Joint Appendix — Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014) (No. 14-46)
Supreme Court brief2014
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Sup =. we Oe
th ._:
=CORD
AND JAN 2.3 2085
SRIEFS Nos. 14-46, 14-47, 14-49 |_ormcc oF TH CLERK
Bu the Supreme Court of the Huited States
_20oe
MICHIGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS
Vv.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
Urtiuiry Arm REGULATORY GROUP, PETITIONER
Vv.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION, PETTTIONER
Vv.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.
On Wits OF CERTIORAEI
TO THE UNrrep States COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX —- VOLUME 1 OF 4
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. Aaron D. Lindstrom
nd P.O. Box Shen
Department of Justice ese sar
Washington, D.C. Lansing, oe ommapell
20530-0001 — (517) 373-1124
SupremeCtBniefa@usdo}j.gov
(202) 514-2217
Petitions for Writ of Certiorari Filed July 14, 2014
Writs of Certiorari Granted November 25, 2014
Library of Congress
Law Library
Melissa Hoffer
Counsel of Record
Assistant Attorney
General
Environmental Protection
One Ashburton Place
18th Floor
Boston, MA 02130
melissa. hoffer@
state.ma.us
(617) 963-2322
Brendan K. Collins
Counsel of Record
Ballard Spahr LLP
1735 Market Street
51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
collins@ballardspahr.com
(215) 665-8500
Sean H. Donahue
Counsel of Record
Donahue & Goldberg LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 950
Washington, D.C. 20036
sean@donahuegoldberg.com
(202) 277-7085
F. William Brownell
Counsel of Record
Hunton & Williams LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20037
bbrownell@hunton.com
(202) 955-1500
Peter S. Glaser
Counsel of Record
Troutman Sanders LLP
401 Ninth Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
Peter.glaser@
troutmansanders.com
(202) 274-2998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 OF 4
Relevant Docket Entries
White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA
Court of Appeals
Docket No. 12-1100 1—26
ee.) eee eee ee eee eee eee se Po)
U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress,
Vol. 1: Executive Summary, EPA-452/R-97-003
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054
December 1997
Excerpts
Overview [pp. O-1 to O-4]
Report to Congress [pp. 1-1 to 1-3] 36-43
[pp. 4-1 to 4-10]
—_
teil —
EPA Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions
from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units — Final
Report to Congress, Volume 1-
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3052
February 1998
Excerpts
Executive Summary
ipp. ES-1 to ES-29)............................. 61-114
Utility Study Section 2.7 [p. 2-25] 115-116
Title I and Title IV,
Phase I and Phase IU,
Compliance Strategy Impact
[pp. 2-31 to 2-32]
6.0 Inhalation Risk Assessment
me, Gea Ore ll
Table 7-1 [pp. 7-8]
Si heen he ee ee ee ee ee
117-119
120-131
132-134
Areas for Further Research and Analysis
[pp. 14-8 to 14-10]
en eee eee eer eee eee tee ee
135-138
69 Fed. Reg. 4652
January 30, 2004
[pp. 4657 to 4659]
139-145
70 Fed. Reg. 15994
March 29, 2005
Sections F & G
[pp. 16019 to 16022}
146—162
Coal-to-Gas Conversion TSD,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3065
March 4, 2011
eee eee eee ee eee eee
Memo, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Beyond the Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor
Analysis for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating EGUs”
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-2924
March 14, 2011 167-179
ee eee eee eee
National Mining Association’s Comments
Docket No. EPA-HQ-2009-0234 (NESHAP action)
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044 (NSPS)
76 Federal Register 24,976
May 3, 2011
Gy, STRIPE iirc FG. Oe 180—185
Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20298
July 12, 2011
Excerpts
Cover letter and attachment
SERS ey PAE Sic A On SESE Ew emer 186-193
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0444-5749
ST Se TT OE: am a 194-213
iV
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-18039
July 29, 2011
gS EGE aie Sar eh OED ator 214-218
NS), SRE ONG ts aioe irs Wes bien ey ee 219-227
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17625
August 2, 2011 228-231
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17843
August 2, 2011
[pp. 1 to 10] 232-252
Teeter eee ee eee eee eee ee eee ee eee Te ee eee ee ee
Attachment A (table) [pp. A-1 to A-2] 253-254
VOLUME 2 OF 4
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
comments, EPA-HQ-0234-2009-0234-18426
I i ae 255-277
National Association of Clean Air Agencies
comments, EPA-HQOAR-2009-0234-17620
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Cover letter and comments
en SRR eed eerie Cieets aril 278-305
Attachment 1 (table) [pp. 1 to 15] 306—320
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, comments
EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0234-18444
August 4, 2011
BPEL EP SNUG Hoe HED OS ESOS EARLS NN ID 321-323
| RESTO ety iieeir snnce toyeO 324-327
Comments of Environmental and Public Health
Groups on the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Proposed
Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0044-5715
August 4, 2011
Excerpt
Chapter I [pp. I-1 to I-38] 330—382
Comments of Environmental Defense Fund on the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From Coal-and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0234-18421
August 4, 2011
Part I [pp. 3 to 7] 383-392
vii
EPRI Comments on Proposed HAPs MACT Rule
EPA-HQ-2009-0234-17621
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Specific Comments on the Environmental Fate and
Transport, Exposure and Human Health Issues, and
Risk Analyses [p. viiitox] sss 393-399
EPRI’s comprehensive sector-wide inhalation risk
assessment on all 470 coal-fired generating facilities
identified no cancer or non-cancer health risks above
regulatory risk threshold, in contrast to EPA’s 16
case studies assessment
eS fo * ., e 399-411
ine. 646 008-40 ee 412-418
ep. 3-63 O64 ee 419-422
Exelon Corporation, Comments on the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units; Proposed Rule, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17648, Part 1 of 3
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Comment 1, Sections 1.1 through 1.2
oe, © Op Be ee 423-436
Comment 2, Sections 2.1 through 2.3
ep. Bs 06 Oe eee 436—468
Comment 3, entire
se 468-497
Comment 4, entire
ot 497-503
Comment 5
ce 503-532
Comment 7, Section 7.5
a 532-536
Comment 7, Section 7.7
I 536-539
Exhibit 2, MJ Bradley & Associates LLC and
Analysis Group, “Ensuring a Clean, Modern, Electric
Generating Fleet while Maintaining Electric System
Reliability” (Aug. 2010) -— Entire report, no
attachments [pp. 1 to 24]...
