EPA to Review Technical Information on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants

Press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJuly 20, 2012
EPA to Review Technical Information on Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for New Power Plants
Routine review has no impact on cost or vital health benefits of first national standards for mercury pollution

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing technical information that is focused on pollution limits for new power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, based on new information provided by industry stakeholders after the rule was finalized. This review, which is not an uncommon step for major standards, will have no impact on the sensible, achievable, and cost-effective standards already set for existing power plants, which will protect millions of families and, especially, children from air pollution. By moving quickly to review the new information, this action will provide greater certainty for five planned future facilities, in Georgia, Kansas, Texas, and Utah, that would be covered by the standards. This review will not change the expected costs or public health benefits of the rule.

EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which take advantage of existing flexibilities, are the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. By ensuring that existing power plants install widely available pollution control equipment, the standards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier-- preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

EPA will review monitoring issues related to the mercury standards for new power plants and will address other technical issues on the acid gas and particle pollution standards for these plants. The agency’s review will not change the types of state-of-the-art pollution controls new power plants are expected to use to reduce this harmful pollution.

This type of review, known as a “reconsideration,” is a routine tool that EPA often uses to ensure that its standards incorporate all relevant information, in cases where information only becomes available after a rule is promulgated. The agency’s decision to reconsider the standards for new sources reflects its ongoing commitment to work with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that all of EPA’s standards protect public health while being achievable and cost-effective. The agency will follow an expedited, open and transparent process that includes public comment on any proposed changes. The agency will complete the rulemaking by March 2013 and will also use its Clean Air Act authority to stay the final standards for new power plants for three months during this review.

More information: http://epa.gov/mats/actions.html

R126

Dry Sorbent Injection

From the Energy Information Agency:


March 16, 2012

Dry sorbent injection may serve as a key pollution control technology at power plants

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

---

Dry sorbent injection (DSI) is a pollution control technology that may play a role in the United States' electric power sector's compliance with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the MATS rule in December 2011. The MATS rule requires that all U.S. coal- and oil-fired power plants greater than 25 megawatts meet emission limits consistent with the average performance of the top 12% of existing units —known as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The rule applies to three pollutants: mercury (Hg), hydrochloric acid (HCl), and filterable particulate matter (fPM) and has a compliance deadline in 2015 (with opportunities for additional compliance time depending upon case-by-case circumstances). While DSI systems do not control for mercury, they can, when combined with a particulate control filter, meet this standard for two of the three controlled pollutants.
DSI systems remove hydrogen chloride (HCl) and other acid gases through two basic steps.

• Step one. A powdered sorbent is injected into the flue gas—combustion exhaust gas exiting a power plant—where it reacts with the HCl. The sorbents most commonly associated with DSI are trona (sodium sesquicarbonate, a naturally occurring mineral mined in Wyoming), sodium bicarbonate, and hydrated lime.
• Step two. The compound is removed by a downstream particulate matter control device such as an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a fabric filter (FF), also referred to as a baghouse. Fabric filters are generally more effective (when combined with DSI) than ESPs, with respect to overall HCl reduction. For modeling purposes, EPA estimates a DSI system with a fabric filter is expected to achieve 90% removal of HCl, while an ESP only achieves 60% removal, although actual performance will vary by individual plant.

DSI and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbers (both wet and dry scrubbers) are the technologies that will allow plants to meet the MATS for HCl and other acid gases. As of 2010, 54% of U.S. electric generating capacity already have FGDs installed. A number of the remaining, uncontrolled plants will need to determine the effectiveness of installing an FGD scrubber or a DSI system to comply with MATS. Economic and engineering tradeoffs exist between the two technologies. FGD systems are large capital projects that require a significant upfront investment, but have relatively lower operating costs. DSI systems generally do not require significant capital expenses, but may rely on significant quantities of sorbent to operate effectively, which increases the operating costs. Waste disposal for DSI may also be a significant variable cost, while the waste products from an FGD system can be sold as feedstock for industrial processes. In addition, DSI's potential effectiveness is limited to certain types of plants. Because of the amount of sorbent needed, DSI will likely be implemented most often at plants that are 300 megawatts or less and burn low-sulfur coal.

DSI systems can also significantly reduce sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions through the same process as HCl removal. While the MATS rule does not specifically address SO₂, it has similar qualities to HCl and other acid gases that enable it to respond similarly in a DSI system. SO₂ is also regulated under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Therefore, installing a DSI or FGD system to comply with MATS may also help plants meet or even exceed their CSAPR emission limits.

