1 / 19

Mercury Planning in Georgia

Mercury Planning in Georgia. Daniel Cohan Georgia Air Quality & Climate Summit May 4, 2006. Schematic of Hg Power plant->water->fish. http://home.comcast.net/~hollywastewater/Mercury.htm. Mercury Emissions: Global. Data from Seigneur et al., ES&T 2004. Mercury Emissions: U.S.

xenos
Download Presentation

Mercury Planning in Georgia

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. Mercury Planningin Georgia Daniel Cohan Georgia Air Quality & Climate Summit May 4, 2006

  2. Schematic of Hg Power plant->water->fish http://home.comcast.net/~hollywastewater/Mercury.htm

  3. Mercury Emissions: Global Data from Seigneur et al., ES&T 2004

  4. Mercury Emissions: U.S. Coal power plants are largest emitting sector, after stringent control of incinerators & combustors Chart from U.S. EPA

  5. Emissions of Ionic Mercury Map from Dr. Mark Cohen (NOAA); Data from US EPA (1999) and Environment Canada (2000)

  6. Mercury Wet Deposition (2003) Source: US EPA Mercury Deposition Network

  7. Mercury Health Impacts • Each year, U.S. power plant mercury causes an estimated: • $1.3 billion lost earnings potential from incremental IQ losses1 • 316,588 – 637,233 U.S. births/year with IQ losses from mercury exposure overall1 • 231 excess cases of mental retardation at birth2 • Up to $4.9 billion in cardiovascular effects3 • Other unquantified impacts to humans: genotoxic, immunotoxic, reproductive, renal and hematological4 • Impacts to birds, mammals, fishing and recreation 1Trasande, L et al. (2005). “Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, 590-596. 2Trasande, L. et al. (2006). “Mental retardation and prenatal methylmercury toxicity.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49, 153-158. 3Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (2005). “Economic valuation of human health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants.” 4National Research Council (2000). “Toxicological effects of methylmercury.” National Academy Press, 368 pp.

  8. Clean Air Mercury Rule Overview • December 2000: EPA issues finding that coal power plants should be subject to maximum achievable control technology for mercury • Similar to regulation of other major emitters of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act • March 2005: EPA reverses finding, issues Clean Air Mercury Rule • National cap-and-trade market for mercury • Each state assigned mercury emissions budget • May join national cap-and-trade program • Options for how to allocate allowances • May achieve budget by alternate in-state approach

  9. U.S. Power Plant Mercury Emissions under CAIR and CAMR Projected with no further regulation Projected with CAIR Projected with CAMR CAMR Budget Note: 1999 emission estimate for utility coal boilers is based on 1999 Information Collection Request (ICR); 1990 and 1996 are based on different methodology. Adapted from U.S. EPA graph

  10. Georgia EGU Mercury Emissions Trends and CAMR Budgets

  11. Mercury Planning in Georgia • Review available information: • Health & environmental impacts • Emissions, fate & transport • Control technologies • Interaction with CAIR and attainment planning • Stakeholder process: • Meetings and working sessions • Written comments • Drafting of rule options • Adoption of rule and submission for EPA approval

  12. Channel Catfish Spotted Sucker Redbreast Sunfish Black Crappie Spotted Seatrout Fish Species With Restricted Consumption Recommendations In 2006 Due To Mercury(Total Number of Locations Sampled: 227) Largemouth Bass CATFISH SPECIES - 35 Restrictions BASS SPECIES - 117 Restrictions SUNFISH/PANFISH SPECIES - 17 Restrictions SUCKER SPECIES - 31 Restrictions Redfin Pickerel OTHER FRESHWATER SPECIES - 7 Restrictions ESTUARINE/MARINE SPECIES - 25 Restrictions

  13. Mercury Emissions: Georgia

  14. Preliminary Georgia EPD Modeling of Georgia EGU Mercury Deposition Images from Maudood Khan

  15. Multi-pollutant Approach • Series of controls targeting precursors of ozone & particulate matter: • SCR for nitrogen oxides • ESP or baghouse for particles • Scrubber for sulfur dioxide • Together, remove 85-95% mercury1 1US EPA Office of Research & Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,” Feb. 2005 Figures: U.S. EPA

  16. Mercury-specific Control • Inject sorbent such as activated carbon to remove mercury • Alternate configurations and sorbents may be needed depending on facility and coal characteristics, or to preserve fly ash value • Costs: <0.1 up to 0.2 cents/kWh1 • Installation time with existing ESP: 6 months – 1 year1 Figures: U.S. DOE 1US EPA Office of Research & Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,” Feb. 2005

  17. Georgia Mercury Emissions Scenarios 2004 “On-the-Way” Projections CAMR Budgets Potential Caps NOTE: Future scenarios scaled from 2004 TRI emissions, assuming 29% capture (except 3% at Scherer sub-bituminous) in base year. “On-the-way” assumes 90% capture by SCR+FGD (error bars show 80%).

  18. Georgia Mercury Rule Options • February 2006: Georgia EPD issued mercury rule options for stakeholder comment • Option 1: In-state mercury limits • 80-85% statewide average capture efficiency by 2010 • 90% beginning sometime between 2012-2015 • Possible provisions for compliance flexibility • Option 2: Adopt federal CAMR cap-and-trade • March-April 2006: Three stakeholder meetings discuss above options as well as alternative approaches • Upcoming: Development of proposed rule for DNR Board adoption and EPA approval

More Related