Exhibit 4, NESCAUM Report, “Control Technologies
to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Aijr
Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants” (Mar. 31,
2011) — Executive Summary
sg ge 591-600
Exhibit 7, URS Report — Entire report, no appendices
[pp. 1 to 15]
COR TT eee
VOLUME 3 OF 4
Exelon Corporation, Comments on the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units; Proposed Rule
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17651
Part 2 of 3
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Exhibit 10, MJ Bradley Report Update — Entire
IG i 625-665
Exhibit 11, Tierney and Cicchetti Peer Review of EEI
Report — Entire report [pp. 1 to 13] 666-685
Exelon Corporation, Comments on the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units; Proposed Rule, Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17650, Part 3 of 3
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Exhibit 21 — Cicchetti Report ~ Entire report
Exhibit 23 — Environmental Health & Engineering
Inc. Report — Executive Summary and
Sections 1.0 to 3.3 [pp. 1 to 22] 755—796
VOLUME 4 OF 4
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation comments,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17796
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
I sh er ie 797-801
Enclosure A[pp.1to2] 802-806
Comments of the Utility Air Regulartory Group
August 4, 2011
Excerpts
Attachment 15 [pp. 6, 12, 15, 16] 807-810
eee ween
Letter from Dr. Deborah Swackhamer and Dr.
Stephen Roberts, Science Advisory Board to Lisa
Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA,
EPA-OAR-2009-0234-18487 — Text only
Sept. 29, 2011 811-814
Dien nn eee ee ee ee er errr eT |
Supplement to the Non-Hg Case Study Chronic
Inhalation Risk Assessment In Support of the
Appropriate and Necessary Finding for Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Generating Units
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-19912
November 2011
Excerpts
3. Chronic Inhalation Risk Assessment
i I Ns 815-817
es I, Ss 818
ee ne 819-820
Memorandum: Emissions Overview: Hazardous Air
Pollutants in Support of the Final Mercury and Air
Toxics Standard, EPA-454/R-11-014
November 2011
Excerpts
All title pages and text pages
te 821-829
EPA’s Responses to Public Comments on EPA's
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126
Volume 1 of 2
December 2011
Excerpts
Response to comment 25 [p. 13]
xai
2. Consideration of both public health and
environmental effects [pp. 23 to 29] _ 831-847
a. Agreement with the EPA’s interpretation that cost
is not considered under the “appropriate” analysis
b. Disagreement with the EPA’s interpretation that
cost is not considered under the “appropriate”
a 847-853
c. Agreement that EGUs were properly listed under
CAA section 112(c)(1) and may not be delisted
because they do not meet the delisting criteria in
CAA section 112(c)(9).
a eo eee,
9. Consideration of criteria pollutants under
Appropriate and Necessary Finding
I TE II a isla dccinctercctdeietoninitiaiviiedh 858-867
Response to comments 1 — 3
OO Wc ee ae 867-869
Comment 9 and Response
TN WU abe rtcceeerreriecnenl 869-874
EPA’s Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126
Volume 2 of 2
December 2011
Excerpts
Response to Comments 49-50
aR Naa at at Ta A Re 876-877
Response to Comments 52-62
8 EET Ine ee 878-884
Impacts and Costs Analysis, Comment 1 and
response [p. 477]
Impects and Costs Analysis, Comment 5 and
ee a re 885-886
Impacts and Costs Analysis, Comment 10 and
response [pp. 482 to 484]
Re eee eee ee |
Impacts and Costs Analysis, Comments 6 to 10 and
responses [pp. 627 to 630]
Impacts and Costs Analysis, Comment 11 and
response [pp. 630 to631])
Impacts and Costs Analysis, Comment 12 and
response [pp. 631 to 632]
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury
and Air Toxics Standards
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20131
December 2011
Excerpts
Executive Summary, ES.1
i, a, 904-907
Executive Summary, ES.1.1, Health Co-Benefits
[pp. ES-3to ES-4] ss 908-911
Executive Summary, ES.1.2, Welfare Co-Benefits
[pp. ES-4 to ES-5})...... si‘ iéiié;t;t;t;t;w;w;~;~*~—S 911-912
Executive Summary, ES.2, Tables ES-5, ES-6, Not
All Benefits Quantified
(pp. ES-9 to ES-13].. ttt 913-923
RR A ee ee _..924-925
I ee ee 926-927
NU Us ae ee 928-929
Chapter 4, Section 4.2 (Mercury and Other HAP
Benefits Analysis/Impact of Mercury on Human
Health) [pp. 4-3to 4-5) 930-933
Chapter 4, Section 4.3 (Mercury and Other HAP
Benefits Analysis/Impact of Mercury on Ecosystems
and Wildlife) [pp. 4-6 to 4-9] «ss 934-940
Chapter 4, Section 4.8.5.6 (Mercury and Other HAP
Benefits Analysis/Unquantified Benefits)
[pp. 4-64 to 4-66] 940-944
ee eee ne ee ee ef
Chapter 4, Section 4.9 (Mercury and Other HAP
Benefits Analysis/Benefits Associated with
Reductions in Other HAP than Mercury)
Gee Ore 944953
Chapter 5, Synopsis (Health and Welfare Co-
meee oe ee 954-955
Chapter 5, Section 5.5 (Health and Welfare Co-
Benefits/Unquantified Health and Welfare Benefits)
Memorandum, “The Environmental Protection
Agency's Enforcement Response Policy for Use of
Clean Air Act Section 113(a) Administrative Orders
in Relation to Electric Reliability And The Mercury
and Air Toxics Standard” (
December 16, 2011 957-970
ee eee
Memo, “Emission Reduction Costs for Beyond-the-
floor Mercury Rate for Existing Units Designed to
Burn Low Rank Virgin Coal”
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20130
Se ee a i) ma 971—976
ewe er ee eae ee OS Oe
Emission Reduction Costs for the Beyond-the-Floor
Mercury Rate in the Toxics Rule
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-2925
Undated 977-981
eee ee ee eee ee eee ee ee reer reer sed
The following opinions and order have been omitted
in printing this Joint Appendix because they appear
on the following pages in the appendix to the Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari:
14-46 Michigan, et al. v. EPA, et al.
