ($B) of Dollars (2000$)
Value of Monetized Benefits for about
70 percent control


Annual benefits: 200 to 300 million dollars for
IQ gain
Annual benefits: 3 to 5 billion dollars for
avoided fatal and non fatal heart attacks
among adults
Coal-Fired Power Plants


There are about 530
power plants with 305
gigawatts of capacity. The
capacity consists of about
1,300 units, 1,150 of which
are >25 megawatt.
Coal plants generate the
vast majority of power
sector emissions:
–
–
–
100% of Hg
95% of SO2
90% of NOX
Regulatory Drivers

Environmental Regulation and Technology Innovation (NESCAUM’s
September 2000 Report)

State Rules (strong drivers)
–

Consent Decrees
–

NJ, CT, MA, NH(?), WI and others
We Energies, Xcel, PSNM, Dynegy
EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR): weak drivers for mercury
–
–
–
2010 Phase I cap of 38 TPY (about 20 percent reduction)
2018 Phase II cap of 15 TPY (70% reduction; not achieved till 2025 and
beyond because of trading)
States have leeway to adopt EPA’s CAMR or propose a more-stringent
approach
Control Technologies and Strategies:
Coal-Fired EGUs:
Feasibility and Costs
Native or Baseline Mercury
Capture

Mercury emissions vary with:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Coal type and mercury content
Trace species present in coal/flue gas
Form of mercury in the flue gas
Unburned carbon (Loss on Ignition, LOI)
Unit configuration
Control devices (FF, SCR, FGD, SDA) and
operating temperatures
Native Hg Capture with Existing
Control Equipment( 1999 ICR Data)
Controls
PM Only
CS-ESP
HS-ESP
FF
PM Scrubber
Bituminous
Subbituminous
46%
12%
83%
14%
16%
13%
72%
0%
98%
38%
25%
Dry FGD
SDA + ESP
SDA + FF
Wet FGD
CS-ESP+Wet FGD
HS-ESP+Wet FGD
FF+Wet FGD
81%
55%
96%
35%
33%
Power Plant Mercury Control Options
Full-Scale Tests of Sorbent Injection
Completed: 2001-2004
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Site
Gaston 1 month
Pleasant Prairie
Brayton Point
Abbott
Salem Harbor
Stanton 10
Laskin
Coal Creek
Gaston 1 year
Holcomb
Stanton 10
Yates 1 Low-S Bit
Yates 2 Low-S Bit
Leland Olds
Meramec
Brayton Point
(Source: ADA-ES)
Coal
Low-S Bit
PRB
Low-S Bit
High-S Bit
Low-S SA Bit
ND Lignite
ND Lignite
ND Lignite
Low-S Bit
PRB
ND Lignite
ESP
ESP/FGD
ND Lignite
PRB
Low-S Bit
Equipment
FF
C-ESP
C-ESP
C-ESP/FGD
C-ESP
SDA/FF
Wet P Scrbr
C-ESP
FF
SDA/FF
SDA/FF
C-ESP
C-ESP
C-ESP
Full-Scale Tests of Sorbent Injection
Scheduled: 2005-2006
Site
Coal
Equipment
Low-S Bit
ESP
PRB
SDA/ESP
High-S Bit
ESP/FGD
PRB/Bit
ESP
10. Antelope Valley
ND Lignite
SDA/FF
11. Stanton 1
ND Lignite
C-ESP
12. Council Bluffs 2
PRB
H-ESP
13. Louisa
PRB
H-ESP
14. Independence
PRB
C-ESP
High-S Bit
C-ESP FGD
1-6 Commercial Tests
7. Laramie River
8. Conesville
9. DTE Monroe
15. Gavin
16. Presque Isle
(Source: ADA-ES)
PRB
HS-ESP TOXECO
Limited Hg Capture by ACI
on Western Coals in Earlier Tests
100
Mercury Removal (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
ESP Low S Bit
30
ESP PRB
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
20
Sorbent Injection Rate (lb/MMacf)
25
30
Enhancing Mercury Removal for
Western Coals
Cl, Br, F, I
Sorbent
Injection
Cl, Br, F, I
Hg
CEM
ESP or FF
Cl, Br, F, I
Ash and
Sorbent
Enhancing Mercury Removal on Units
with only an ESP Burning PRB Coal
Ameren Meramec
Hg Removal Efficiency (%)
100
KNX + DARCO Hg
90
DARCO Hg-LH
80
70
DARCO Hg
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
Sorbent
Injection Rate(lb/MMacf)
(lb/MMacf)
Injection
Concentration
15
Improved Mercury Capture with Coal
Blending: Holcomb
90
Hg Removal (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
5
10
15
Percent Western Bituminous Coal
20
Sorbent Cost Comparison
100 SDA + FF PRB, DARCO Hg-LH
ESP PRB, DARCO Hg-LH
ESP PRB/Bit, DARCO Hg
90
80
ESP Bit, DARCO Hg
% Hg Removal
70
60
50
ESP, HS Bit, DARCO Hg
40
30
Holcomb: ~ $1950/lb Hg removed
Meramec: ~ $6200/lb Hg removed
20
10
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Sorbent Costs (mills/kWh)
3
3.5
4
A Comparative Estimate of Hg Control
Costs with ACI (mills/kWh)
Control Type
Annual Levelized Cost
Activated Carbon Injection
for Hg
0.2 to 0.8 mills/kwh
FGD for SO2
3 to 5 mills/kwh
SCR for NOx control
1 to 2 mills/kwh
Regulatory Landscape:
State and Federal Mercury
Regulations, Rules, Legislation
Mercury Policy Context in the
Northeast

