This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Skip booklet index and go to page content

ARCHIVED - Response to Comments on Revision of "Thermal Power Generation Emissions - National Guidelines for New Stationary Sources", issued under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, May 1993

November 28, 2002

Return to Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Guiding Principles for the Guidelines

This document is Environment Canada's response to formal comments from stakeholders on revision of "Thermal Power Generation Emissions - National Guidelines for New Stationary Sources", issued under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, May 1993. To assist the reader, the comments have been summarized and then organized by topic. However, as many comments are relevant to more than one topic, there is unavoidably some overlap in the various comments and responses.

The proposed Guidelines are consistent with the approach endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), in their June 2000 agreement on Canada-wide Standards for Particulate Matter (PM) and Ozone (CWSs for PM and Ozone). (Note: Throughout this report, references to Ministers and the CCME in relation to the CWSs for PM and Ozone does not include Quebec. Although Quebec did not sign the CWSs in 2000, it is taking action within its area of competence in a manner consistent with the CWSs.) Recognizing that recent scientific evidence indicates that there is no apparent lower threshold for adverse human health effects related to PM and ozone, the CWS provides the following guidance:

  1. Continuous Improvement: There are numerous locations across Canada that have ambient levels of PM and/or ozone below the CWS levels but still above the levels associated with observable health effects. ... It would be wrong to convey the impression that no action is required in these areas or that it would be acceptable to allow pollutant levels to rise to the CWS levels.
  2. Keeping Clean Areas Clean. Jurisdictions recognize that polluting "up to the limit" is not acceptable and that the best strategy to avoid future problems is to keep clean areas clean ... [through the application of] pollution prevention programs and best management practices, by, for example:
    ... ensuring that new facilities and activities incorporate the best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and Ozone levels.

Consistent with the approach set out in the CWSs for PM and Ozone, the emission limits set out in the proposed Canadian Environmental Protection Act, (CEPA 1999) Guidelines are based on the performance of best available technology (BAT) that is economically feasible. The achievability and economic feasibility of the proposed emission limits are demonstrated by the fact that recently constructed coal-fired electric power plants in the United States are meeting these performance standards. In addition, recently permitted plants are, in some cases, expected to meet even more stringent standards.

The Guidelines are just one of many initiatives aimed at reducing air emissions from the electric power generation sector. For example, provincial plans to implement the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone are expected to include emission reductions for the sector; a CCME Canada-wide Standard will address mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants; and the draft CEPA 1999 Guideline on Renewable Low-Impact Electricity encourages cleaner power production. In short, the Guidelines should not be viewed as the sole mechanism for addressing emissions from this sector.

It has been suggested by many parties that the performance objective for all fossil fuel-fired power plants should be emissions that are consistent with those of an efficient natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) unit. Environment Canada believes that such "clean as gas" performance is an appropriate long-term objective for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and would like to engage Canadians in a discussion on this. These Guidelines are a step in that direction.

1.1 Guiding Principles for the Guidelines

The Guidelines set out Environment Canada's expectations for emissions performance standards for new thermal power plants. The federal Minister of the Environment recommends that these Guidelines be adopted in the regulatory programs of jurisdictions and agencies.

The responses to comments can be more easily understood if viewed in the context of a set of guiding principles or themes that were the basis for formulating the revisions to the Guidelines. These are summarized here and appear recurrently in the responses to comments.

  1. Emissions performance must be continuously updated to: achieve the clean air on which the health of Canadians depends; promote sustainable development; reflect evolving technology; and address the most recent findings regarding air issues.
  2. Local conditions may require that more stringent standards be implemented.
  3. The intent is to specify performance, not technology. New facilities should be built clean. A clean facility is one from which emissions are consistent with Best Available Technology (BAT) that is economically feasible, as per the keeping clean areas clean commitment of CCME CWSs for PM and Ozone.
  4. A pragmatic approach is needed for determining the economic feasibility of BAT. Economically feasible refers to emissions performance that has been selected in U.S. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations, which consider economic factors, and has been demonstrated to be achievable in commercial operation across a range of regions and fuel types.
  5. Pollution prevention is the preferred option for managing emissions. Increased efficiency is a key mechanism for pollution prevention and should be encouraged where possible.

Return to Table of Contents

Section 2: Process (Comments and Responses)


2.1 Consultations with Stakeholders

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines have been mislabeled as "National Guidelines". By convention, the term "national" is only applied to an item when all provincial and territorial governments have agreed to the item.
  • Proposed revisions to the Guidelines were developed in isolation of any stakeholder input. The consultation of "technical personnel from industry... regarding control strategies and technologies for air pollutants", as stated in Section 1(1) of the proposed Guidelines, has not occurred.
  • A team-oriented approach should be developed to determine new emission limits and management techniques. The Alberta Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) process was cited as an example.
  • There was a lack of provincial input during the development of the Guidelines.
  • The process schedule was too short for sufficient stakeholder understanding and involvement.
  • Further consultation should occur before the final Guidelines are published.
  • Stakeholders should be consulted on the conclusions that Environment Canada will form from the March 22nd, 2002 workshop and the formal comments.

Response

Environment Canada agrees that the Guidelines should not be labeled as 'national'. Henceforth, they will be referred to as "Guidelines".

Environment Canada had ongoing discussions with stakeholders on the need to revise the Guidelines from 1996 until the proposed revisions were undertaken, at which point the provinces, territories and other stakeholders were given opportunities to provide their views. Specifically:

  • On November 1, 2001, a formal offer to consult with provinces and territories was issued via the CEPA 1999 National Advisory Committee (CEPA NAC). Environment Canada received no formal response to this offer.
  • The Minister of the Environment announced in a press release on November 29, 2001 that the general direction of the revisions would be that emission limits would be much more stringent than those contained in the 1993 Guidelines and would be based on BAT. The draft Guidelines and a discussion document detailing the rationale for revisions was issued to all stakeholders on January 23, 2002.
  • A workshop was held by Environment Canada on March 22, 2002 to increase stakeholder understanding of the proposed revisions, facilitate the sharing of perspectives among stakeholders and enhance Environment Canada's understanding of the views of stakeholders.
  • The comment period ended April 19, 2002, 86 days after the release of the draft revisions. At any point during the comment period, stakeholders could contact Environment Canada officials for clarification or to provide input.

The proposed changes to emission limits are based on a wealth of data and precedent from the U.S. and other countries. Based on comments received, further research and analysis has been conducted resulting in the final emission limits presented in the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002. None of the comments received identified specific issues that had the potential to be resolved through further consultations. In light of the above, Environment Canada believes that the consultation process was extensive and complete and that there is no need for a second round of consultations.

2.2 Link to other Federal/Provincial Processes

Summary of Comments

  • There were few, or no, linkages made between the proposed Guidelines and other federal processes that are currently under way. Examples cited included: Multi-Pollutant Emission Reduction Strategies (MERS) process, Canada-wide Standards, and addressing Canada's climate change commitments.
  • Linking with other processes may involve the addition of other pollutants (see Section 4.5: Other Pollutants).

Response

The processes noted in the comments are national processes which involve a partnership among the federal government, the provinces and the territories. Their common goal is emissions reduction but with a primary focus on reductions from existing facilities. The revised Guidelines are aimed at minimizing emissions from new facilities. As such, the Guidelines are a cross-cutting and complementary measure that will also assist in meeting the goals of the national processes.

Specifically, the revisions to the Guidelines support the commitment made by CCME, as part of the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone, to keep clean areas clean by "ensuring that new facilities and activities incorporate best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels". By revising the emission limits in the Guidelines to be consistent with the performance of best available technologies that are economically feasible, Environment Canada is setting out its expectations for practical baseline performance standards for new thermal power plants. It is expected that this will assist other partners in developing effective responses to the CCME commitment to keeping clean areas clean. The revisions include a statement of intention to continuously update the Guidelines, and this may involve the addition of provisions for other pollutants.