Federal Register
Volume 70, No. 59
March 29, 2005
Ld , Ee eee eee 116a—120a
Federal Register
Volume 76, No. 85
May 3, 2011
ARERR On eae ee rere eee eee. 112a—115a
Federal Register
Volume 77, No. 32
February 16, 2012
BP GMI sn eteniceinitiniabiiteitntinsddeckasseademeiiats 109a—llla
United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit
Opinion in 12-1100
RE EE Rs I iirc wic dnsecenacascccechcchakacceeces la—105a
14-47 UARG v. EPA, et al.
APPENDIX J: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-453/R-98-004a, Study of
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units --
Final Report to Congress, Vol. 1 (Feb. 1998),
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3052
IND eecacncctas ctteschausadeuisedcasisadsmcumsapacanbesanaien 636a
APPENDIX I: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Regulatory Finding on the
Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants From
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units; Notice
of Regulatory Finding,
65 Fed. Reg. 79,825
I; SN, SIE ae ssenceicel beri ote ee 610a
APPENDIX H: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Revision of December 2000
Regulatory Finding on the Emissions of
Hazardous Air Pollutants From Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units and the Removal
of Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units From the Section 112(c)
List; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 15,994
ry 544a
APPENDIX F: Utility Air Regulatory Group,
Comments on National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units: Proposed Rule (Aug. 4, 2011), Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-17775
APPENDIX G: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Nationa] Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-
Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating
Units; Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg.
24,976 (May 3, 2011)
INI ga cecstteres pase tcaal diate edancididieaieneinicccetcbauies 5i4a
APPENDIX E: EPA’s Responses to Public
Comments on EPA’s National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from
Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units, Vol. 1 (Dec. 2011),
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126
i iianccerisneninucassuduiciancksnsasonintsnapemuniovisnesen 506a
APPENDIX C: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-
Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating
Units; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 9304
Ce. es SE ID oi ctinrccncusicanstarineinecanines 105a
APPENDIX B: Opinion of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.. 3a
APPENDIX A: Order of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Denying All Petitions for Review, Except the
Petition for Review in No. 12-1174, and Dismissing
Me MI os riSda cack cecasicemnaiinnbanddanaaendgaitict cubanits la
14-49 NMA v. EPA, et al.
APPENDIX F: Study of Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emissions from Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units
ib niiisiptacinnstinencanninapennnissbakantesniapiieiiins 1937a
APPENDIX E: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coaland
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units and Standards of
Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired
Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-
Institutional, and Small Industrial-
Commercial-Institutional Steam
Generating Units, Proposed Rule 76
Fed. Reg. 24,976 (May 3, 2011)................ 116la
APPENDIX D: National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Coaland
Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired
Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional,
and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional
SteamGenerating Units, 77 Fed. Reg. 9,305
NE a seesancennas bein 196a
APPENDIX B: In the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit — Judgment (Apr. 15, 2014) ............ 99a
APPENDIX A: In the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit — Opinion (Apr. 15, 2014) ................. la
Relevant Docket Entries from the
United States Court of Appeals for District of
Columbia Circuit
Docket No. 12-1100
White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA
Appeal From: Environmental Protection Agency
District: EPA-1; EPA-77FR9304
Consolidation
Lead Member Start
12-1100 12-1101 02/22/2012
12-1100 12-1102 02/22/2012
12-1100 12-1147 03/16/2012
12-1100 12-1172 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1173 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1174 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1175 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1176 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1177 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1178 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1180 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1181 04/19/2012
ll
Consolidation
Lead Member Start
12-1100 12-1182 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1183 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1184 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1185 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1186 05/30/2012
12-1100 12-1187 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1188 04/23/2012
12-1100 12-1189 04/23/2012
12-1100 12-1190 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1191 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1192 05/30/2012
12-1100 12-1193 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1194 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1195 04/19/2012
12-1100 12-1196 04/24/2012
12-1166 12-1366 08/24/2012
12-1166 12-1420 10/18/2012
Related
Lead Member Start
12-1100 12-1166 08/24/2012
Date of Hearing: 12/10/2013
Date of Decision: 04/15/2014
Date Completed: 04/15/2014
***
02/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1358855] by White
Stallion Energy Center, LLC of a decision by federal
agency [Service Date: 02/16/2012 ]} Disclosure
Statement: Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not
Applicable to this Filing [12-1100]
