MATS Reconsideration Proposal

November 8, 2012
Overview

► MATS Reconsideration Litigation

► MATS Petitions for Reconsideration

► Next Steps in MATS Rulemaking

► NESHAP New Source Limits for EGUs

► NESHAP and NSPS Requirements During Startup and Shutdown

► NESHAP and NSPS Technical Corrections

► Reconsideration Next Steps

► Same Control Strategies Will Be Applied

► Revised new source 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
MATS Reconsideration Litigation

► Industry filed petitions in the D.C. Circuit for review of the NESHAP and petitioned 

the Court for expedited review of the NESHAP new source standards

► On June 28, the Court granted new source petitioners’ motion for expedited review, 

with an accelerated schedule 

► On July 20, EPA sent a letter to petitioners stating that the Agency is granting 

reconsideration of certain new source issues and would complete the 

reconsideration process by March 2013

► On the same day, EPA filed a motion to hold the new source petitioners’ case in 

abeyance while the Agency completes reconsideration of the new source standards

► EPA 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 MATS litigation while it considers EPA's motion to hold the case in 

abeyance

► On September 12, the Court granted EPA’s motion to hold the case in abeyance 

pending the outcome of the reconsideration

► EPA is required to update the Court every 30 days

► EPA provided the first update to the Court on October 12, 2012

► Next update is due to the Court on November 12, 2012

3
MATS 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 New Source Limits

► 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 SO2, continental liquid oil PM, low 

rank virgin coal mercury (Hg), and coal selenium and lead

► New source coal SO2 alternate limit

► New source integrated integrated gasification combined gasification combined cycle (IGCC) limits

► Monitoring issues associated with new source limits

► NESHAP and NSPS Startup and Shutdown Requirements

► Notice and comment issues

5
NESHAP New Source Limits

Coal-Fired EGUs

► PM

► Recalculated MACT floor using all data in the record

• Recalculated MACT floor is 0.090 lb/MWh

- Less stringent than MACT floor 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 MACT floor using all data in the record and assessed 

whether a more stringent beyond-the-floor standard is appropriate 

► Recalculated HCl MACT floor is 0.020 lb/MWh

► Requires 81% – 97% HCl control (depending on Cl content in coal)

► We expect that other CAA requirements (e.g., PSD, BACT) will 

require installation of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) at any new coalfired 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-Fired EGUs

► SO2

► Recalculated the alternate SO2 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 SO2limit based on the best 

performing EGU

• Same as the 2012 NSPS

* Note: We used a 25 MW unit to set the SO2limit. However, a unit must be > 25 MW in 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 MATS 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 

with how the standard would be met (i.e., they want a sampling 

frequency that allows them to identify potential compliance problems 

early enough to take corrective action and stay within 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 

MATS 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 the use of Hg 

CEMS and will allow control technology vendors to offer performance 

guarantees

9
NESHAP New Source Limits 

Coal-Fired EGUs

► Hg (low rank virgin coal)

► No one petitioned specifically on new source 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/GWh 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 MACT floor 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 MACT floor using all data in the record 

• Recalculated MACT floor is 0.40 lb/MWh

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

► Propose revised standard

• NSPS PM limit for oil is the same as for coal

• No new liquid 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 HAP metals limits

• Used DOE projections to establish alternate SO2limits

► Propose the new source limits, as finalized, in order to provide 

opportunity for notice and comment

13
► Estimated cost of final MATS: $9.6 billion

► No distinction or break-out of costs for new sources 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 SO2 emission standard

► SO2 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 NESHAP and 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
NESHAP and 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
NESHAP and 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 effective 

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 without referring to specific temperatures 

17
NESHAP and NSPS Technical Corrections

► Proposing to make additional technical corrections identified 

subsequent to the April 19, 2012, technical corrections FR notice 

to address:

► Typographical 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