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines should be harmonized with provincial processes which are developing environmental standards or policies, such as the Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) process in Alberta.
  • The revision of the Guidelines may constrain the ability of the CASA process to consider a much wider range of options for air quality management in the Province of Alberta.
  • The timing for implementation of the Guidelines should be reconsidered to align with the CASA process so that the federal process does not prejudice the outcome of the provincial process. This would signal that Environment Canada is supportive of such provincial initiatives and is interested in working collaboratively with all stakeholders to achieve environmental goals.
  • The Guidelines should have a provision to exempt facilities in provinces that have their own Electricity Emissions Management Programs such as the one the CASA is developing.
  • Revisions to the Guidelines are not necessary as the provinces are responsible for regulating emissions from the electricity industry. For example, on June 15, 2001, Alberta announced new emission standards for any new coal-fired unit in the Province of Alberta.

Response

The Guidelines are one part of a collaborative approach which recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. They present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt them as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized in the Guidelines that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards.

Therefore, Environment Canada believes that there is a sufficient degree of harmonization between the provincial processes for developing environmental standards for air emissions and the CEPA 1999 Guidelines review process.

Environment Canada does not share the view that the Guidelines would constrain the ability of a provincial process to consider a wide range of options for air quality management. In fact, the emission limits in the Guidelines will assist jurisdictions in developing effective responses for keeping clean areas clean. Proponents of new power plants will retain access to the full set of technology and fuel options available for new electric power projects, and building new sources clean is a fundamental principle which is consistent with a wide range of options for air quality management. In this context, exemption of facilities in certain jurisdictions is not considered to be appropriate.

2.3 Regulation versus Guidelines

Summary of Comments

  • Regulation should be required, or set as an ultimate goal, for controlling and reducing emissions from the electric power industry.

Response

Environment Canada recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. The federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs.

2.4Harmonization with U.S. Limits

Summary of Comments

  • Fossil-fueled power from Canada that is exported to the U.S. should be required to meet standards comparable to those in the U.S., to prevent Canada from becoming a pollution haven for the U.S.
  • The Guidelines should advocate harmonization of Canadian and U.S. goals and programs to improve air quality where problems and solutions cross jurisdictional borders.

Response

Harmonization with U.S. emission performance requirements for similar facilities is one of the goals of the proposed revisions. The proposed emission limits are based mainly on U.S. requirements and experience; however, because of the different constitutional and legal framework in Canada, harmonization with U.S. programs is judged to be inappropriate.

Return to Table of Contents

Section 3: Issues (Comments and Responses)


3.1 Pollution Prevention

Summary of Comments

  • The proposed Guidelines have no provision for pollution prevention. The proposed nitrogen oxides (NOx) limits require the use of back-end technology (i.e. coal-fired units will be able to achieve the NOx emission limit only with the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR)).

Response

Environment Canada recognizes pollution prevention as the preferred option for managing emissions, and the emission limits in the Guidelines are consistent with the use of pollution prevention as a first step. For example, the use of cleaner fuels is an option that can contribute to meeting all of the emission limits. Also, the use of output-based emission limits means that more efficient combustion and generation technology can also contribute to meeting all of the emission limits.

However, it is common practice in many sectors, including thermal power generation, to go beyond pollution prevention. In the case of NOx emissions from coal combustion, best available technology commonly includes low NOx combustion systems as a first step to minimize emissions via pollution prevention. This reduces the cost and complexity of subsequent back-end technology used to meet the emission levels now commonly adopted for coal-fired electric power plants.

Summary of Comment

  • There is a lack of vision in the whole energy issue. Guidelines are needed that will result in more renewables rather than more thermal plants. The Guidelines should recommend a change to less polluting, more renewable and more efficient energy production.

Response

The use of output-based emission limits means that more efficient combustion and generation technology can contribute to meeting all of the emission limits. The Guidelines apply to thermal power plants only and so cannot deal directly with renewables. However, the emission limits that apply to thermal plants will help level the playing field between renewable and fossil energy sources.

3.2 Regional Differences

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines need to address the different environmental needs of the provinces.
  • The Guidelines must consider the range of operating modes, age of equipment as well as different fuel choices available in each province. This will allow the provinces to develop emissions standards that are tailored to meet their regional needs.

Response

Environment Canada recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt them as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized in the Guidelines that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards.

The emission limits in the Guidelines are based on emissions performance consistent with best available technologies that are economically feasible, in accordance with commitments by all Ministers of the Environment to Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone. It is expected that this will assist jurisdictions in developing effective responses for keeping clean areas clean.

Proponents of new power plants will retain access to the full set of technology, fuel and operating mode options available for new electric power projects, and building new sources clean is a fundamental principle consistent with a wide range of options for air quality management across all regions. Since the emission limits in the Guidelines apply to new plants only, regional differences in age of existing equipment would not be a barrier to application of the Guidelines.

Environment Canada believes that the Guidelines, in their present form and application, are consistent with the jurisdictional processes for developing emission standards that are tailored to meet regional needs.

Regional differences with respect to the sulphur content of fuel

See Section 5.2: SO2 Emission Limits

3.3 Technology

Summary of Comments

  • The proposed emission limits are very technology prescriptive by imposing the use of certain technologies. It is not the role of government to make such marketplace decisions.
  • Specifically, the proposed NOx emission limits effectively prescribe selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for many units. The benefits of SCR do not justify adverse secondary effects caused by SCR use such as generation of fine particulates from the use and release of ammonia, the production of SO3 by the SCR catalyst, and the hazards associated with ammonia handling. Alternate NOx control strategies can achieve NOx emission levels that are almost as low as what SCR can accomplish without these adverse effects.
  • The proposed Guidelines prescribe technology and, as a result, do not encourage investments to optimize fuel and technology flexibility and research and development for multi-pollutant technology.

Response

Environment Canada does not agree that the proposed emission limits are technology prescriptive. The emission limits are expressed in the form of mass of pollutant per megawatt-hour of electricity output; they do not prescribe any specific technology, and can be met by various combinations of clean fuel, technology and efficiency options.

With respect to technologies, a variety of options are in common usage in North America and Europe to meet the proposed sulphur dioxide and particulate matter emission limits. In the case of the proposed NOx emission limits, SCR technology has become the predominant choice of electric utilities in North America and Europe for meeting stringent NOx emission standards for coal-fired plants based on cost, performance and other considerations. As a result, the proposed emission limits are based largely on the demonstrated performance capabilities of SCR technology. However, the limits themselves deal with emissions performance, and so do not rule out the use of other technologies or approaches which are available now or may be developed in the future, and which may be found to be preferable to SCR. In the past, stringent emission limits have stimulated investment toward the development of improved technologies and approaches for the prevention and control of emissions. It is anticipated that the proposed emission limits will do this also.

The secondary effects of using SCR technology, including the release of ammonia and the production of SO3 are well known and documented. To put this in context, the use of SCR at a coal-fired power plant will commonly reduce NOx emission concentrations by 100 parts per million (ppm) or more, and release ammonia (ammonia slip) at concentrations of 5 ppm or less. The widespread use of this technology to meet stringent NOx standards in North America and Europe suggests that the secondary effects are judged acceptable in other jurisdictions. Where NOx concentrations are minimized by design of the combustion process, ammonia slip can be reduced below 5 ppm. Some manufacturers are targeting near zero levels of ammonia slip in the future.

Based on these considerations, Environment Canada believes that, for coal-fired power plants, the advantages of a stringent NOx emission limit outweigh the possible secondary effects of using SCR technology to achieve that limit.

Summary of Comments

  • Technology available today has the capacity to substantially reduce harmful pollutants. The Guidelines should be reflective of these technologies and ensure that they are integrated into facilities, regardless of cost.

Response

The proposed revisions to the Guidelines are based on emissions performance consistent with best available technologies that are economically feasible, in accordance with commitments made by Ministers of the Environment to Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone. The federal Minister of the Environment stands by this commitment to economic feasibility.

The Guidelines will, at the national level, continue to present emission limits for SO2, NOx, and PM that consider the economic feasibility of best available technologies.

Summary of Comments

  • Technologies to control the pollutants of concern are available, proven, and cost effective. Technologies, such as flue gas desulphurization (FGD) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR), are widely available in international markets and are proven over decades of industry experience. In addition, the trend in improved performance is likely to continue.

Response

Environment Canada agrees with this comment.

Summary of Comments

  • The term Best Available Technology (BAT) needs to be clarified.
  • Are there legal interpretations for this type of terminology in Canada and if so, how do they apply vis-à-vis regulation and enforcement?

Response

In the context of the revisions to the Guidelines, the term Best Available Technology (BAT) refers to technology that can achieve superior emissions performance and that has been demonstrated to be economically feasible through successful commercial application across a range of regions and fuel types in the U.S. and other jurisdictions.

