# Reducing Toxic Pollution **from Power Plants**

**February**

**8, 2012 Final Mercury** 

**and Air T** 

**oxics Standards (MA** 

**TS) Janet McCabe**  **Deputy A**  **ssistant A dministrator**  **EP A**  **Office of**  **Ai r**  **and Radiation**

# Overview of Action

• On December 16, EPA finalized the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the first national standards to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal - and oil -fired power plants • Standards will reduce emissions of: • Metals, including mercury (Hg), arsenic, chromium, and nickel • Acid gases, including hydrogen chloride ( HCl ) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) • Particulate matter • Air toxic pollutants are linked to cancer, IQ loss, neurological damage, heart disease, lung disease and premature death • Standards create uniform emissions-control requirements based on proven, currently in -use technologies and processes • For more information on these Mercury and Air Toxics Standards: http://www.epa.gov/mats 2

# Power plants are big emitters of **toxic pollutants**

3

Sources: Portion of pollution -- NEI Trends Data (2009) and IPM (2010) (SO2 , NOX); MATS rule modeling platform, based on inventory used for 2005 NATA (Hg); Inventory used for 2005 NATA (other toxics). Percent of units: EPA Base Case v. 4.10 PTR 

### Portion of US air pollution **that comes from pow er plants**  • Uncontrolled releases of mercury from power plants damage children’s developing nervous systems, which can reduce their IQ and impair their ability to think and learn • Mercury and many of the other toxic pollutants also pollute our nation’s lakes and streams, and contaminate fish • Other metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel can cause cancer • Acid gases cause lung damage and contribute to asthma, bronchitis and other chronic respiratory disease, especially in children and the elderly • Particles cause premature death, increased numbers of hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.

# Power Plants Are the Largest Remaining **Source of Mercury Emissions in the U.S.**

4 **Industrial Category**  **1990**

**Emissions** tons per year (tpy) **2005**

**Emissions** (tpy) **%**

**Reduction Pow** **er Plants**  **59 53**  **10%** Municipal Waste Combustors 57 2 96% Medical Waste Incinerators 51 <1 >98% Source: EPA’s 2005 NATA Inventory M odified for the Toxics Rule 2005 Base Year (2010) • In 1990 three source categories made up approximately twothirds of total U.S. mercury emissions: municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and power plants • Two of the three are now subject to federal emissions standards • So are many other industries, such as cement plants and steel manufacturers • Until today, more than 20 years after the 1990 CAA Amendments passed, there was no federal limit for toxic emissions – including mercury – for coal - or oil -fired power plants

# MATS **covers approximately 1**  **,400 coal -**  **and oil**  **- fired units > 25 MW at about**  **600 power plants nationwide** 

• Includes units that burn coal, coal refuse, oil, or a synthetic gas derived from coal either exclusively, in combination together, or in any combination with other supplemental fuels. Natural gas power plants are not affected by this rule • MATS covers emissions of all hazardous air pollutants from power plants • The rule sets standards for mercury, acid gases, non -mercury metal air toxics, and organic air toxics to limit emissions of these pollutants • Most of these standards are numeric emissions limits; the standard for organic air toxics is a work practice standard • In some cases, these standards are “surrogates” for a number of pollutants. (e.g. setting a numeric HCl emissions limit to control all acid gases) • For many standards, sources can choose to meet the primary standard or an alternate standard. (e.g. MATS also sets a numeric SO2 emissions limit as an alternate surrogate for acid gases) • The CAA requires EPA to set the emission standards for existing sources at a level that is at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the best performing 12% of sources in the category 5

# Adjustments Since Proposal

• EPA received approximately 900,000 public comments on MATS • EPA used new

i nformation from the public comment process to adjust some aspects of the rule; the approach reductions in air toxics remain substantially the same • As a result of additional data, changes include: • Adjusted some emissions limits, including using filterable PM (instead of total PM) as a surrogate for the metal toxics limit • Clarified the definition of coal subcategories • Added subcategories for non -continental oil -fired units and limited use oil fired units • Simplified and improved monitoring provisions for clarity, consistency, and increased flexibility • Provided an alternative compliance option for sources that plan to comply by averaging across multiple units 6

# Timing

• EPA expects most facilities wi ll comply with this rule through a range of strategies, including the use of existing emission controls, upgrades to existing emission controls, installation of new pollution controls, and fuel switching. • Existing sources generally wi ll have up to 4 years if they need it to comply with MATS. • This includes the 3 years provided to all sources by the Clean Air Act. EPA’s analysis continues to demonstrate that this will be sufficient time for most, if not all, sources to comply. • Under the Clean Air Act, state permitting authorities can also grant an additional year as needed for technology installation. EPA expects this option to be broadly available. • EPA is also providing a clear pathway for reliability critical units to obtain a schedule with up to an additional year to achieve compliance. T his pathway is described in a separate enforcement policy document. The EPA believes there wi ll be few, if any situations, in which this pathway will be needed. 78 

# Any**e ffect on future electricity** **costs will be small and**  **within normal historical fluctuations**

• The graph shows the effect MATS may have on future electricity prices. • The **blue line** shows historical electricity rates and what projected electricity rates would be without MATS (both from EIA). The **green line**  shows how cleaning up power plants under MATS may lead to a slight increase in these prices in the future. • However, the effect is small and keeps costs well within the normal historical fluctuation of electricity prices. • In fact, even with MATS, electricity rates are projected to stay below historical highs. Sources: EIA Historical (Annual Energy Review – October 2011); EIA Projected (Annual Energy Outlook 2011 ); EPA modeling of projected price increases using the Integrated Planning Model.

# Benefits of MATS Are Significant

• The final rule will: prevent 90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants from being emitted to the air; reduce 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and cut 41 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants beyond the reductions expected from the Cross State Air Pollution Rule • Reduces mercury exposure from power plants for pregnant women and children, reducing the risk of damage to children’s developing nervous systems that can impair their ability to think and learn • Protects Americans from cancer and other health risks from exposure to metals such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel • Prevents thousands of premature deaths each year by reducing the amount of dangerous fine particles in the air across the country • This includes neighborhoods near power plants and neighborhoods hundreds of miles away from the nearest power plant • Protects thousands of lakes and streams – and the fish that live there and the mammals and birds that eat them – by reducing mercury and acid rain pollution • Provides employment for thousands of American workers building, installing, and operating the equipment to reduce emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other toxic air pollutants 9

# MATS Health Benefits in Detail

• The value of the improvements to health alone total $37 billion to $90 billion each year • The estimated annual costs of this final rule are $9.6 billion, about a billion dollars less than the proposed standards. This means that for every dollar spent to reduce this pollution, we will get $3-$9 in health benefits • Each year the rule is fully implemented, the rule will prevent serious health effects, including: • 4,200 – 11,000 premature deaths • 4,700 heart attacks • 130,000 asthma attacks • 540,000 missed work or “sick” days • Avoiding “sick days” saves companies and families money. It is particularly important for the millions of Americans whose jobs do not provide paid sick leave and who risk losing their jobs if they miss work too often • The rule is also projected to annually prevent 5,700 hospital admissions and emergency room visits; 2,800 cases of chronic bronchitis; and 3.2 million days when people must restrict their activities each year 10 Source: EP

A Regulatory Impact Analysis

# MATS and Navajo Generating **Station**

11 • EP A has committed to working with NGS to help MA TS implementation go smoothly • From the final MA

TS rule text: “...EP A is sensitive to the commenters ’ concerns and particularly recognizes the significance of Navajo Generating Station to the Central Arizona Project and the water delivery to tribes. As a result, EP A has been consulting with af fected Indian tribes and working closely with other federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior, on these issues and intends to work with tribal and other authorities to ensure a smooth transition and address specific issues as they arise.”

# MATS Implementation **at NGS**

12 • EP A will continue to work with the Department of Interior, Salt River Project, and other plant owners as well as the Tribes that are af fected by the plant operations to determine a reasonable path forward. • EP A has had two conference calls with SRP since MA TS was finalized to answer their questions about MA TS implementation; we will continue to work with them as needed • Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for EP A Office of Air and Radiation, recently visited NGS