02/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1358862] by
National Mining Association of a decision by federal
agency [Service Date: 02/16/2012 | Disclosure
Statement: Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not
Applicable to this Filing [12-1101]
03/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1364222] by Utility
Air Regulatory Group of a decision by federal agency
[Service Date: 03/16/2012 ] Disclosure Statement:
Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not Applicable to
this Filing [12-1147]
04/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1369112] by
Railroad Commission of Texas, State of Texas, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and Texas
Public Utility Commission of a decision by feceral
agency [Service Date: 04/13/2012 ] Disclosure
Statement: Not Attached; Certificate of Parties: Not
Applicable to this Filing [12-1185]
04/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1369098] by State of
Arkansas of a decision by federal agency [Service
Date: 04/16/2012 ] Disclosure Statement: Not
Applicable to this Party; Certificate of Parties: Not
Applicable to this Filing [12-1190]
04/16/2012
PETITION FOR REVIEW filed [1369346] by Terry
E. Branstad, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Virginia, Jack Conway, State of
Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona, State of
Florida, State of Idaho, State of Indiana, State of
Kansas, State of Michigan, State of Mississippi,
State of Missouri, State of Nebraska, State of North
Dakota, State of Ohio, State of Oklahoma, State of
South Carolina, State of Utah, State of West Virginia
and State of Wyoming of a decision by federal agency
[Service Date: 04/16/2012 ] Disclosure Statement:
Not Applicable to this Party; Certificate of Parties:
Not Applicable to this Filing [12-1196]
04/27/2012
UNDERLYING DECISION IN CASE submitted
[1371244] by White Stallion Energy Center, LLC
[Service Date: 04/27/2012 ] [12-1100] (Marwell,
Jeremy)
06/11/2012
CERTIFIED INDEX TO RECORD [1377996] by EPA
in 12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1166, 12-
1170, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176,
12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1182, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1185, 12-1187,
12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1186, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-
1192, 12-1195, 12-1196 [Service Date: 06/11/2012 ]
[12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1166, 12-
1170, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176,
12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-
1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188,
12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-
1194, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Hostetler, Eric)
PETITIONER BRIEF [1401247] filed by American
Public Power Association in 12-1173, Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-
1178, ARIPPA in 12-1181, Chase Power
Development, LLC in 12-1191, Oak Grove
Management Company, LLC in 12-1187, Kansas
City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186, Gulf Coast
Lignite Coalition in 12-1188, Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority in 12-1189, FirstEnergy Generation
Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195 [Service Date:
10/23/2012 }] Length of Brief: 3,990 words. [12-1100,
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1170, 12-1172, 12-
1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178,
12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-
1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190,
12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-
1196] (Holmstead, Jeffrey)
10/23/2012
PETITIONER BRIEF [1401252] filed by White
Stallion Energy Center, LLC in 12-1100, National
Mining Association in 12-1101, Institute for Liberty
and National Black Chamber of Commerce in 12-
1102, Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-1147,
Midwest Ozone Group in 12-1172, American Public
Power Association in 12-1173, Peabody Energy
Corporation in 12-1175, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA
in 12-1181, United Mine Workers of America in 12-
1183, Georgia Association of Manufacturers, Inc.,
Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Inc., Indiana Coal
Council, Inc., Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
Kentucky Coal Association, Inc., North Carolina
Chamber, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pennsylvania
Coal Association, South Carolina Chamber of
Commerce, The Virginia Chamber of Commerce, The
Virginia Coal Association, Incorporated, West
Virginia Chamber of Commerce, West Virginia Coal
Association, Inc. and Wisconsin Industrial Energy
Group, Inc. in 12-1182, State of Arkansas in 12-1190,
Chase Power Development, LLC in 12-1191, Railroad
Commission of Texas, State of Texas, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and Texas
Public Utility Commission in 12-1185, Edgecombe
Genco, LLC and Spruance Genco, LLC in 12-1193,
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186,
FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine
Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195, Terry E.
Branstad, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Virginia, John William Conway,
State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona,
State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Indiana,
State of Kansas, State of Michigan, State of
Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Nebraska,
State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of
Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Utah,
State of West Virginia and State of Wyoming in 12-
1196 [Service Date: 10/23/2012 ] Length of Brief:
14,879 words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147,
12-1170, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-
1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182,
12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-
1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193,
12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Brownell, F.)