The Guidelines do not impose legal requirements. They are not regulations, nor are they subject to the enforcement provisions under CEPA 1999.

Summary of Comments

  • Environment Canada has over-simplified the issue of Best Available Technology (BAT) that is economically feasible by reviewing BAT in a foreign jurisdiction and applying the resulting technology to Canada. The U.S. has a formal Best Available Control Technology (BACT) process which includes air quality modeling and analysis of attainment or non-attainment designation. Economic situations are different between the two countries

Response

In the U.S., new power plants proposed in areas designated as non-attainment for air quality must meet emission limits developed through determination of the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). This determination is not constrained by the cost of achieving emission reductions. Environment Canada has not included the very stringent emission rates determined through LAER in its review of BAT. Nor has Environment Canada included the rates determined through the U.S. Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) process, for the same reason.

The Environment Canada review of BAT included U.S. determinations of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In these determinations, the most stringent limits are considered to represent BACT unless they can be demonstrated by the proponent to be inappropriate based on site-specific energy, environmental, economic and other factors. Because the U.S. BACT determinations considered costs, and because in most cases the plants are operating successfully, the U.S. BACT determinations were considered to be consistent with Environment Canada's interpretation of BAT.

Although it is true that economic situations differ between Canada and the U.S., Environment Canada does not believe that these differences would make BACT in the U.S. economically unfeasible in Canada. Furthermore, Environment Canada's review of BAT also considered the U.S. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) which are mandatory for all new plants and are also applied to modified existing plants through the Clean Air Act New Source Review (NSR) provisions. Further, it considered emission requirements in several European nations. Environment Canada has found no information that shows why emission performance levels required for new plants, and in some cases even for existing plants, in the developed nations that are our major trading partners would not be economically feasible for new plants in Canada.

Summary of Comments

  • For Ontario power plants, economically feasible BAT has been determined to be natural gas-fired combined cycle (NGCC) technology. The Guidelines should include emission limits for Ontario which are equivalent to NGCC.

Response

As indicated above, the Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants. It is recognized in the Guidelines that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards. Environment Canada expects that jurisdictions would implement such standards where appropriate.

Environment Canada agrees that performance as clean as gas is an appropriate long term objective for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and would like to engage Canadians in a discussion on this. However, for new coal-fired power plants, BAT that is economically feasible cannot currently achieve this level of performance. The emission limits in the Guidelines will be based on what can be achieved with current Best Available Technology that is economically feasible, and will be updated periodically as BAT evolves.

Summary of Comments

  • One province confirmed that it intends to apply Best Available Technology (BAT) that is economically feasible, to any new units, based on that province's determination. This will be required for emissions of PM, SO2 and NOx.

Response

Environment Canada is supportive of provinces applying emission requirements consistent with BAT that is economically feasible. It is expected that the Guidelines will provide information that is of value to jurisdictions in their permitting of new plants based on BAT.

3.4 Economic Considerations

Summary of Comments

  • The concept of economic feasibility with respect to BAT, in the introduction of the Guidelines, is not further addressed in the remaining text. The provincial/territorial departments must consider economic feasibility to define optimal outcomes, which are viable over the long term. This should be further outlined in the Guidelines.

Response

Environment Canada does not agree that the Guidelines are the appropriate place for addressing economic feasibility. The discussion document outlined, in general terms, the approach taken to develop emission limits based on BAT that is economically feasible at the national level. Where there is a need to address the economic feasibility of BAT for a specific plant proposal, this can best be done at the local level.

Summary of Comments

  • The financial impacts on electricity generators, and ultimately consumers, must be considered. Issues include:
    • industry re-structuring, deregulation, the state of current industry structure in the marketplace and the facilities currently operating under this new framework;
    • certainty in the evolving competitive marketplace;
    • the development of new generation to meet Alberta's growing demand; and
    • the plentiful low-cost, low sulphur coal resources used to produce competitively priced electric power.

    It was felt that the Guidelines do not consider these issues and, instead, introduce additional costs that do not significantly further environmental goals.

Response

The financial impacts on electricity generators and consumers were in fact one of the factors considered in revising the Guidelines. It is understood that it is always less costly to build new facilities clean than to build remedial measures into existing plants. This issue becomes even more important when considering the 40-year expected life of the new generation likely to be built to take advantage of the coal resources in Alberta and other provinces.

Industry restructuring toward a competitive marketplace makes it even more important that all new power plants meet up-to-date emissions performance standards to lessen market distortions and the perception of unfair competition as a result of lax requirements. The increasing integration of the North American electricity market means that there are now both environmental and competitive reasons for aligning Canadian standards with those in the U.S. and the proposed revisions contribute to doing this. Knowing that Environment Canada will expect emissions performance consistent with best available economically feasible technologies, and that the Guidelines will be kept up-to-date in this respect, contributes to greater certainty in the competitive marketplace.

Environment Canada does not agree that the Guidelines do not significantly further environmental goals. The Guidelines support the commitment by Ministers of the Environment, under the Canada-Wide Standards for PM and Ozone, to the goal of keeping clean areas clean by "ensuring that new facilities and activities incorporate best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels".

Summary of Comments

  • Environment Canada's review of U.S. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) infers that if the technology is economical in the U.S., it must also be economical in Canada. This does not consider economic criteria (the higher cost of equipment, nor the lower price paid for power) nor environmental criteria in Canada. Also, it was noted that the U.S. has tax incentives, emission credits and other state-by-state rules.
  • Control technologies should be implemented regardless of cost. For example the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) processes in the U.S. do not allow economics to prevent the implementation of control technologies.

Response

See Section 3.3: Technology.

In consideration of the comment relating to taxes, Environment Canada has investigated the implications of differing tax provisions between Canada and the U.S. on the economic feasibility of emission control technologies. Although tax provisions in individual provinces and states vary, a comparison of typical Canadian and U.S. tax provisions indicates that emission control technologies would not generally be more expensive in Canada as a result of taxes.

Summary of Comments

  • The Minister of Finance should develop a tax credit program for those industries which install control technologies, such as SCR. There was a tax credit in the last budget for industries using renewable energy options.

Response

Environment Canada will pass along this comment to Finance Canada as part of their continuing discussions on the use of the tax system to achieve environmental benefits.

Summary of Comments

  • In some jurisdictions, the contribution of the power sector to PM, specifically, is minor compared to other sectors. By adopting emission limits that force extra expenditures on environmental controls on sources whose impacts on the local environment fall within acceptable limits, resources are diverted from other areas where greater environmental benefits would be gained.

Response

Under the Canada-wide Standards (CWS) for PM and Ozone, Ministers of the Environment committed to keeping clean areas clean by "ensuring that new facilities and activities incorporate best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels". This commitment was based on the recognition that:

  • There are numerous locations across Canada that have ambient levels of PM and/or ozone below the CWS levels but still above the levels associated with observable health effects.
  • The CWS levels are only a first step to subsequent reductions towards the lowest observable effects levels.
  • It would be wrong to convey the impression that no action is required in these areas or that it would be acceptable to allow pollutant levels to rise to the CWS levels.
  • Polluting "up to the limit" is not acceptable and that the best strategy to avoid future problems is keeping clean areas clean.

It is recognized that jurisdictions will endeavour to direct resources to areas where greatest environmental benefits will be achieved. Environment Canada believes that building new sources clean is a fundamental first step that is most cost-effective in the long term for all jurisdictions.

3.5 Health and Environment

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines should describe how the proposed emission limits will directly address health and environmental effects.
  • The proposed revisions to the Guidelines are technology driven and do not focus on the environmental and health impacts of the receiving environment. These issues should form the basis of the Guidelines, not what is BAT that is economically feasible.
  • A new discussion document should be commissioned that looks at environmental and health issues.

Response

Environmental and health effects are most directly related to air quality, and this is the result of the cumulative impacts of many sources of emissions. It is usually difficult to isolate the effects of one new source. Environmental and health issues were addressed in detail in the consultations leading to CCME agreement on Canada-Wide Standards for PM and ozone. Under this agreement it was recognized that the best strategy to avoid future problems is keeping clean areas clean. This led to the commitment by all Ministers to ensuring "that new facilities and activities incorporate best available economically feasible technologies to reduce PM and ozone levels".