New England Governors/Eastern Canadian
Premiers’ Regional Mercury Action Plan
(1998)
–
–
–
50% reduction by 2003
75% reduction by 2010
Virtual elimination of anthropogenic discharges of
mercury is long-term goal
Examples of State Actions
State
Program
Connecticut
90% control by 2008 (state law)
Massachusetts
85% reduction in Hg emissions by 2008 and 95% by 2012 (state rule)
Wisconsin
40% reduction in Hg emissions by 2010 and 75% by 2015 (approved
plan)
New Jersey
90% reduction or 3 mg/MWhr by 2008; 5-yr extension with multipollutant controls for SO2, NOx, and PM
North Carolina
55% reduction in Hg emissions by 2013 expected; recommendations for
additional reductions (NC Clean Smokestacks Act)
New Hampshire
58% reduction in Hg emissions (cap of 50 lbs/year) 1 year after federal
compliance dates; 80% reduction (cap of 24 lbs/year) 4 years later
(departmental recommendations to legislature)
New England
Governors &
Eastern Canadian
Premiers
50% reduction in Hg by 2003; 75% reduction by 2010; virtual elimination
of anthropogenic discharges long term (Mercury Action Plan)
States Taking Action
(continued)

State and local agencies setting mercury
limits for new construction (sorbent injection):
–
–
Wisconsin – permitting a facility using sub
bituminous coal – 83% reduction
Iowa – issued a permit for facility using sub
bituminous coal – limit equivalent to 83%
reduction
Smart Regulatory Drivers’ Components


Long-term averaging (annual)
Dual limit: less stringent of:
–
–

Removal efficiency or
Emission limit (output based, lb of Hg/MWhr)
Flexibility in achieving mercury removal
–
–
Averaging of units at a site
Enhances cost effectiveness
The STAPPA/ALAPCO MODEL
RULE
How States Can Provide
Better Protection from
Mercury Effects on Health
and Welfare
Goals of Model Rule

Policy Objectives:
–
–
–
–
Protect public health and welfare
Reduce Coal-Fired EGU emissions Hg to <7
tons/year
Provide flexibility to reduce cost
Spur rapid technological development
Goals of Model Rule


Improve on EPA proposal
Treat EGU Hg as a HAP
–
–
–
Expeditious application of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology
Substantial reductions in Hg emissions in 2008;
90-95% reductions in 2012
No emission trading
Architecture of the Model Rule




Applicable to Coal-Fired EGUs
Addresses only Hg
Two Options
All new EGUs must achieve
–
–
90-95% capture; or
Outlet standard of 0.0025-0.0060 lb/GWh
Existing EGUs - Option I

Phase 1 - end 2008
–
–
–
80 per cent capture; or
Outlet standard 0.010 lb/GWh
Emissions averaging allowed among owned or
operated EGUs w/in state
Existing EGUs - Option I

Phase 2 - End 2012
–
–
–
90-95% capture; or
Outlet standard 0.0060-0.0025 lb/GWh
Compliance on plant basis
Existing EGUs - Option II

Phase 1 – end 2008
–
–
–
90-95% capture; or
Outlet standard 0.006-0.0025 lb/GWh
May postpone 50% EGUs 4 years if agree to:


Meet multi-pollutant standards 2012
Prevent Hg emission increases in interim
Existing EGUs – Option II

Phase 2 – end 2012, meet multipollutant
standards:
–
–
–
–
SO2: 95% reduction or 0.10-0.15 lb/mmBtu
NOx: 0.07-0.10 lb/mmBtu
PM: 0.0150-0.0300 lb/mmBtu
Hg:


90-95% capture; or
Outlet standard of 0.0025-0.0060 lb/GWh
How Can a State
Adopt the Model Rule?


EPA rule not national MACT standard under
section 112 of CAA
EPA rule under section 111(d) of CAA
–
–
–

“SIP-like” process required
Cap and trade regime optional
Emissions must meet EPA cap for State
Model Rule reductions will exceed what EPA
requires
Some Final Observations



Many states in the U.S. are moving at a faster and a more
certain pace than the CAMR, based on the assumption that
environmental regulation drives technology innovation and
implementation
Hg Control technologies are now commercially available; new
technologies are rapidly emerging; 90% and higher control is
feasible
Cost effectiveness of Hg control is quite comparable to, and
more attractive than, the cost effectiveness of SO2 and NOx
controls from power plants (Hg:SO2:NOx: 0.2 to 0.8 mills/kwhr:
3-5 mills/kwhr: 1-2 mills/kwhr)