mercury planning in georgia

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Mercury Planningin Georgia

Daniel CohanGeorgia Air Quality & Climate Summit

May 4, 2006

2Georgia Environmental Protection Division

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

Global Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions

Other N. America3%

Oceania2%

Cent. & So. America8%

United States7%

Europe15%

Asia54%

Africa11%

4Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionChart from U.S. EPA

Mercury Emissions: U.S.

Coal power plants are largest emitting sector, after stringent control of incinerators & combustors

5Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionMap from Dr. Mark Cohen (NOAA); Data from US EPA (1999) and Environment Canada (2000)

Emissions of Ionic Mercury

6Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionSource: US EPA Mercury Deposition Network

Mercury Wet Deposition (2003)


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

Mercury Health Impacts

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.


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

9Georgia Environmental Protection DivisionAdapted from U.S. EPA graph

Note: 1999 emission estimate for utility coal boilers is based on 1999 Information Collection Request (ICR); 1990 and 1996 are based on different methodology.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

ton

s

Projected with CAMR

Projected with no further regulation

Projected with CAIR

CAMR Budget

U.S. Power Plant Mercury Emissions under CAIR and CAMR


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Geo

rgia

EG

U M

ercu

ry (

Po

un

ds/

Yea

r) Hg Actual (TRI)

CAMR Budget

Georgia EGU Mercury Emissions Trends and CAMR Budgets


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


Guidelines for Eating Fish From Georgia WatersUpdated 2006

Guidelines For Eating Fish

From

Georgia Waters

2006 Draft Update

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E., Suite 1252

Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9000

Locations with Mercury Fish Consumption Recommendations

Maximum Recommended Restrictions

one meal per month

one meal per week

no restriction

Major Lakes

Major Rivers

Georgia Counties


Fish Species With Restricted Consumption Recommendations In 2006 Due To Mercury

(Total Number of Locations Sampled: 227)

SUNFISH/PANFISH SPECIES - 17 Restrictions

Spotted Sucker

Largemouth Bass

Redfin Pickerel Spotted Seatrout

Channel Catfish

Redbreast Sunfish Black Crappie

BASS SPECIES - 117 Restrictions

SUCKER SPECIES - 31 Restrictions

CATFISH SPECIES - 35 Restrictions

ESTUARINE/MARINE SPECIES - 25 RestrictionsOTHER FRESHWATER SPECIES - 7 Restrictions


Mercury Emissions: Georgia

Georgia Mercury Emissions (TRI 2004)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Coal-fired EGUs Chlor-Alkali Non-EGU coalboilers

Portland Cement

po

un

ds/

year


Preliminary Georgia EPD Modeling of Georgia EGU Mercury Deposition

Images from Maudood Khan


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


• 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

Mercury-specific Control

1US EPA Office of Research & Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,” Feb. 2005

Figures: U

.S. D

OE


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2004 TRI 2010 CAMRBudget

2018 CAMRBudget

2010 OTWBowen

HammondWansley

2011 OTW AddMcDonough

2013 OTW AddBranch

80% capture all 85% capture all 90% capture all

Me

rcu

ry E

mis

sio

ns

(P

ou

nd

s/Y

ea

r)

New Plant

MITCHELL

MCINTOSH

KRAFT

J MCDONOUGH

HAMMOND

YATES

H BRANCH

WANSLEY

BOWEN

SCHERER

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%).

CAMR Budgets

“On-the-Way” Projections

2004

Potential Caps

Georgia Mercury Emissions Scenarios


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

mercury planning in georgia

Documents