Return to Table of Contents

Section 4: Scope (Comments and Responses)


4.1 Notice of Intent

Summary of Comments

  • It is important to periodically review, and if necessary, revise the Guidelines to reflect new environmental and health issues as well as new applicable technologies. This should be done on a regular and consistent basis.
  • The revisions to the Guidelines should be supported with the understanding that the revisions do not adequately address all concerns, but are a starting point. Further changes can be made to address advancements in emission control technologies and strategies, other pollutants of concern and existing plants.

Response

Environment Canada recognizes the general support for the Notice of Intent, and will retain a statement of intention to continually update the Guidelines as part of the revisions. Responses to the following comments provide more detail on issues such as the frequency of revisions and other pollutants.

Summary of Comment

  • The Notice of Intent may only delay the addition of other pollutants. By including all pollutants as early as possible, multi-pollutant reduction strategies may be reinforced.

Response

Environment Canada agrees that other pollutants should be added as early as possible so that multi-pollutant emission reduction strategies can be reinforced. The Notice of Intent is not meant to delay the addition of other pollutants, but to indicate in advance to jurisdictions, industry and the public that this will happen.

Summary of Comment

  • The Notice of Intent does not ensure that the standards set in the Guidelines will stay ahead of what can be achieved with the latest technology. A BACT/LAER process, in addition to the national emission limits, would ensure that emission limits will continue to decline between revisions of the Guidelines.

Response

The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards. A process for site-specific assessment and application of BAT to each new unit would fit best within jurisdictional environmental assessment and permitting processes. Federal guidance on such a process would require further consultation and is not planned at this time.

Summary of Comments

  • Further definition is required of the process for continuously revising the Guidelines as referred to in the Notice of Intent, for example to alleviate uncertainty in business decisions.
  • The proposal to continually update the Guidelines is inconsistent with the time required for planning, study, regulatory processes, and construction for new plants (or major modifications) in this sector. New technologies will be discussed during the jurisdictional permitting process and this would more effectively follow technology changes.
  • Reviewing the Guidelines every five or ten years may be appropriate if the Guidelines provided a benchmark emission limit that allowed provincial jurisdictions to review BAT and define the limits for specific applications. Revising the Guidelines more frequently than every five years would be impractical.
  • The Guidelines should not be revisited until 2008 to consider appropriate revisions to be effective not sooner than 2015.

Response

Environment Canada accepts that the process to continuously update the Guidelines requires better definition. Although the Guidelines are judged to be an inappropriate place to present full details of the process, key aspects will be:

  • all substantive updates to the Guidelines will involve a full, open and transparent consultation process;
  • the details of the consultation process will consider the nature of the proposed updates;
  • the updates will respond in a timely fashion to developments relating to air issues and technologies, and therefore should not conform to a pre-determined schedule.
  • Environment Canada will provide a notice of its intention to revise the Guidelines on the CEPA Registry with adequate time and provisions for full public input.

Environment Canada views advancements in BAT and air issues as inevitable and that these will be just some of the many sources of uncertainty that business always has and always will have to deal with. The statement of intention to continually update the Guidelines in fact contributes to greater certainty for jurisdictions, industry and the public by clearly indicating Environment Canada's intention that the Guidelines be kept up-to-date with respect to the emissions performance achievable with BAT.

Environment Canada will maintain up-to-date knowledge on BAT. Industry may wish to maintain a similar knowledge base and may wish to investigate joint opportunities for this with Environment Canada and other stakeholders.

4.2 Implementation Date

Summary of Comments

  • The implementation date of January 1, 2003, in the proposed Guidelines, is too early to be accommodated by firms which already have plans to build new coal-fired plants and have begun to make investments. This timing creates significant uncertainty in both the regulatory system and the marketplace.
  • The Guidelines should be consistent with the Alberta CASA process and the date announced by the Minister of the Environment for Alberta, that being after 2005.
  • Environment Canada should exempt the projects already working under the Province of Alberta emission standards implementation date of 2005.
  • The timing of the gazetting followed by the implementation date for these revisions was compared to that of the last revisions which were gazetted May 15, 1993, but did not come into force until January 1, 1995. This allowed stakeholders to be aware for some time of the revised Guidelines. As a result, the Guidelines should be published no sooner than January 1, 2003, to allow for additional stakeholder involvement, and include an implementation date no sooner than January 1, 2005.
  • The implementation date for any major update to the Guidelines should not be less than five years after the publication of the change.
  • Revisions to the Guidelines made during this process or any future process, as outlined in the Notice of Intent, should not apply to projects which are operating, committed to or approved. Any further requirements should be dealt with by the local jurisdictions.

Response

Environment Canada recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. We are aware of no new thermal power developments, currently planned or in the future, that could not realistically implement the emission limits in the proposed revisions. However, as the Guidelines will be gazetted later than originally proposed, Environment Canada will revise the implementation date to be April 1, 2003.

Summary of Comments

  • Revisions to the Guidelines are long overdue and Environment Canada should be commended for initiating these revisions.
  • The Guidelines should be approved as soon as possible, sending a clear message that industry must continuously move toward the most stringent emission levels possible. It is necessary to start the process now with these Guidelines, recognizing that there will be further opportunity to continually update the Guidelines as stated in the Notice of Intent.

Response

Environment Canada accepts this support for completing the revisions as soon as possible.

4.3 Application to New and Modified Plants

Summary of Comments

  • Verification is needed on whether the Guidelines are intended to apply to new steam generating boiler units including entirely new plants or the replacement of boiler(s) at existing plants. Further to this issue, further clarification of what constitutes a new plant is requested.
  • The scope could be clarified by stating that the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only. Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines should be revised to "The Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only." In a separate subsection, such as Section 2(4), one could state "It is recognized that opportunities to reduce emissions may arise during major alterations ... should be implemented wherever feasible."
  • Emission limits proposed in the Guidelines should apply to existing plants, or at the very least, the Guidelines should have mechanisms for regulating the existing plants.
  • All available emission control technologies should be applied to all thermal plants, regardless of age or stage of refurbishment.
  • At the very least, the Guidelines should apply to existing plants that are modified or upgraded. The Guidelines, either in whole or in part, should be automatically triggered when a major modification to a facility is planned. A mechanism, other than the voluntary approach, should be developed for this situation.

Response

For clarification, the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only, as stated in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002). As indicated in Section 3 of the proposed Guidelines (Section 4 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), under the heading "Interpretation", the term "new generating unit" means any fossil fuel-fired steam generating unit (also defined in Section 3) which commences first commercial operation after April 1, 2003, including a unit which replaces an existing unit. It is to such units that the proposed Guideline provisions for emission limits (Section 4 and 5), opacity (section 6), compliance (Section 7), emission testing (Section 8), emission monitoring (Section 9), and notification and record keeping (Section 10) apply. (Sections 4 to 10 of the proposed Guidelines correspond to Sections 5 to 12 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002).

The provisions of Sections 3 to 10 of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 4 to 12 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) apply to new units only and not to existing or modified units.

The application of the Guidelines to new units, or units that replace existing units, is based on the fact that the construction of a new unit provides the flexibility to select generation options that meet a consistent set of emission standards for all of Canada. This flexibility may not exist in relation to individual existing and modified units, in which case site-specific local conditions may need to be considered. Environment Canada believes that jurisdictions are best situated to deal with these local considerations, including the details of how emission reduction provisions are "triggered" for a modified unit. The Guidelines therefore will continue to contain a clause addressing modifications to existing plants; this states:

"it is recognized that opportunities to reduce emissions may arise during major alterations to an existing generating unit. It is therefore recommended that an assessment of the feasibility of emission reduction measures be completed prior to commencing such alterations. This assessment should be undertaken by the owner of the unit in close consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority, and improved emission control measures should be implemented wherever feasible".

Although the emission limits in the Guidelines are not intended for application to modified units, they can be a source of direction for assessments of the feasibility of emissions reduction measures for modified units.

Environment Canada does not believe that moving the clause addressing modifications to a separate section would contribute to clarifying the Guidelines.

Summary of Comments

  • Further clarification is needed on what constitutes a major modification.
  • A definition of a major modification was suggested to be a modification which costs more than 10% of the capital value of the existing asset before modifications.
  • The Guidelines should not apply to alterations such as turbine or emission control upgrades.
  • The term feasible with respect to major modifications should be defined in the Guidelines.