10/23/2012
PETITIONER BRIEF [1401254] filed by Chesapeake
Climate Action Network, Conservation Law
Foundation, Environmental Integrity Project and
Sierra Club in 12-1194 [Service Date: 10/23/2012 |
Length of Brief: 5,961 words. [12-1194, 12-1100]
(Pew, James)
10/24/2012
PETITIONER BRIEF [1401322] filed by Julander
Energy Company in 12-1174 [Service Date:
10/24/2012 ] Length of Brief: 1496 words. [12-1100,
12-1174] (Bookbinder, David)
10/30/2012
AMICUS FOR PETITIONER BRIEF [1402141] filed
by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America in 12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1170, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176,
12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1182, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1185, 12-1187,
12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1186, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-
1192, 12-1195, 12-1196 [Service Date: 10/30/2012 |
Length of Brief: 6767 words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-
8
1102, 12-1147, 12-1170, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174,
12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-
1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186,
12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12- 1190, 12-1191, 12-
1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12- 1196] (Wigmore,
Michael)
01/22/2013
RESPONDENT BRIEF [1416613] filed by EPA in 12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
EPA and Lisa Perez Jackson in 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-
1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12- 1180, 12-1181, 12-1183,
12-1184, 12-1182, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1185, 12-
1187, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1186, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1192, 12-1195, 12-1196 [Service Date: 01/22/2012
} Length of Brief: 25,958. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12- 1102,
12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12- 1175, 12-
1176, 12- 1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182,
12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12- 1186, 12-1187, 12-
1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193,
12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Hostetler, Eric)
02/11/2013
PER ABOVE ORDER lodged Amicus brief [1417795-
2] is filed [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12- 1177,
12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-
1195, 12-1196]
02/21/2013
JOINT INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT BRIEF
[1421665] filed by Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition,
Institute for Liberty, Lignite Energy Council,
National Black Chamber of Commerce, National
Mining Association, Peabody Energy Corporation
and Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-1100,
National Mining Association, Peabody Energy
Corporation, Tri-State Generation and Transmission
Association, Inc. and White Stallion Energy Center,
LLC in 12-1174 [Service Date: 02/21/2013 ] Length of
Brief: 937. [12-1100, 12-1174] (Glaser, Peter)
02/21/2013
JOINT INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT BRIEF
[1421767] filed by City of Baltimore, City of Chicago,
City of New York, County of Ene, New York, DC,
State of California, State of Connecticut, State of
Delaware, State of Illinois, State of Iowa, State of
Maine, State of Maryland, State of Massachusetts,
State of Minnesota, State of New Hampshire, State
of New Mexico, State of New York, State of North
Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island and
State of Vermont [Service Date: 02/21/2013 ] Length
of Brief: 3065 words. [12-1100] (Triplett, Tracy)
02/21/2013
JOINT INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT BRIEF
[1421806] filed by Calpine Corporation, Exelon
Corporation, National Grid Generation, LLC and
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. in 12-1100
[Service Date: 02/21/2013 ] Length of Brief: 3,118
Words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172,
12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-
1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184,
12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-
1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195,
12-1196] (Collins, Brendan)
10
02/21/2013
INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT BRIEF
[1421808] filed by American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Lung Association, American Nurses
Association, American Public Health Association,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., Citizens for
Pennsylvania's Future, Clean Air Council,
Conservation Law Foundation, Environment
America, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak
Walton League of America, NAACP, Natural
Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club and
Waterkeeper Alliance in 12-1100 [Service Date:
02/21/2013 ] Length of Brief: 3120 Words. [12-1100,
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-
1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180,
12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-
1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191,
12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
(Schroeder, Darin)
02/21/2013
JOINT INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT BRIEF
[1421812] filed by Institute for Liberty, National
Black Chamber of Commerce, National Mining
Association, Peabody Energy Corporation, Sunflower
Electric Power Corporation and Utility § Air
Regulatory Group in 12-1100, White Stallion Energy
Center, LLC in 12-1194 [Service Date: 02/21/2013 ]
Length of Brief: 3723 words. [12-1100, 12-1194]
(Freeman, Lauren)
11
03/25/2013
PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1427247] filed by
Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Conservation
Law Foundation, Environmental Integrity Project
and Sierra Club in 12-1194 [Service Date: 03/25/2013
} Length of Brief: 2,988 Words. [12-1194] (Pew,
James)
03/25/2013
JOINT PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1427259] filed
by American Public Power Association in 12-1173,
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA in 12-1181, Chase Power
Development, LLC in 12-1191, Oak Grove
Management Company, LLC in 12-1187, Kansas
City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186, Gulf Coast
Lignite Coalition in 12-1188, Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority in 12-1189, FirstEnergy Generation
Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195 [Service Date:
03/25/2013 } Length of Brief: 2,000 Words. [12-1173,
12-1178, 12-1181, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-
1189, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1195] (Holmstead,
Jeffrey)
03/25/2013 .
JOINT PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1427262] filed
by White Stallion Energy Center, LLC in 12-1100,
National Mining Association in 12-1101, Institute for
Liberty and National Black Chamber of Commerce in
12-1102, Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-1147,
Midwest Ozone Group in 12-1172, American Public
Power Association in 12-1173, Tri-State Generation
and Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-1178,
ARIPPA in 12-1181, United Mine Workers of
12
America in 12-1183, Georgia Association of
Manufacturers, Inc., Indiana Chamber of Commerce,
Inc., Indiana Coal Council, Inc., Kentucky Chamber
of Commerce, Inc., Kentucky Coal Association, Inc.,
North Carolina Chamber, Ohio Chamber of
Commerce, Pennsylvania Coal Association, South
Carolina Chamber of Commerce, The Virginia
Chamber of Commerce, The Virginia Coal
Association, Incorporated, West Virginia Chamber of
Commerce, West Virginia Coal Association, Inc. and
Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Inc. in 12-1182,
State of Arkansas in 12-1190, Chase Power
Development, LLC in 12-1191, Railroad Commission
of Texas, State of Texas, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality and Texas Public Utility
Commission in 12-1185, Edgecombe Genco, LLC and
Spruance Genco, LLC in 12-1193, Kansas City Board
of Public Utilities in 12-1186, FirstEnergy
Generation Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine Power
Supply Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195, Terry E.
