Utility Boiler MACT is moving forward - Hot Topic Hour, February 17, 2011

The Utility MACT is moving forward and the proposal is being reviewed by OMB. It will require substantial investments over the next few years. This coincides with investments by industrial boiler owners and cement plants, so the available resources may be strained. Presentations on Thursday covered the regulations, the analysis required and the control technology.

Robert (Bob) Fraser, QEP, Senior Technical Director for Power Generation Services at AECOM Environment, reported that the Utility MACT rule is likely to follow the form of the Industrial MACT rule which is now most likely to be issued on February 21^st.  EPA is using the same general procedures to develop both sets of standards. One of the concerns is that the organics limits for both the Industrial and Utility MACT may be inversely rather than directly proportional to the CO. During startup and shut down there are high levels of CO and this could be a problem. It may be better to address dioxins and furans under work practice standards rather than limits.

Ajay Kasarabada, an Air Permitting Manager in Black & Veatch Energy Division's Environmental Management Services Section, and Diane Fischer, Manager of Business Development for Air Quality Control Projects for Black & Veatch’s Power Generation Services, focused on the key issues to be considered in developing a Utility MACT compliance strategy and the technologies that can be utilized to achieve compliance with the expected limits. There was concern about the ability to meet the particulate standards. There was also the advice to take into account the ramifications relative to other rules such as applicable renewable portfolio standards, the transport rule, regional haze, non-attainment and greenhouse gas regulations.

John Darrow, Associate at W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., discussed expanded polytetra-fluoroethylene (ePTFE) based products that could provide solutions to new compliance challenges for PM, dioxin/furan (D/F) and mercury. There was a summary of the potential for ePTFE membrane filter bags for PM control, REMDIA catalytic filtration systems for D/F control and a new carbon polymer composite material for mercury control.  The composite material was of great interest to the participants who asked about pressure drop (low), efficiency (70-90 percent in addition to the scrubber removal) and elemental mercury removal (high). Testing is taking place at the Southern Yates station with EPRI also involved. This technology could be used as a second step if the initial attempt to remove mercury in the scrubber falls short. Since this device follows the scrubber it is better suited for a plant with a scrubber. Activated carbon would be injected ahead of the scrubber and would have the effect of reducing the amount removed in the scrubber. Therefore large amounts of carbon would be required to gain small efficiency increases.

Robert Tang, President and CEO CEFCO Global Clean Energy, LLC, described the CEFCO Technology which uses supersonic shockwave “free-jet collision scrubbing” together with a chemical conversion process as a solution for MACT. Testing is underway to demonstrate the suitability for utility applications.

Bill Maxwell of the U.S. EPA Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division, advised us that the proposed MACT rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposal is based in the ICR data but his group is following similar procedures to those for the Industrial Boiler MACT.

Bob McIlvaine added some additional insights. The Cement MACT is promulgated and offers lots of insights as to the final language in the Utility MACT. McIlvaine has lots of free information available on this subject. Here is a shocker. Thailand is installing three GSA scrubbers from FLS on cement kilns to meet SO₂ requirements.

New coal-fired power plants can meet the Utility MACT at electricity costs less than upgrading old coal-fired power plants. Without the ability to build new coal-fired power plants, total coal-fired capacity could be halved. Site specific opportunities need to be investigated. They include

§  Manufacture of high purity gypsum using lime for paper coating

§  Cogeneration:  new high tech fish farms could be the solution

§  Manufacture of hydrochloric acid (salable byproduct and solves the mercury problem

§  Sulfur product manufacture by the J Power process (lowest possible toxic emissions)

§  Enhanced oil recovery through CO₂ sequestration (Sask Power)

§  Ethanol manufacture (Great Rivers)

§  Municipal waste gasification and reuse as a reburn fuel and also to lower cost of mercury reduction.

The Bios, Photos and Abstracts are linked below. 
BIOS, PHOTOS, ABSTRACTS - February 17, 2011.htm