Response

As in the above response, Environment Canada believes that jurisdictions are best situated to deal with the details relating to the definition of a major modification and the term "feasible" with respect to major modifications.

Summary of Comments

  • An assessment of the feasibility of emission reduction measures being completed prior to commencing major alterations is supported. However, this assessment must be clearly identified as a provincial process.
  • Since the province would have the responsibility for determining what is a major modification and the appropriate emission limits, then the recommendation in the Guidelines for provincial authority on this issue is redundant.
  • The limits established for modifications to existing plants should be set through jurisdictional processes, and not assumed to be automatically established at the level of the new source standards.

Response

Environment Canada believes that the wording in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) is clear in indicating that the assessment "should be undertaken by the owner of the unit in close consultation with the appropriate regulatory authority". The Guidelines recognize that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. In the case of major alterations to a unit, the Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectation that an assessment of the feasibility of emission reduction measures be completed and improved emission control measures be implemented wherever feasible. This is not a recommendation for jurisdictional authority on the issue but a recommendation on what should be done.

Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) clearly indicates that the Guidelines are intended to apply to new units only and Sections 4 and 5 of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 5 to 7 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) clearly indicates that the emission limits apply to new units. Recommendations relating to modifications at existing units are contained only in Section 2(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 3(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), where there is no mention of the application of any particular emission limits.

Therefore Environment Canada does not believe that further revisions to the Guidelines are required in response to these comments.

Summary of Comments

  • Requiring existing plants to meet emission limits outlined in the Guidelines, only when modified, would act as a disincentive to upgrade old facilities. A mechanism should be put in place that would require existing plants to control their emissions with today's modern controls.

Response

As indicated in the previous responses to comments, there is no requirement that existing plants must meet the emission limits outlined in the Guidelines when modified.

It is recognized that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. Provinces and territories are to develop implementation plans for meeting the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone, and it is expected that these plans will address emissions from existing plants. Environment Canada believes that these jurisdictions are best situated to deal with local considerations when upgrading existing plants.

Summary of Comments

  • There needs to be provision to allow an older plant a reasonable time in which decisions can be made to either cease operations, or 'strand the plant' without significant financial burdens placed on its owner.

Response

Again, it is recognized that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. Environment Canada believes that these jurisdictions are best situated to deal with local considerations when upgrading existing plants.

4.4 Other Emission Reduction Programs

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines do not allow any flexibility to consider other emission reduction programs which could achieve an equivalent or greater environmental outcome than a new source performance standard.
  • Offsets or a trading system, within the same region, could enable older power plants to meet more stringent standards without retrofits.

Response

The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards.

The Guidelines are based on the principle that new facilities should be built clean, a principle being effectively applied to power plants in virtually all developed nations. It is always less expensive and less difficult to take action to minimize emissions on a new facility than it is to retrofit existing facilities. Because power plants have life expectancies of 40 years or more, application of stringent standards to new plants represents an important opportunity to make long-term improvements to emissions. This should be pursued as a first step. Other emission reduction programs can and should be considered on their own merits, and are not constrained by the Guidelines. It is Environment Canada's view that the Guidelines will complement the provincial plans to achieve the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone. Therefore, there is no plan to change the scope or application of the Guidelines.

4.5 Other Pollutants

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines should address other pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, mercury, other heavy metals and carbon dioxide (CO2). At the very least, the Guidelines should acknowledge the generation of these pollutants from the electricity sector.
  • There should be an emission limit of 1.8 mg/MWh for mercury.
  • The Guidelines should require full offset of CO2emissions.

Response

As stated in the Notice of Intent, Section 2(4) of the proposed Guidelines (the notice from the minister in the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), it is intended that the Guidelines will be continually updated to reflect advancements in emission control technologies and strategies over time. This could include the addition of provisions for other pollutants as appropriate. Where processes are under way to develop national standards for specific pollutants, it is judged appropriate to reflect the outcome of such processes in the Guidelines. For example, jurisdictions are currently working together under the CCME Canada-wide Standards process to determine appropriate standards for mercury from coal-fired power plants. The possible adoption of mercury emission limits for the Guidelines would depend on the outcome of this process. Similarly, the possible adoption of provisions for CO2 emissions would depend on the outcome of current consultations on Canada's climate change response.

Environment Canada believes that there are more appropriate mechanisms for informing Canadians on the range of pollutants released by the electricity sector. For example, recent changes to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) will make available to Canadians extensive data on these releases.

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines need to incorporate a multi-pollutant approach to address all pollutants of concern.
  • Environment Canada should consider possible secondary impacts in the framework of a Multi-Pollutant Emissions Reduction Strategy (MERS), including CO2 and mercury, which it has been promoting. For example, if pollution controls were required on a new unit to meet the proposed emission limits, a substantial increase in CO2 emissions would result. Alternative pollution control equipment could achieve control levels close to what is called for with substantially lower secondary CO2 emissions.

Response

In accordance with the Notice of Intent, Section 2(4) of the proposed Guidelines (the notice from the minister in the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), it is intended that the Guidelines will be updated over time to increasingly reflect a multi-pollutant approach. The current change to an output basis provides an incentive for increased efficiency that can offset the increased CO2 emissions that may result from certain types of emission control equipment.

In the context of a multi-pollutant approach, it must be recognized that there are many options for electricity generation that will result in lower emissions of all pollutants than the fossil fuel-fired steam electric units to which this Guideline applies. Coal-fired plants in particular have very high emissions of all pollutants. Where it is necessary to reduce CO2 emissions, other lower emitting options, emission offsets or emission trading are potential responses. Where the choice has been made to develop new coal-fired units, it is essential that criteria air contaminant emissions associated with human health effects should be minimized. These should not be traded off against other considerations.

Return to Table of Contents

Section 5: Emission Limits (Comments and Responses)


5.1 General Comments on Emission Limits

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines should implement the most stringent emission limits which can be technologically achieved. At present, this would most likely be equivalent to emissions from a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant.

Response

As stated previously, Environment Canada has committed to basing the Guidelines on emissions performance consistent with Best Available Technologies that are economically feasible, in accordance with the "keeping clean areas clean" commitments made by Ministers of the Environment under the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone.

Emission limits equivalent to those from a natural gas combined cycle plant are not economically feasible with current BAT for coal-fired plants. However, Environment Canada agrees that performance "as clean as gas" is an appropriate long-term objective for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and would like to engage Canadians in a discussion on this.

Summary of Comments

  • Emission limits, more stringent than the U.S. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), should be implemented and companies should be encouraged to strive to reach these levels.
  • It is not appropriate to use the U.S. NSPS as a basis for establishing Canadian emission limits. The NSPS are generally not the standards required for new facilities. In the U.S., a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) analysis is used to select appropriate emission limits. Canadian facilities should also be required to go through a similar process in addition to meeting the national standards. Details of a BACT/LAER process could be put in an appendix to the Guidelines, setting out air quality conditions under which LAER should apply.
  • The review of U.S. BACT requirements, which are more stringent than the U.S. NSPS, as a basis for determining Canada's emission limits is supported.
  • Emission limits should accommodate all standard modes of operations, the aging of equipment, technological upgrades, fuel diversity and regional needs. They need not specify the most stringent, site specific case since jurisdictional processes will reflect appropriate regional inputs. In the U.S., the NSPS, in conjunction with the New Source Review (NSR) process, operate in this manner.

Response

The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. It is recognized that local conditions may necessitate the adoption of more stringent standards.

Similarly, in the U.S., the NSPS are the baseline national standards, accommodating a range of fuel types and regional circumstances. Individual plants may be required to meet more stringent local standards. This suggests that the U.S. NSPS are an appropriate reference point for the Guidelines. Where emission limits for recent new plants in the U.S. are consistently more stringent than NSPS across a range of fuel types and regional circumstances, this suggests that it is reasonable to select more stringent emission limits for the Guidelines. Therefore, the revised emission limits for the Guidelines have been selected based on a review of both the U.S. NSPS and consistent trends in recent permits for new plants which are based on BACT assessments. The following sections explain the basis for selection of limits for each pollutant addressed in the Guidelines.

A process for site-specific assessment and application of BAT to each new unit would fit best within the jurisdictional environmental assessment and permitting processes. Federal guidance on such a process would require further consultation and is not planned at this time.

