Mercury Monitoring by States

1. Mercury Monitoring by States Robert Vollaro U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (May 2009)

2. Background • In May 2005, EPA published the Clean Air Mercury Regulation (CAMR) • CAMR provided a model rule for a mercury (Hg) cap-and-trade program, to be implemented in all 50 States, beginning on January 1, 2009. The regulation applied to all coal-fired EGUs that serve a generator > 25MW • CAMR required continuous monitoring of total vapor phase Hg for most affected units. Either Hg CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring systems could be used to meet this requirement. • In support of CAMR, mercury mass emissions monitoring provisions were added to 40 CFR Part 75.

3. Background (cont’d) • However, the CAMR rule was challenged, and in 2008, the rule was vacated by the DC Court of Appeals. • An EPA appeal for a rehearing was denied, and the DC Court issued a mandate, effectively terminating the regulation. • Although the Court did not specifically address the Hg monitoring provisions of Part 75 in its decision to vacate CAMR, the opinion of EPA’s Office of General Counsel is that these provisions were also vacated.

4. Background (cont’d) • Many companies purchased and installed Hg monitoring systems prior to the vacature of CAMR, and had planned to certify the systems by the January 1, 2009 compliance date • When CAMR was vacated, the Federal requirement to certify Hg monitors and to begin reporting Hg emissions data by 1/1/09 was taken away • In the absence of a Federal mercury emissions reduction program, many State agencies have either published, or plan to publish, their own mercury control regulations for coal-fired EGUs.

5. Mercury Monitoring by States • We understand that at least 20 States presently have or plan to have Hg control regulations: • The 20 states are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Minnesota, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Mexico, Georgia, Montana, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Maryland, Utah, Wyoming and Oregon • At least 13 States also plan to incorporate continuous monitoring requirements into their rules: • The 13 states are Oregon, Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, New York, Oklahoma, Delaware, Nevada, Maryland, Wyoming and New Mexico

6. Mercury Monitoring by States (cont’d) • Some State rules are requiring only periodic Hg emissions tests, rather than continuous emission monitoring (e.g., Iowa) • However, EPA encourages all States to consider requiring continuous monitoring (except perhaps for very small, low-emitting sources) to ensure continuous compliance, rather than relying on infrequent, short-duration data from stack tests

7. NESCAUM Protocols • On September 25, 2008, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) posted three mercury monitoring and reporting protocols on its web site, at www.nescaum.org • Measurement and Reporting of Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions Using a Continuous Emission Monitoring System • Measurement and Reporting of Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions Using a Sorbent Trap Monitoring System • Measurement Reporting of Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Low-Emitting Stationary Sources • States can use these protocols as tools or templates in preparing their mercury control rules for coal-fired EGUs

8. CAMD’s Assessment of the NESCAUM Protocols • The NESCAUM protocols are based on the Part 75 mercury monitoring and reporting provisions that were originally published in support of CAMR, but were later vacated by the DC Court • The protocols provide a good deal of flexibility. States can tailor them to meet their individual needs and budgets • The Hg CEMS and sorbent trap protocols establish basic procedures for the performance‑based monitoring of vapor‑phase mercury emissions in combustion flue gas streams. • A third protocol is provided for low emitting sources (i.e., < 29 lb of Hg per year) that allows for periodic mercury emission testing to be performed in lieu of continuous monitoring

9. CAMD’s Assessment of the NESCAUM Protocols (cont’d) • The NESCAUM protocols provide guidelines and recommendations for: • Certification and recertification of Hg monitoring systems • On-going quality assurance and data validation • Reporting of emissions data, and • Using the data to demonstrate compliance with applicable mercury emission limits in various units of measure (e.g., lb, lb/TBtu, lb/GW-hr, percent reduction)

10. States’ Use of NESCAUM Protocols • Soon after the NESCAUM protocols were posted, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) announced to all States the availability of the protocols. NACCA suggested that States should consider using the protocols to develop their own Hg monitoring rules. • So far, EPA is aware of only one State (Massachusetts) that has embraced the NESCAUM protocols. Massachusetts is incorporating the bulk of the Hg CEMS and sorbent trap protocols into their Hg rule, with a few modifications tailored to the needs of their program. The State is not allowing sources to use the low mass emissions alternative methodology.

11. What are the Other States Doing? • Thus far, the Clean Air Markets Division has only seen a few of the other State mercury control regulations. • Illinois and Oregon have drafted Hg rules that incorporate elements of the vacated part 75 monitoring. CAMD reviewed these draft rules and provided comments. • Iowa’s draft Hg rule requires periodic stack testing, rather than continuous monitoring. CAMD reviewed and commented on this draft rule, also. • What are the other States doing? We’re not sure. Can you help fill in the gaps ?