While compliance with the MATS rule was not assumed in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO2012) Early Release, it will be assumed in the AEO2012 full Reference case (to be released in Spring 2012), and DSI will be included as a compliance option for coal power plants.

Why Inject Drinking Water Underground?

An earlier post had to do with a comment period for proposed changes in a permit to inject drinking water into an underground aquifer.  A visitor to this blog asked why would anybody want to inject drinking water into an underground aquifer in an area with abundant drinking water supplies?

I found this at the web site of the Joint Powers Water Board of Albertville - Hanover - St. Michael, MN:

Current & Upcoming Construction Projects

The Joint Powers Water Utility is a Pioneer in Minnesota

The Joint Powers Water Board recently constructed what is referred to as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), and it is the first such system in Minnesota. The primary purpose for us is to provide adequate storage capacity of treated water without the need to build additional treatment plants and water towers. We will take already treated/filtered water from the distribution system during the slower winter months, pump it into the ground to be pumped back out during the summer peak water demands. This results in a tremendous cost savings to you, the customer.

Acid Rain Study Shows Decreases, But More Progress Needed

News Release from the U.S. Geological Survey:


Acid Rain Study Show Substantial Decreases, But More Progress Is Needed
Released: 1/19/2012 4:23:54 PM

Contact Information: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Office of Communications and Publishing 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119 Reston, VA 20192

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Measurable improvements in air quality and visibility, human health, and water quality in many acid-sensitive lakes and streams, have been achieved through emissions reductions from electric generating power plants and resulting decreases in acid rain. These are some of the key findings in a report to Congress by the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, a cooperative federal program.
The report shows that since the establishment of the Acid Rain Program, under Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, there have been substantial reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions from power plants that use fossil fuels like coal, gas and oil, which are known to be the primary causes of acid rain. As of 2009, emissions of SO₂ and NO_x declined by about two-thirds relative to levels in the 1990s. These emissions levels declined even further in 2010, according to recent data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Because emission reductions result in fewer fine particles and lower ozone concentrations in the air, in 2010 there were thousands fewer premature human deaths, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits annually leading to estimated human health benefits valued at $170 to $430 billion per year.

"The SO2  [portion of the] program includes the use of a creative emissions cap-and-trade program that combines the best of American science, government, and market-driven innovation," said Dr. John P. Holdren, director of Office of Science and Technology Policy and assistant to the President for science and technology.

Despite these emission reductions, the report also indicates that full recovery from the effects of acid rain is not likely for many sensitive forests and aquatic ecosystems. For example, in the Adirondack Mountains of New York, an especially sensitive region, 30 percent of the lakes were receiving acid rain during 2006-08 in excess of the level needed to prevent harm.

Based on models which analyze various emission scenarios, the report concludes that beyond current SO₂  and NO_x emission levels, future emission reductions would likely promote additional and more widespread recovery as well as to prevent further acidification in some U.S. regions.

"The principal message of this report is that the Acid Rain Program has worked. The emissions that form acid rain have declined and some U.S. areas are beginning to recover," said Doug Burns, lead author and director of the NAPAP and also a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist. "However, some sensitive ecosystems are still receiving levels of acid rain that exceed what is needed for full and widespread recovery.  We have every reason to believe that recovery will continue with further decreases in emissions which is why further emission reductions would be beneficial."

The NAPAP reports to Congress on the latest scientific information and analysis concerning the costs, benefits, and environmental effectiveness of the Acid Rain Program, which was established by the Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce the primary sources of acid rain. Member agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Interior and Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Acid rain occurs when emissions of SO₂ and NO_x react in the atmosphere with water, oxygen, and oxidants to form acidic compounds. These emissions may be transported hundreds of miles away from their emitting sources, and have the potential to impact large areas and populations.

Together these acidic compounds can damage human health, and in addition to degrading air quality and visibility, can cause further environmental damage, including acidification of lakes and streams, harm to sensitive forests and coastal ecosystems, and accelerate the decay of building materials. Adverse ecological impacts from acid rain include reductions in biodiversity, an increased risk of damaging forest fires, and increased susceptibility of trees to pests, disease, and winter temperatures.

The report also highlights the need for better information including the costs and benefits to ecosystems from emission reductions, consideration of the role of climate change, and the interactions of multiple pollutants.
This report, "National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to Congress 2011: An Integrated Assessment," is available online.