Summary of Comment

  • Clarification is needed for the phrase "... when determined over successive averaging periods as previously defined..." from Section 4 of the proposed Guidelines.

Response

According to Section 3 of the proposed Guidelines (Section 4 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), under the heading "Interpretation", "averaging period" means a period for determining emission rates based on 720 operating hours. Also in Section 3, "720 hour rolling average" means for each pollutant, the average of the consecutive hourly mean emission rates, determined for the preceding 720 hours of operation.

In practice, this means that for each pollutant and each hour, a new emission rate must be calculated as the average of the hourly mean emission rates for the preceding 720 hours of operation. It is this 720 hour average that should not exceed the emission limit.

5.2 SO2 Emission Limits

Summary of Comments

  • The proposed Guidelines penalize low-sulphur coal by imposing lowest emission limits on these coals, while less stringent emission limits are proposed for higher sulphur coals. The Guidelines would allow greater mass emissions in areas with significant air quality and acid deposition problems, simply because the coal used contains more sulphur. Yet, in places like Alberta, where there are few air quality problems, the emission limits are more stringent. The Guidelines should give credit for, or in some way recognize, the environmental benefits of the use of low sulphur coal.
  • The sliding scale proposed in the revised Guidelines encourages blending with high sulphur fuels such as petroleum coke and discourages blending with lower sulphur fuels such as natural gas and biomass. It is recommended to utilize the current form of the sulphur emission limits with lower values considered in conjunction with stakeholder input.
  • The upper limit of 520 to 400 ng/J is regionally restrictive where indigenous coals contain high sulphur. An appropriate percent reduction (70-90%) should be applied evenly across the country.
  • Regional coal sulphur contents have to be accommodated. An increase from 90% to 95% reduction required for high sulphur coals would reduce emissions by half. For the Atlantic region, where the electric power sector is the overwhelming contributor to acid rain, this could be an important difference.

Response

The proposed emission limits are based on the application of Best Available Technology that is economically feasible. Because the fuels (coal and oil) used in Canada vary widely in sulphur content, application of BAT for control of SO2 emissions will achieve different results for fuels of different quality. Therefore, the approach proposed results in emission limits being lower for lower sulphur fuels. This is consistent with the U.S. EPA's NSPS for electric power generating units and also with the results of the U.S. BACT/LAER permitting process for new plants. The 1993 Guidelines already contain provision for varying SO2 emission limits with the sulphur content of fuel. To do otherwise, for example to establish one emission limit for all fuels, would result in an emission limit that was either not economically feasible for higher sulphur fuel, or was not consistent with BAT for low sulphur fuel. The latter would be inconsistent with the Canada-wide Standards for PM and Ozone commitment to keeping clean areas clean, which is based on the recognition that there is no observable threshold for the health effects of pollutants associated with PM and ozone.

However, the proposed emission limits do in fact give a credit for the use of lower sulphur fuels in that the degree of emission reduction required declines as fuel sulphur content declines. To use the more stringent of the proposed emission limits as an example, emission reductions of 80% or less may be required for low sulphur fuel whereas reductions of 95% or more may be required for high sulphur fuel. This discourages blending with higher sulphur fuel and encourages blending with lower sulphur fuel. This is also consistent with the application of BAT that is economically feasible in that SO2 removal is more difficult, and hence potentially more costly, at low flue gas SO2 concentrations.

Therefore, the Guidelines will continue to contain SO2 emission limits that vary with the sulphur content of fuel.

Summary of Comments

  • Allowing new power plants to burn 7%, or even 3.5%, sulphur coal is environmentally irresponsible. Lowering the emission limit for SO2 would ensure that high sulphur coal is not used.

Response

The Guidelines attempt to strike a balance between accommodating the use of a wide range of fuels, and protecting the environment. Like the U.S. NSPS, it does this by establishing an upper limit on SO2 emissions. Very high sulphur fuels may still be burned, but SO2 emission reductions may have to be more than 95%.

Summary of Comment

  • The range of SO2 emission limits proposed by Environment Canada is very wide. The most stringent standard of 50 ng/J proposed by Environment Canada is supported.

Response

The 50 ng/J emission limit was proposed by Environment Canada as a lower limit below which no further emission reduction would be required, for example where very low sulphur fuel was being used and further emission reductions might not be economically feasible. The use of this limit for high sulphur fuels is judged to be not economically feasible.

Summary of Comments

  • The SO2 limits are too complicated. They should be simplified, if possible, to one number or a simple equation which removes subjectivity and at the same time is representative of a variety of fuels.
  • It is not clear how the reference emission rates based on uncontrolled emissions would be applied.

Response

Environment Canada agrees that the proposed SO2 limit is complicated and has changed the process to determine the limit while retaining the concept of basing the limit on the uncontrolled emission rate.

The application of emission rates based on uncontrolled emissions requires a decision to be made on the period of time required to sample the fuel to determine average sulphur content and heat content in order to estimate the uncontrolled emissions. For example, a very short averaging period would require very frequent analyses of fuel sulphur content which would have cost implications. A very long averaging period could lead to the emission limit at any time being more or less stringent than intended. The choice of averaging period is left to the implementing regulatory authority.

Summary of Comment

  • The emission limit for SO2 should be equivalent to that of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) (i.e. approximately 0 ng/J). If this is too stringent, a limit of 50 ng/J should be set.

Response

Environment Canada does not agree with the use of a single emission limit in the range of 0 - 50 ng/J because this would not be consistent with BAT that is economically feasible.

Summary of Comment

  • The proposed emission limits of 50 to 520 ng/J allows for an increase in SO2 emissions from the current emission limits of 258 ng/J. This will continue the use of 'dirty' coal and not provide incentive to reduce emissions.

Response

The conclusion that the proposed emission limits would allow an increase in SO2 emissions is a misinterpretation of the emission limits currently in the Guidelines. The current Guidelines call for 258 ng/J or 90% reduction, whichever is less stringent. This means that there is effectively no upper limit to SO2 emissions, for example from high sulphur fuels, as long as a 90% reduction is achieved. The proposed emission limits contain an upper bound (eg. 520 ng/J) which may mean that emission reductions of greater than 90% are required for high sulphur fuels.

Summary of Comments

  • A 70% reduction in uncontrolled emission limits is inadequate for new plants. An emission limit of 35-135 ng/J with specific reduction of 80-95% is proposed.
  • Emission limits equivalent to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) are desirable. If sEPArate limits for fuel type are required then an emission limit of 50 ng/J or 98% removal for high sulphur coals is proposed.

Response

In reviewing U.S. data, it was found that the SO2 emission limits for recently permitted plants across various regions and fuel sulphur contents were consistently more stringent than the U.S. NSPS. This suggests that the NSPS are out-of-date with respect to BAT. Based on consistent trends in the emission rates for recently permitted plants, the final emission limits for the revised Guidelines will reflect the following limits in the input-based format:

The emission rate for each plant should be equal to or less than:
  1. 400 ng/J of heat input and 8 percent of uncontrolled emissions (92% reduction), or
  2. 250 ng/J of heat input and 25 percent of uncontrolled emissions (75% reduction), or
  3. 50 nanograms per joule

Summary of Comment

  • Wording should be inserted in the Guidelines that endorses a flexible interpretation of the SO2 standard formula so that it can be expressed as either a fixed or variable standard.

Response

This comment is understood to request that the uncontrolled SO2 emission rate can be either fixed or variable with the sulphur content of the fuel. A fixed standard would greatly simplify the emission limit but would require a decision as to whether the fixed standard was based on the minimum, maximum or average fuel sulphur content. This would mean that the standard would be more or less stringent than a BAT-based standard. A variable standard would most closely follow the guiding principle that the emission limits are based on BAT but, as indicated above, such a standard would require a decision as to the period of time required to sample the fuel to determine average sulphur content and heat content in order to estimate the uncontrolled emission rate. This decision is left to the implementing regulatory authority.

Summary of Comments

  • The stringent emission limits for low sulphur coals would require scrubbers to operate at very low flue gas SO2 concentrations where the incremental removal efficiency is very poor.

Response

The lower SO2 removal efficiency at lower flue gas SO2 concentrations is accounted for in the "sliding scale" nature of the limits, whereby lower SO2 removal efficiencies are required as the uncontrolled SO2 emissions decrease. Data from the U.S. indicates that the SO2 emission limits are technically and economically feasible for plants burning very low sulphur coal.

