1 / 42

Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Science and Policy

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

alamea
Download Presentation

Praveen Amar, Ph.D., P.E. Director, Science and Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cost-Effective Strategies andEmerging Federal and State Regulations forMercury 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

  2. 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

  3. Who we are • Our Members include: • Connecticut • Massachusetts • Maine • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • Rhode Island • Vermont

  4. Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power PlantsFebruary 2005 Report Work undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Dr. James Hammitt and Glenn Rice, and by NESCAUM, Dr. Praveen Amar

  5. Overview of NESCAUM Report • The report covers diverse areas of policy-relevant 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

  6. 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

  7. Other Marine 8 Regions

  8. Average Methylmercury Concentrations for"Top 24" Types of Fish Consumed in the U.S. Commercial Seafood Market

  9. For "Top 24" Types of Fish in U.S. Commercial Seafood Market, the Percentage of Methylmercury Contributed by Fish Type

  10. Persistent Persistent IQ Cardiovascular Cardiovascular Cardiovascular IQ deficits deficits in all effects and effects and effects and from fetal children from premature premature premature exposures fetal MeHg mortality in male mortality in mortality in all above exposures consumers of male fish fish consumers MeHg RfD non - fatty consumers freshwater fish with high MeHg levels Scenario 1 $75M $194M $48M $1.5B $3.3B (26 TPY) Scenario 2 $119M $288M $86M $2.3B $4.9B (18 TPY) Decreasing Certainty Increasing Benefit Spectrum of Health Effect Certainty Spectrum of Certainty of Causal Association of Health Effect with Mercury Exposure with Estimated Benefit Overlay In Millions ($M) and Billions ($B) of Dollars (2000$)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. Regulatory Drivers • Environmental Regulation and Technology Innovation (NESCAUM’s September 2000 Report) • State Rules (strong drivers) • NJ, CT, MA, NH(?), WI and others • Consent Decrees • 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

  14. Control Technologies and Strategies: Coal-Fired EGUs: Feasibility and Costs

  15. 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

  16. ControlsBituminous PM Only CS-ESP 46% HS-ESP 12% FF 83% PM Scrubber 14% Dry FGD SDA + ESP SDA + FF 98% Wet FGD CS-ESP+Wet FGD 81% HS-ESP+Wet FGD 55% FF+Wet FGD 96% Subbituminous 16% 13% 72% 0% 38% 25% 35% 33% Native Hg Capture with Existing Control Equipment( 1999 ICR Data)

  17. Power Plant Mercury Control Options

  18. Full-Scale Tests of Sorbent Injection Completed: 2001-2004 • SiteCoalEquipment • Gaston 1 month Low-S Bit FF • Pleasant Prairie PRB C-ESP • Brayton Point Low-S Bit C-ESP • Abbott High-S Bit C-ESP/FGD • Salem Harbor Low-S SA Bit C-ESP • Stanton 10 ND Lignite SDA/FF • Laskin ND Lignite Wet P Scrbr • Coal Creek ND Lignite C-ESP • Gaston 1 year Low-S Bit FF • Holcomb PRB SDA/FF • Stanton 10 ND Lignite SDA/FF • Yates 1 Low-S Bit ESP • Yates 2 Low-S Bit ESP/FGD • Leland Olds ND Lignite C-ESP • Meramec PRB C-ESP • Brayton Point Low-S Bit C-ESP • (Source: ADA-ES)

  19. Full-Scale Tests of Sorbent InjectionScheduled: 2005-2006 • SiteCoalEquipment • 1-6 Commercial Tests Low-S Bit ESP • Laramie River PRB SDA/ESP • Conesville High-S Bit ESP/FGD • DTE Monroe PRB/Bit ESP • Antelope Valley ND Lignite SDA/FF • Stanton 1 ND Lignite C-ESP • Council Bluffs 2 PRB H-ESP • Louisa PRB H-ESP • Independence PRB C-ESP • Gavin High-S Bit C-ESP FGD • Presque Isle PRB HS-ESP TOXECO • (Source: ADA-ES)

  20. Limited Hg Capture by ACI on Western Coals in Earlier Tests

  21. Cl, Br, F, I Cl, Br, F, I Sorbent Injection ESP or FF Ash and Sorbent Cl, Br, F, I Enhancing Mercury Removal for Western Coals HgCEM

  22. KNX + DARCO Hg DARCO Hg-LH DARCO Hg Injection Concentration (lb/MMacf) Enhancing Mercury Removal on Units with only an ESP Burning PRB Coal Ameren Meramec

  23. Improved Mercury Capture with Coal Blending: Holcomb

  24. 100 SDA + FF PRB, DARCO Hg-LH ESP PRB, DARCO Hg-LH 90 ESP PRB/Bit, DARCO Hg 80 ESP Bit, DARCO Hg 70 60 % Hg Removal 50 ESP, HS Bit, DARCO Hg 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Sorbent Costs (mills/kWh) Sorbent Cost Comparison Holcomb: ~ $1950/lb Hg removed Meramec: ~ $6200/lb Hg removed

  25. 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 A Comparative Estimate of Hg Control Costs with ACI (mills/kWh)

  26. Regulatory Landscape: State and Federal Mercury Regulations, Rules, Legislation

  27. 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

  28. Examples of State Actions

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. The STAPPA/ALAPCO MODEL RULE How States Can Provide Better Protection from Mercury Effects on Health and Welfare

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. Existing EGUs - Option I • Phase 2 - End 2012 • 90-95% capture; or • Outlet standard 0.0060-0.0025 lb/GWh • Compliance on plant basis

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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)

More Related