# MA TS Reconsideration Proposal

November 8, 2012

# Overview ► MA TS Reconsideration Litigation ► MA TS Petitions for Reconsideration ► Next Steps in MA

TS Rulemaking ► NESHAPNew Source Limits for EGUs ► NESHAPand NSPS Requirements During Startup and Shutdown ► NESHAPand NSPS Te chnical Corrections ► Reconsideration Next Steps ► Same Control Strategies Will Be Applied ► Revised new

s ource emission limits still require advanced controls • Revised coal Hg standard will require >97% control (versus > 99% at final) • Revised coal PM standard will require >99.89% control (versus > 99.99% at final) • Revised coal HCl standard will require >98.3% control (versus > 99.9% at final) ► No significant increases in emissions or changes in costs or benefits
2

# MA TS Reconsideration Litigation ► Industry filed petitions in the D.C. Circuit for review of the NESHAP and petitioned the Court for expedited review of the NESHAPnew source standards ► On June 28, the Court granted new source petitioners’motion for expedited review, with an accelerated schedule ► On July 20, EP

A sent a letter to petitioners stating that the Agency i s granting reconsideration of certain new source issues and would complete the reconsideration process by March 2013 ► On the same day, EP A filed a motion to hold the new source petitioners’case in abeyance while the Agency completes reconsideration of the new source standards ► EP A put in place a 3 - month administrative stay of the new source standards ► On August 31, the Court issued an order suspending the briefing schedule in the new source MA

TS litigation while it considers EP A's motion to hold the case in abeyance ► On September 12, the Court granted EP A’ s motion to hold the case in abeyance pending the outcome of the reconsideration ► EP A is required to update the Court every 30 days ► EP A provided the first update to the Court on October 12, 2012 ► Next update is due to the Court on November 12, 2012 3

# MA TS Petitions for Reconsideration ► Received 20 petitions for reconsideration on NESHAP ► 1 from environmental group ► 1 from state agencies ► 1 from unions ► 17 from industry groups (trade associations, vendor groups, companies) 

### ► Received 4 petitions for reconsideration on NSPS ► All from industry groups

4

# MATS Reconsideration Proposal ► NESHAP N ew S ource L imits ► Use of all data in the record
• Specifically petitioned on coal hydrochloric acid (HCl) and particulate matter (PM)
• Also affects solid oil -derived PM and SO 2 , continental liquid oil PM, low rank virgin coal mercury (Hg), and coal selenium and lead ► New source coal SO 2 alternate limit ► New s ource integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) limits integrated gasification combined ► Monitoring issues associated wi th new s ource limits 

### ► NESHAPand NSPS S tartup and Shutdown Requirements ► Notice and comment issues

5

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Coal - F ired EGUs ► PM ► Recalculated MACTfloor using all data in the record
• Recalculated MACT floor is 0.090 lb/MWh

- Less stringent than MACTfloor of 0.0070 lb/MWh in final rule • Same as the 2012 NSPS

6

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Coal - Fired EGUs Beyond -the - Floor HCl Limit ► Recalculated MACTfloor using all data in the record and assessed whether a more stringent beyond -the -floor standard is appropriate ► Recalculated HCl MACTfloor is 0.020 lb/MWh ► Requires 81% – 97% HCl control (depending on Cl content in coal) 

### ► Weexpect that other CAA requirements (e.g., PSD, BACT) will require installation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) at any new coal fired power plant ► Propose setting a beyond -the -floor standard based on performance of spray drier absorber (SDA) ► Expected level of performance is 90% - 98% HCl control ► Adjusted the limit to meet expected level of performance ► Proposed BTF limit is 0.010 lb/MWh

7

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Coal - F ired EGUs ► SO 2 

### ► Recalculated the alternate SO 2 

### standard based on the best performing >25 MW EGU* • Recalculated limit is 1.0 lb/MWh



### - Less stringent than the limit (0.40 lb/MWh) in the final rule 

### ► Propose a revised alternate SO 2 

### limit based on the best performing EGU • Same as the 2012 NSPS

* Note: W e used a 25 MWu nit to set the SO 2 limit. However, a unit must be > 25 MWi n order to be subject to the EGU NESHAP. 8

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Coal - Fired EGUs ► Hg (non - low rank virgin coal) ► 

### Emission limit in final MA TS rule based on sorbent trap monitoring systems that allow operators to measure the final limit by sampling for up to 14 days
• Petitioners indicated that the longer sampling times are not consistent wi th how t he standard would be met (i.e., they wa nt a sampling frequency that allows them to identify potential compliance problems early enough to take corrective action and stay wi thin the limit) ► 

### Recalculated the emission limit by comparing the calculated floor to the detection limit of samples collected over a shorter sampling duration
• Consistent with the methodology used for all other pollutants in the MA TS rule ► 