5.3 NOx Emission Limits

Summary of Comments

  • The Guidelines should not be more stringent than the N305 emission Guidelines, as of 2005. The least stringent emission limits proposed by Environment Canada should be effective not sooner than 2010.
  • The emission limit should be a single number applicable to all fuels.
  • A range of 30-45 ng/J should be used for the emission limits. This would be consistent with more stringent limits in the U.S. and some of the European countries.
  • The range of emission limits (50 to 70 ng/J) proposed by Environment Canada is supported, but the most stringent (50 ng/J) is preferred.
  • An emission limit of 50 ng/J is recommended as this limit is easily achievable with existing technology.
  • Emission limits equivalent to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) (i.e. approximately 20 ng/J) is desirable. If sEPArate limits for fuel type are required then an emission limit of 50 ng/J for coal and 20 ng/J for natural gas is recommended.
  • An average of the opposing ends of the proposed range would be adequate.
  • It is inappropriate to apply the more stringent NOxstandards of the U.S. NSPS to a new coal-fired station in Alberta. These limits were a result of serious airshed and regional haze issues which do not exist in Alberta.
  • The emission limits in the Guidelines should be based on the Alberta standard of 125 ng/J.

Response

Of the above comments, the first is understood to refer to a NOx emission limit of 100 ng/J proposed as a starting point for initiative N305 of the 1990 CCME NOx/VOC Management Plan. This is judged to be out of date with respect to BAT that is now economically feasible.

A single NOx emission limit for all fuels is in fact what is being proposed for the Guidelines.

As was the case for the SO2 emission limits, it was judged appropriate to base the NOx emission limit on what has been demonstrated to have been achieved across various regions and fuel types. A limit of 65 ng/J on an input basis fits this selection criterion. More stringent limits are being achieved at some plants in the U.S., but not on a consistent basis across regions and fuel types. The level of 65 ng/J on an input basis is equivalent to the U.S. NSPS, which is the minimum standard for all new plants in the U.S. regardless of regional airshed issues.

A NOx emission limit equivalent to the performance of natural gas combined cycle plants was judged not achievable by BAT that is economically feasible for coal-fired power plants. However, Environment Canada agrees that performance "as clean as gas" is an appropriate long term objective for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and would like to engage Canadians in a discussion on this.

Based on the above, a NOx limit of 65 ng/J on an input basis is appropriate for the revised Guidelines.

5.4 Particulate Matter Emission Limits

Summary of Comments

  • The most stringent emission limit of 8 ng/J proposed by Environment Canada is supported.
  • Emission limits equivalent to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) (i.e. approximately 0 ng/J) is desirable. If sEPArate limits for fuel type are required then an emission limit of 8 ng/J for coal is acceptable. Since PM emissions from a natural gas plant are negligible, it may not be necessary to set a specific standard for this fuel.
  • An average of the opposing ends of the proposed range would be adequate is suggested.
  • The emission limits in the Guidelines should be set at 13 ng/J, based on the Alberta standard and the output from the Strategic Options Process.
  • A promising control for mercury, especially for lignite, is activated carbon injection into a baghouse is noted. However, one study appears to indicate that a reduction in PM removal efficiency is required with activated carbon injection. Further work is required in understanding the simultaneous removal of mercury and PM before proposing a more strict PM emission limit.
  • It is understood that although the U.S. NSPS of 13 ng/J for PM is expressed as total particulate matter, recent permit standards for comparable units are generally expressed as PM10. A speciation test by Natural Resources Canada on one of Canada's existing coal-fired power plants showed that, when total PM emissions were near 13 ng/J, less than 70% of the total PM was in the form of PM10. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that total particulate matter emissions as low as 8 ng/J are achievable or reasonable based on U.S. information.

Response

A PM emission limit equivalent to the performance of natural gas combined cycle plants was judged not achievable by Best Available Technology that is economically feasible for coal-fired power plants. However, Environment Canada agrees that performance "as clean as gas" is an appropriate long-term objective for fossil fuel-fired power plants, and would like to engage Canadians in a discussion on this.

As indicated in the comments, further work may be necessary to determine the impacts of future mercury emission standards on PM emission rates. It is judged premature at this time to base the PM limit on potential mercury control measures. Future revisions to the Guidelines can deal with this issue if/as appropriate.

Environment Canada has reviewed the level and form of the PM limits for recently permitted U.S. plants, and found that the majority of these plants have a permitted PM limit of 8 or 9 ng/J (input) in the form of total suspended particulate (TSP). In some cases, the plant permits specify a limit of 9 ng/J as TSP together with a limit of 8 ng/J as PM10. Therefore, the revised Guidelines will contain a PM limit equivalent to 9 ng/J (input) as TSP. Given the current air quality focus on PM10 and PM2.5, it is considered likely that future updates to the Guidelines will deal with these PM size fractions.

5.5 Opacity Emission Limit

Summary of Comment

  • The normal operating opacity limit of 20% seems a little generous. However, with the new PM limit, this should be irrelevant.

Response

Environment Canada is not at this time proposing changes to the opacity limit.

5.6 Output Basis

Summary of Comments

  • The output-based approach proposed in the Guidelines is supported, in that it would reward energy efficiency. Potential problems identified with the output-based standard included:
    • With both deregulation and increased competition, reporting emissions using this form could potentially disclose sensitive information about the utility.
    • With the output-based standards being reported on a 'net' basis, there is no allowance for station service. This may act as a disincentive for utilities to implement appropriate control technology. Since the best available technology requires additional energy, utilities could elect to not add on the appropriate controls on the basis that their emission limits would have no allowance for such equipment. It was noted that the U.S. EPA uses a gross heat rate for conversion of emission limits to an energy output basis.
    • Monitoring, reporting and regulating on an energy output basis may be of concern.
  • Emission limits in the Guidelines should continue to use an energy input basis until these issues are better understood.

Response

Environment Canada has received no information that indicates the manner in which emission rate data reported on an output basis would be sensitive in a competitive electricity market. In fact, in competitive electricity markets in the U.S., very detailed data on emissions and other information is readily available to the public. If concerns were to be identified, Environment Canada believes that provisions are available to protect commercially sensitive information.

On the question of gross versus net energy output as the basis for the emission rates, the key consideration is that the same basis (gross or net) is used for both the derivation of the limit and the reporting of emissions. Either option (gross or net) would achieve the objective of having efficiency contribute to meeting the emission limits.

Environment Canada's rationale for using a net energy output basis for emission limits is that it considers the overall efficiency of the plant and therefore provides an incentive for the full range of measures that may contribute to this, including minimization of station service demands, in the sense that all these measures can contribute to meeting the emission limits. If gross energy output was used as the basis, minimization of station service demands would not contribute to meeting the emission limits.

Given that decisions of control technology will be based on the need to meet the applied emission limits, Environment Canada does not accept that the net basis will act as a disincentive to implement appropriate control technology.

Environment Canada does not agree that there will be serious problems with monitoring, reporting or regulating on an energy output basis.

5.7 Thermal Efficiency/Heat Rate

Summary of Comments

  • Concern was expressed with the applicability of 9.4 GJ/MWh, proposed in the Guidelines, as the heat rate for converting emission limits to an output basis. This value is not representative of today's commonly available technology. This value does not accommodate all fuels, technologies, operating regimes (i.e. load) and decrease in efficiency with age. Additionally, the proposed heat rate is approximately 30% higher on a gross basis, than that used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  • Environment Canada should either increase the reference heat rate or develop a staged approach if the output basis is to be used. A heat rate of 11 GJ/MWh is recommended.
  • An efficiency of 34% (i.e. 10.6 GJ/MWh) is suggested.
  • Additional provisions are requested for a unit which deviates from optimum operating conditions, and incorporates additional pollution control equipment.
  • It was recommended to continue to use the energy input basis but allow an adjustment based on a unit design efficiency compared with the efficiency of typical subcritical units recently approved in North America.
  • The heat rate of 9.4 GJ/MWh is a positive step and industry has not presented adequate arguments for an alternative. Since the Guidelines address new plants, they should not aim for anything less than what has been proposed at the new Genesee 3 plant, and should aim even higher.
  • Other facilities, such as pressurized fluidized bed, supercritical, integrated gasification combined cycle and natural gas combined cycle plants, are operating with lower heat rates of 7 to 8.6 GJ/MWh.
  • If 9.4 GJ/MWh is selected for the Guidelines, this value should be re-evaluated on a timely basis.

