APPA Conference Call on EGU MACT Rule

1. APPA Conference Callon EGU MACT Rule January 20, 2011

2. Schedule for MACT Rulemaking • On April 15, 2010, Judge Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia accepted a consent decree in a case seeking to set an EGU MACT rulemaking schedule • The consent decree requires EPA to propose MACT standards by March 16, 2011 and to finalize them by November 16, 2011

3. Schedule for MACT Rulemaking (continued) Possible EPA EGU MACT schedule • September 2010: Completion of ICR • September 2010 – December 2010: EPA staff review and analysis of ICR data; draft rulemaking package • December 2010 – March 2011: EPA headquarters and OMB review of proposed rule • March 16, 2011: Proposed rule signed • Comment period: 60 days • November 16, 2011: Final rule signed

4. Schedule for MACT Rulemaking (continued) Possible Compliance Dates • Normal MACT timing is 3 years after effective date of the rule – § 112(i)(3)(A) • EPA Administrator (or State with program approval) can grant extension of 1 additional year, if more time “necessary for the installation of controls” – § 112(i)(3)(B) • Presidential exemption for a period of not more than 2 years if President finds (1) the technology to implement such standard is not available and (2) it is in the national security interests to do so. Additional 1 year extensions are available – § 112(i)(4)

5. EGU MACT ICR EPA issued § 114 letters in late December 2009 to collect information to support an EGU MACT rulemaking • Parts 1 and 2 of the ICR collect historic information and must be completed within 3 months • Part 3 requires stack sampling to be completed on a rolling schedule over 6 to 8 months [All data to be submitted by Sept. 1, 2010] • Submission of Part 3 data was delayed by backlogs in analytical labs. Data were still being submitted in Oct. 2010.

6. EGU MACT ICR(continued) • Stack sampling aimed at obtaining emissions information on four HAP groupings • Acid gases: HCl and HF • Trace metals and mercury • Organics • Dioxins/Furans • Part 3 testing also included non-HAP chemicals that are possible surrogates

7. EGU MACT ICR (continued) • Coal-fired plants required to conduct sampling in each of the four groupings expected to be the “best performing” units • 50 additional coal-fired plants were randomly selected to sample for all HAPs except dioxins/furans • Approximately 80 oil-fired units were selected to test for all HAPs • Key lesson from IB MACT rule – make sure of the accuracy of data sent to EPA

8. MACT Rulemaking Key Issues in MACT Rulemaking: • EPA’s legal authority to set MACT limits for all HAPs – § 112(n)(1)(A) determination • Use of “Franken-plant” approach to set MACT limits • Subcategorization • Area source standards • Inclusion of variability in setting MACT limits • Treatment of non-detect measurements in setting MACT limits

9. MACT Rulemaking (continued) • Possible use of surrogates • Alternative % reduction limits • Use of § 112(d)(4) to set alternative health-based limits for non-carcinogens with health thresholds (HCl and HF) • Continuous monitoring methods and problems in demonstrating compliance with extremely low emission limits

10. MACT Rulemaking (continued) Potential Control Technology Implications • HCl limits – scrubbers on all units? • Trace metal limits – baghouses or baghouse – equivalents on all units? • Mercury – ACI or control equivalents • Organics and dioxins -- ?? Does ACI also capture organics?

11. MACT Rulemaking (continued) Possible Subcategorization Approaches • Limited use units • Mercury – coal rank, boiler type • Trace metals (?) • Acid gases – coal rank (?), % reduction (?) • Organics (?) • Dioxins (?)