Branstad, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Virginia, John William Conway,
State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona,
State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Indiana,
State of Kansas, State of Michigan, State of
Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Nebraska,
State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of
Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Utah,
State of West Virginia and State of Wyoming in 12-
1196 [Service Date: 03/25/2013 ] Length of Brief:
7,193 words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147,
12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-
1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183,
12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-
13
1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194,
12-1195, 12-1196] (Brownell, F.)
03/28/2013
PETITIONER REPLY BRIEF [1427849] filed by
Julander Energy Company in 12-1174 [Service Date:
03/28/2013 ]} Length of Brief: 750 words. [12-1100,
12-1174] (Bookbinder, David)
04/01/2013
JOINT APPENDIX [1428379] filed [Volumes: 7]
[Service Date: 04/01/2013 } [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-
1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Brownell, F.)
04/05/2013
INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF
[1429198] filed by City of Baltimore, City of Chicago,
City of New York, County of Erie, New York, DC,
State of California, State of Connecticut, State of
Delaware, State of Dlinois, State of Iowa, State of
Maine, State of Maryland, State of Massachusetts,
State of Minnesota, State of New Hampshire, State
of New Mexico, State of New York, State of North
Carolina, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island and
State of Vermont in 12-1100 [Service Date:
04/05/2013 ] Length of Brief: 3065 words. [{12-1100,
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-
1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180,
12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-
1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191,
12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196}
(Triplett, Tracy)
14
04/08/2013
INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF
[1429332] filed by Calpine Corporation, Exelon
Corporation, National Grid Generation, LLC and
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. in 12-1100
[Service Date: 04/08/2013 }] Length of Brief: 3,118
Words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172,
12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-
1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184,
12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 192-
1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195,
12-1196] (Collins, Brendan)
04/08/2013
MODIFIED EVENT FROM FILED TO LODGED--
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT APPENDIX [1429356]
LODGED [Volumes: 1] [Service Date:04/08/2013 ]
[12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-
1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178,
12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-
1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190,
12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-
1196]--(Edited 04/08/2013 by AY] (Oakes, Matthew)
04/08/2013
RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1429467] filed by
EPA in 12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172,
12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-
1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1182,
12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1185, 12-1187, 12-1193, 12-
1194, 12-1186, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1192, 12-1195,
12-1196 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief:
25,956 Words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147,
12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-
1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183,
15
12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-
1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194,
12-1195, 12-1196] (Hostetler, Eric)
04/08/2013
MODIFIED EVENT--INTERVENOR FOR
RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF [1429570] filed by
Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition, Institute for Liberty,
Lignite Energy Council, National Black Chamber of
Commerce and Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-
1100, National Mining Association, Peabody Energy
Corporation and_ Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-1174, White
Stallion Energy Center, LLC in 12-1194 [Service
Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief: 937 Words. [12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185,
12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-
1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 1%2-1196}--
[Edited 04/11/2013 by AY] (Glaser, Peter) :
04/08/2013
JOINT PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1429574] filed
by American Public Power Association in 12-1173,
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA in 12-1181, Chase Power
Development, LLC in 12-1191, Oak Grove
Management Company, LLC in 12-1187, Kansas
City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186, Gulf Coast
Lignite Coalition in 12-1188, Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority in 12-1189, FirstEnergy Generation
Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine Power Supply
Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195 [Service Date:
04/08/2013 |] Length of Brief: 3,991 words. [12-1100,
16
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-
1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180,
12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-
1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191,
12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
(Holmstead, Jeffrey)
04/08/2013
JOINT PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF
[1429575] filed by American Public Power
Association in 12-1173, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA
in 12-1181, Chase Power Development, LLC in 12-
1191, Oak Grove Management Company, LLC in 12-
1187, Kansas City Board of Public Utilities in 12-
1186, Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition in 12-1188, Puerto
Rico Electric Power Authority in 12-1189,
FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine
Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195 [Service
Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief: 2,000 Words. [12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185,
12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-
1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
(Holmstead, Jeffrey)
04/08/2013
PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1429596] filed by
Julander Energy Company in 12-1174 [Service Date:
04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief: 1496 words. [12-1100,
12-1174] (Bookbinder, David)
17
04/08/2013
PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF [1429599] filed
by Julander Energy Company in 12-1174 [Service
Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief: 750 words. [12-
1100, 12-1174] (Bookbinder, David)
04/08/2013
PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF [1429602] filed
by Sierra Club in 12-1194 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 |
[12-1194, 12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177,
12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1195, 12-
1196] (Narayan, Sanjay)
04/08/2013
JOINT INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT FINAL
BRIEF [1429603] filed by Institute for Liberty,
National Black Chamber of Commerce, National
Mining Association, Peabody Energy Corporation,
Sunflower Electric Power Corporation and Utility Air
Regulatory Group in 12-1100, White Stallion Energy
Center, LLC in 12-1194 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 ]
Length of Brief: 3745. [12-1100, 12-1194] (Freeman,
Lauren)
04/08/2013
SUPPLEMENT [1429612] to appendix [1428379-2]
filed by Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-1100
[Service Date: 04/08/2013 ]} [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-
1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Freeman, Lauren)
18
04/08/2013
PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1429613] filed by
Sierra Club in 12-1194 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 }
[12-1194, 12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177,
12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 1°-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1199, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1195, 12-
1196] (Narayan, Sanjay)
04/08/2013
INTERVENOR FOR RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF
[1429622] filed by American Academy of Pediatrics,
American Lung Association, American Nurses
Association, American Public Health Association,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., Citizens for
Pennsylvanias Future, Clean Air Council,
Conservation Law Foundation, Environment
America, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak
Walton League of America, NAACP, Natural
Resources Council of Maine, Natural Resources
Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club and
Waterkeeper Alliance in 12-1100 [Service Date:
04/08/2013 } [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177,
12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-
1195, 12-1196] (Narayan, Sanjay)
04/08/2013
JOINT PETITIONER FINAL BRIEF [1429635] filed
by White Stallion Energy Center, LLC in 12-1100,
National Mining Association in 12-1101, Institute for
19
Liberty and National Black Chamber of Commerce in
12-1102, Utility Air Regulatory Group in 12-1147,
Midwest Ozone Group in 12-1172, American Public
Power Association in 12-1173, Peabody Energy
Corporation in 12-1175, Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA
in 12-1181, United Mine Workers of America in 12-
1183, Georgia Association of Manufacturers, Inc.,
Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Inc., Indiana Coal
Council, Inc., Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Inc.,
Kentucky Coal Association, Inc., North Carolina
Chamber, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pennsylvania
Coal Association, South Carolina Chamber of
Commerce, The Virginia Chamber of Commerce, The
Virginia Coal Association, Incorporated, West
Virginia Chamber of Commerce, West Virginia Coal
Association, Inc. and Wisconsin Industrial Energy
Group, Inc. in 12-1182, State of Arkansas in 12-1190,
Chase Power Development, LLC in 12-1191, Railroad
Commission of Texas, State of Texas, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and Texas
Public Utility Commission in 12-1185, Edgecombe
Genco, LLC and Spruance Genco, LLC in 12-1193,
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186,
FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine
Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195, Terry E.