Response

Environment Canada has reviewed information on the heat rates that can realistically be achieved for currently available pulverized coal technology considering the range of fuel types used in Canada and accounting for operating regimes, emission control technologies and the effects of plant age. This analysis indicated that a net heat rate of 10.6 GJ/MWh is currently achievable across all the above considerations. Key considerations in making this determination were that, as indicated in the comments, the originally proposed heat rate of 9.4 GJ/MWh could be difficult to achieve consistently for certain coal types, for part load operation and considering the decrease in efficiency with plant age .

Environment Canada believes that an output-based emission limit is preferable to an input-based limit adjusted to unit design efficiency because the output-based limit will encourage continual attention to the actual efficiency of unit operation as a means of meeting the limit. An input-based limit adjusted to unit design efficiency would not do this.

It should be noted that the much lower heat rates (higher efficiencies) achievable for pressurized fluidized bed and integrated gasification combined cycle plants are not appropriate for use here because such plants have not yet been demonstrated to be best available technology that is economically feasible in the manner that this term is used for the revision of the Guidelines.

Summary of Comments

  • The terms 'gross' and 'net' should be defined in terms consistent with those used in the electrical generation sector. Also it should be stated that any potential efficiencies or heat rates referred to in the Guidelines are based on Higher Heating Value.

Response

Environment Canada accepts that the terms 'gross energy output' and 'net energy output' should be defined in the Guideline for purposes of clarity. Consultation with authoritative sources in industry has resulted in the following definitions:

Gross energy output means the gross useful work performed by the steam generated. For units generating only electricity, the gross useful work performed is the gross electrical output from the turbine/generator set. For cogeneration units, site-specific provisions for accounting for any useful thermal energy output supplied by the plant may be specified by the appropriate regulatory authority.
Net energy output means gross energy output minus unit service power requirements.

Environment Canada agrees that it should be stated in the Guidelines that the heat rate is based on the Higher Heating Value of the fuel.

Summary of Comments

  • The output-based standard, calculated using efficiency, may be inappropriate for plants which are not conventional fossil fuel-fired boilers. This would include combined cycle gas-fired units or plants with cogeneration. These facilities have substantially different efficiencies from conventional plants. Also, cogeneration facilities produce steam in addition to, or in place of, electricity.

Response

As indicated in Section 3 of the proposed Guidelines (Section 4 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), under the heading "Interpretation", the Guidelines do not apply to plants which are not conventional fossil fuel-fired steam boilers, and this includes combined cycle gas-fired units. It is believed that new cogeneration plants will generally be of this type and therefore would not be subject to this Guideline. In the case where a new conventional fossil fuel-fired steam boiler was proposed as a cogeneration unit, site-specific provisions for accounting for any useful thermal energy output supplied by the plant would be up to the implementing jurisdiction.

Summary of Comment

  • Since no existing Canadian units achieve the heat rate of 9.4 GJ/MWh, there is no opportunity for the Guidelines to apply to existing plants with major modifications.

Response

As indicated previously, there are no provisions in the proposed Guidelines that apply the quantitative emission limits in Sections 4 and 5 (Sections 5 to 7 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) to existing or modified units. Although the emission limits in the Guidelines are not intended for application to modified units, they can be a source of direction for assessments of the feasibility of emissions reduction measures for modified units.

Return to Table of Contents

Section 6: Compliance and Emission Testing and Monitoring (Comments and Responses)


6.1 Compliance

Summary of Comment

  • When emission limits are exceeded, due to malfunctions, or operation during start-up or shut down, it should be required that the exceedances are reported immediately to the appropriate regulatory agency.

Response

Environment Canada agrees that the appropriate regulatory agencies are best situated to receive notification of exceedances. In Section 10(2) of the proposed Guidelines (Section 12(2) of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002), it is recommended that notification of malfunctions and breakdowns, which may result in exceedances, are to be reported at least every calendar quarter. Environment Canada believes that the appropriate regulatory agencies are best situated to determine if immediate reporting is required.

6.2 Emission Testing and Monitoring

Summary of Comments

  • The requirements for monitoring and reporting should be removed from the Guidelines and implemented through jurisdictional permitting processes.

Response

As indicated previously, the Guidelines are one part of a collaborative approach which recognizes that jurisdictions implement regulatory requirements for electric power plants. The Guidelines present Environment Canada's expectations for appropriate performance standards at the national level for emissions from new plants, and the federal Minister of the Environment recommends that jurisdictional air pollution control agencies adopt the Guidelines as practical baseline standards for their regulatory programs. Environment Canada considers monitoring and reporting to be integral to the performance standards.

Thus, Environment Canada considers it important to have, at the national level, consistent standards for both emissions performance and emissions monitoring and reporting. Recognizing that pollution does not respect borders, Canada needs a high level of accurate, reliable and consistent data on emissions from power plants in Canada to support its work with other jurisdictions to reduce the flow of transboundary pollution. Such data is also expected to be of value to the electricity industry in the increasingly integrated North American electricity market. Consistent monitoring and reporting of emissions data from new plants is one step on that direction.

Whereas Environment Canada agrees that requirements for monitoring and reporting should be implemented through jurisdictional permitting processes, it does not agree to removing provisions in the Guidelines calling for nationally consistent monitoring and reporting.

Summary of Comments

  • Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs) should be required for monitoring emissions from new plants.
  • Clarification is needed for the definition of 'continuous monitoring system'. It is unclear if this refers to an actual CEM instrument, or if the use of software CEMS and/or predictive emissions monitoring systems (PEMS) would be acceptable.

Response

Sections 8 and 9 of the proposed Guidelines (Sections 10 and 11 of the revised Guidelines to be gazetted in 2002) contain provisions for continuous emission monitoring (CEM). These provisions refer to Environment Canada report EPS 1/PG/7, "Protocols and Performance Specifications for Continuous Monitoring of Gaseous Emissions from Thermal Power Generation". As the title suggests, this report presents the CEM provisions in the form of performance specifications, not a particular instrument, and this means that any system meeting these performance specifications would be acceptable. For practical purposes however, software CEMS and PEMS would not fully meet the quality assurance performance specifications required in report EPS 1/PG/7.

Summary of Comment

  • Is the reference to EPS 1/PG/7 appropriate in the section on emission testing in the Guidelines? This document is for CEM performance evaluation and does not specify methods for stack testing.

Response

The report EPS 1/PG/7 provides specifications for the design, installation, certification and operation of CEM systems. No specific monitoring system has been designated in this report. Any system that meets initial certification criteria and additional specified parameters during each year of operation is acceptable.

Summary of Comment

  • The phrase "...as amended from time to time...", in section 8 of the proposed Guidelines, should be removed. This phrase, describing the opacity reference method, seems ridiculous given that this method has not been revised since 1975.

Response

The phrase "as amended from time to time" is a standard phrase added to references to methods, protocols or performance specifications for emissions monitoring in order that the many references do not have to be revised each time an amendment is made to the methods, protocols or performance specifications. Environment Canada does not plan to alter this standard practice and does not believe that this impairs the Guidelines.

Return to Table of Contents

Glossary

BACT - Best Available Control Technology
BAT - Best Available Technology
CASA - Clean Air Strategic Alliance
CCME - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEM - Continuous Emission Monitor
CEPA - Canadian Environmental Protection Act
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
CWS - Canada-wide Standard
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FGD - Flue Gas Desulphurization
GJ/MWh - GigaJoules/MegaWatt-hour
LAER - Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
MACT - Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MERS - Multi-Pollutant Emission Reduction Strategies
mg/MWh - milligrams/MegaWatt-hour
NAC - National Advisory Committee
NGCC - Natural Gas Combined Cycle
ng/J - nanograms/Joule
NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRI - National Pollutant Release Inventory
NSPS - New Source Performance Standards
NSR - New Source Review
PEMS - Predictive Emission Monitoring System
PM - Particulate Matter
ppm - Parts Per Million
SCR - Selective Catalytic Reduction
SO2 - Sulphur Dioxide
SO3 - Sulphur Trioxide
TSP - Total Suspended Particulate

Return to Table of Contents

Date modified: