Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; And, In the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existina Stationary Sources : Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - 69 Fed. Ren. 4652 (January 30, 2004) and Supplemental Notice - 69 Fed. Reg. 12398 (March 16, 2004)

By Shea, Quinlan J.

Book Id: WPLBN0000115270
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 1.41 MB
Reproduction Date: 2007

Title:	Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; And, In the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existina Stationary Sources : Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - 69 Fed. Ren. 4652 (January 30, 2004) and Supplemental Notice - 69 Fed. Reg. 12398 (March 16, 2004)
Author:	Shea, Quinlan J.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Ecology, Natural resource issues, Environemtal protection
Collections:	Environmental Awareness Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	United States Environmental Protection Agency


Citation APA MLA Chicago J. She, B. Q. (n.d.). Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; And, In the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existina Stationary Sources : Electric Utility Steam Generating Units - 69 Fed. Ren. 4652 (January 30, 2004) and Supplemental Notice - 69 Fed. Reg. 12398 (March 16, 2004). Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Excerpt: Dear Sir or Madam: The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) appreciates the opportunity to submit the enclosed comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) utility mercury and nickel reduction proposal. The balance of this letter provides a brief summary of EEl's comments.

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. WE NEED TO BUILD ON THE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS TO DATE . . . . . . . . . . 1 A. Substantial Reductions in Emissions Already Have Been Achieved . . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Substantial Reductions Will Continue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. EEI SUPPORTS EFFICIENT ACTIONS TO FURTHER REDUCE EMISSIONS . . . . . . 2 III. MULTI-EMISSION LEGISLATION IS THE BEST APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. SUFFICIENT TIME IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN RELIABLE AND COSTEFFECTIVE ELECTRIC GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 V. IMPORTANCE OF FUEL DIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 A. Electric Companies Use a Diverse Mix of Fuels to Generate Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 B. Fuel Diversity Must be Supported, Not Restricted, by Public Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Fuel Diversity and Infrastructure Should be Enhanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VI. CAP-AND-TRADE IS THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A. Regulatory Flexibility Through Emissions Trading is Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. Emission Trading “Hot Spots” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1. “Hot spots” do not exist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2. The Florida everglades study is flawed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Cap-and-trade will not create “hot spots” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Most power plant mercury emissions will not deposit locally . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VII. HEALTH EFFECTS OF MERCURY FROM POWER PLANTS HAVE NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. EPA Acknowledges Uncertainties in Assessing Health Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 B. Health Benefits of Eating Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 C. Eliminating Mercury Emissions From U.S. Utilities Will Not Change Fish Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 C. There is Little Actual Exposure to Methylmercury in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 VIII. STATUS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 A. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 B. Co-Benefits and Current Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1. “Co-benefits” as defined in the proposed rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2. “Co-benefits” from existing controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 a. mercury co-benefits with FGD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 b. mercury co-benefits with SCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3. Limitations of current technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 C. Future Controls: Sorbent Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32