Branstad, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Virginia, John William Conway,
State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona,
State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Indiana,
State of Kansas, State of Michigan, State of
Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Nebraska,
State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of
Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Utah,
State of West Virginia and State of Wyoming in 12-
20
1196 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief:
14,331 words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147,
12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-
1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183,
12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-
1189,. 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194,
12-1195, 12-1196] (Brownell, F.)
04/08/2013
JOINT PETITIONER FINAL REPLY BRIEF
[1429638] filed by White Stallion Energy Center,
LLC in 12-1100, National Mining Association in 12-
1101, Institute for Liberty and . National Black
Chamber of Commerce in 12-1102, Utility Air
Regulatory Group in 1Z-1147, Midwest Ozone Group
in 12-1172, American Public Power Association in
12-1173, Peabody Energy Corporation in 12-1175,
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,
Inc. in 12-1178, ARIPPA in 12-1181, United Mine
Workers of America in 12-1183, Georgia Association
of Manufacturers, Inc., Indiana Chamber of
Commerce, Inc., Indiana Coal Council, Inc.,
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Inc., Kentucky
Coal Association, Inc., North Carolina Chamber,
Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pennsylvania Coal
Association, South Carolina Chamber of Commerce,
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce, The Virginia
Coal Association, Incorporated, West Virginia
Chamber of Commerce, West Virginia Coal
Association, Inc. and Wisconsin Industrial Energy
Group, Inc. in 12-1182, State of Arkansas in 12-1190,
Chase Power Development, LLC in 12-1191, Railroad
Commission of Texas, State of Texas, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality and Texas
Public Utility Commission in 12-1185, Edgecombe
21
Genco, LLC and Spruance Genco, LLC in 12-1193,
Kansas City Board of Public Utilities in 12-1186,
FirstEnergy Generation Corp. in 12-1192, Wolverine
Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. in 12-1195, Terry E.
Branstad, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Commonwealth of Virginia, John William Conway,
State of Alabama, State of Alaska, State of Arizona,
State of Florida, State of Idaho, State of Indiana,
State of Kansas, State of Michigan, State of
Mississippi, State of Missouri, State of Nebraska,
State of North Dakota, State of Ohio, State of
Oklahoma, State of South Carolina, State of Utah,
State of West Virginia and State of Wyoming in 12-
1196 [Service Date: 04/08/2013 ] Length of Brief:
7,224 words. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147,
12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-
1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183,
12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-
1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194,
12-1195, 12-1196] (Brownell, F.)