### Propose revised emission limit of 0.0030 lb/GWh
• Less stringent than the final limit of 0.00020 lb/GWh
• Petitioners have indicated that this emission limit will allow t he use of Hg CEMS and will allow

control technology vendors to of fer performance guarantees 9

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Coal - Fired EGUs ► Hg (low rank virgin coal) ► No one petitioned specifically on new s ource low

rank virgin coal Hg limits ► Recalculated the emission limit using all data in the record
• Resulting emission limit is 0.030 lb/GWh

- More stringent than the 0.040 lb/GW h in the final rule
• All valid tests submitted by the best performing EGU were well below 0.030 lb/GWh ► Propose to solicit comment on the appropriateness of finalizing the new emission limit of 0.030 lb/GWh

10

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Solid Oil - Derived Fuel - Fired EGUs ► PM ► Recalculated MACTfloor using all data in the record
• Recalculated MACT floor is 0.030 lb/MWh



### - Less stringent than the MACT floor of 0.020 lb/MWh in final rule 

### ► Propose the new emission limit of 0.030 lb/GWh

11

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Continental Liquid Oil - Fired EGUs ► PM ► Recalculated MACTfloor using all data in the record
• Recalculated MACT floor is 0.40 lb/MWh

- Less stringent than the MACTfloor of 0.070 lb/MWh in final rule 

### ► Propose revised standard
• NSPS PM limit for oil is the same as for coal
• No new

l iquid oil -fired EGUs have been built in decades

12

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# IGCC EGUs ► Petitioned on notice and comment issue ► Proposed to require new IGCC EGUs to meet new pulverized coal limits ► Received comments indicating that current permit limits would be more appropriate ► Agreed and finalized permitted limits for Hg and PM
• Used existing IGCC data to establish HAPmetals limits
• Used DOE projections to establish alternate SO 2 limits 

### ► Propose the new source limits, as finalized, in order to provide opportunity for notice and comment

13

### ► Estimated cost of final MA TS: $9.6 billion ► No distinction or break- out of costs for new s ources only 

### ► Same control strategies will be applied for proposed reconsideration ► Hg ► High performing mercury controls would be needed to meet either the final new source standard or the adjusted standard. ► PM 

# NESHAP

New Source Limits 

# Economics

► High performing particulate matter controls would be needed to meet either the final new-source standard or the adjusted standard. ► HCl ► Some low- Cl coals have high native capture and will only require small incremental control to achieve either the final or adjusted new-source limit (e.g., DSI) ► Units burning higher Cl coals will need good performing FGD (SDA or wet- FGD) to achieve the final HCl limit; the adjusted limit may require lower performing controls ► Many units will choose to meet the alternative SO 2 emission standard ► SO 2 PSD requirements may drive scrubbers in any event 

### ► Unable to quantify any change in costs as a result of the proposed reconsideration 14

# PM Monitoring ► Since PM limit increased for a number of new sources, we need to evaluate what PM monitoring is appropriate for the new limits ► Propose adjusting PM continuous parametric monitoring systems (CPMS) new source requirements for NESHAPand NSPS to mirror those in the Portland Cement NESHAP ► Exceedances of the limit will trigger faster corrective action, thus improving compliance 

### ► Propose to keep PM CEMS monitoring option

15

# NESHAPand NSPS Requirements During Startup and Shutdown ► Petitioners asserted that definitions of startup and shutdown periods do not adequately address IGCC, stoker, and cogeneration units ► Propose adding syngas and ultra - low-sulfur diesel to the list of clean fuels; add language addressing cogeneration units 

### ► Petitioners indicated that the list of allowed clean fuels for startup and shutdown must include synthetic natural gas, syngas, propane, and diesel -soaked coal and wood ► Propose adding synthetic natural gas, syngas, propane, and ultra - lowsulfur diesel to the list of permissible clean fuels ► For IGCC EGUs, propose two options for handling of syngas not fired in the combustion turbine: (1) syngas must be flared, not vented; or, (2) syngas must be routed to duct burners and their exhaust gases to the heat recovery steam generator

16

# NESHAPand NSPS Requirements During Startup and Shutdown (continued) ► Petitioners identified that FBC units that inject limestone for acid gas control must reach a minimum temperature for most ef fective neutralization of acid gases ► Propose adding appropriate language to acknowledge this without referring to a specific temperature 

### ► Petitioners noted that operation of selective non - catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology is temperature dependent ► Propose adding appropriate language to allow starting of SNCR systems as expeditiously as possible wi thout referring to specific temperatures

17

# NESHAPand NSPS Te chnical Corrections ► Proposing to make additional technical corrections identified subsequent to the April 19, 2012, technical corrections FR notice to address: ► Ty pographical errors ► Erroneous limits (e.g., “0.030” vs. the correct “0.03”) in the NSPS ► Inconsistency in language regarding new source applicability

18

# Reconsideration Next Steps ► To meet court order holding new units case in abeyance, we must show progress toward finalizing a rule ► Next required report to the court is November 12, 2012 

### ► Public hearing will be announced in the reconsideration proposal package ► Date will be selected to conform with the required 15 - day notification 

### ► 30 - day public comment period will follow date of public hearing ► Final package to OMB – February 7, 2013 ► Anticipated final signature – March 29, 2013

19