04/15/2013
PER ABOVE ORDER lodged appendix [1429356-2] is
filed [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172,
12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-
1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184,
12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-
1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195,
12-1196]
04/17/2013
CORRECTED PETITIONER BRIEF [1431365] filed
by Chesapeake Climate Action Network,
Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental
_ Integrity Project and Sierra Club in 12-1194 [Service
22
Date: 04/17/2013 } [12-1194, 1° 1100, 12-1101, 12-
1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1195, 12-1196] (Narayan, Sanjay)
05/03/2013
MODIFIED EVENT--NOTICE FILED [1434314]
filed by Railroad Commission of Texas, State of
Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
and Texas Public Utility Commission in 12-1185 to
participate. [Service Date: 05/03/2013 } [12-1185, 12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1186,
12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-
1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]--[Edited
05/07/2013 by LMF] (Walters, Mark)
05/03/2013
NOTICE FILED [1434328] filed by State of Alaska
advising of their support of petitioner [Service Date:
05/03/2013 } [12-1196] (Mulder, Steven)
12/10/2013
ORAL ARGUMENT HELD before Judges Garland,
Rogers and Kavanaugh. [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102,
12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175; 12-
1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182,
12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-
1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193,
12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
23
01/06/2014
TRANSCRIPT [1473710] of oral argument [12-1100,
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-
1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180,
12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-
1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191,
12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
02/27/2014
PER ABOVE ORDER lodged letter Rule 28)
authorities [1481306-2] is filed [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-
1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
04/15/2014
PER CURIAM JUDGMENT filed [1488343] that the
petitions for review be denied except that the
petition for review in No. 12-1174, Julander Energy
Co. v. EPA, be dismissed for lack of standing for the
reasons in the accompanying opinion . Before Judges:
Garland, Rogers and Kavanaugh. [12-1100, 12-1101,
12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-
1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181,
12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-
1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192,
12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
04/15/2014
OPINION filed [1488346] PER CURIAM OPINION
(Pages: 61), CONCURRING/DISSENTING
OPINION (Pages: 29) by Judge Kavanaugh [{12-1100,
12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-
1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180,
24
12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-
1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191,
12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
06/10/2014
MANDATE ISSUED to Environmental Protection
Agency [12-1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-
1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177,
12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-
1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189,
12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-
1195, 12-1196]
07/16/2014
LETTER filed [1503809] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in the case before it: A petition for
writ of certiorari was filed and placed on the docket
on 07/16/2014 as No. 14-46. [12-1196, 12-1100, 12-
1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174,
12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-
1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186,
12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-
1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195]
07/16/2014
LETTER filed [1503810] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in the case before it: A petition for
writ of certiorari was filed and placed on the docket
on 07/16/2014 as No. 14-47. [12-1147, 12-1100, 12-
1101, 12-1102, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
25
07/16/2014
LETTER filed [1503811] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in the case before it: A petition for
writ of certiorari was filed and placed on the docket
on 07/16/2014 as No. 14-49. [12-1101, 12-1100, 12-
1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173, 12-1174, 12-1175,
12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-1180, 12-1181, 12-
1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185, 12-1186, 12-1187,
12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-1191, 12-1192, 12-
1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
11/25/2014
LETTER filed [1525142] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in case No. 14-46: The petition for
writ of certiorari was granted on 11/25/2014. [12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185,
12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-
1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
11/25/2014
LETTER filed [1525143] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in case No. 14-47: The petition for
writ of certiorari was granted on 11/25/2014. [12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185,
12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-
1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196}
26
11/25/2014
LETTER filed [1525144] by the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States notifying this court of the
following activity in case No. 14-49: The petition for
writ of certiorari was granted on 11/25/2014. [12-
1100, 12-1101, 12-1102, 12-1147, 12-1172, 12-1173,
12-1174, 12-1175, 12-1176, 12-1177, 12-1178, 12-
1180, 12-1181, 12-1182, 12-1183, 12-1184, 12-1185,
12-1186, 12-1187, 12-1188, 12-1189, 12-1190, 12-
1191, 12-1192, 12-1193, 12-1194, 12-1195, 12-1196]
27
{U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress,
Vol. 1: Executive Summary, EPA-452/R-97-003
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054
December 1997}
[Page 1]
OVERVIEW
This Mercury Study is a Report to Congress
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. It fulfills the requirements of section
112(n)(1)(B) of the Clear Air Act, as amended in
1990. The Report provides an assessment of the
magnitude of U.S. mercury emissions by source, the
health and environmental implications of those
emissions, and the availability and cost of control
technologies. As the state-of-the-science for mercury
is continuously and rapidly evolving, this Report
should be viewed as a “snapshot” of our current
understanding of mercury. This Report does not
quantify the risk from mercury exposure because of
scientific uncertainty in a number of important
areas. The Report identifies areas where further
research is needed to provide a quantitative risk
assessment.
Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of
natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. The
amount of mercury mobilized and released into the
biosphere has increased since the beginning of the
industrial age. Most of the mercury in the
atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor, which
circulates in the atmosphere for up to a year, and
hence can be widely dispersed and transported
thousands of miles from likely sources of emission.
Most of the mercury in water, soil, sediments, or
28
plants and animals is in the form of inorganic
mercury salts and organic forms of mercury (e.g.,
methylmercury). The inorganic form of mercury,
when either bound to airborne particles or in a
gaseous form, is readily removed from the
atmosphere by precipitation and is also dry
deposited. Wet deposition is the primary mechanism
for transporting mercury from the atmosphere to
surface waters and land. Even after it deposits,
mercury commonly is emitted back to the
atmosphere either as a gas or associated with
particles, to be re-deposited elsewhere. As it cycles
between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury
undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical
transformations, many of which are not completely
understood.
Mercury accumulates most efficiently in the
aquatic food web. Predatory organisms at the top of
the food web generally have higher mercury
concentrations. Nearly all of the mercury that
accumulates in fish tissue is methylmercury.
Inorganic mercury, which is less efficiently absorbed
and more readily eliminated from the body than
methylmercury, does not tend to bioaccumulate.
Mercury Emissions and Deposition in the U.S.
The best point estimate of annual anthropogenic
U.S. emissions of mercury in 1994-1995 is 158 tons.
Roughly 87 percent of these emissions are from
combustion sources, including waste and fossil fuel
combustion. Contemporary anthropogenic emissions
are only one part of the mercury cycle. Releases from
human activities today are adding to the mercury
reservoirs that already exist in land, water, and air,
29
both naturally and as a result of previous human
activities. The flux of mercury from the atmosphere
to land or water at any one location is comprised of
contributions from the natural global cycle including
re-emissions from the oceans, regional sources, and
local sources. Local sources could also include direct
water discharges in addition to air emissions. Past
uses of mercury, such as fungicide application to
crops are also a component of the present mercury
burden in the environment. One estimate of the total
annual global input to the atmosphere from all
sources including natural, anthropogenic, and
oceanic emissions is 5,500 tons. Based on this, U.S.
sources are estimated to have contributed about 3
percent of the 5,500 tons in 1995.
a
A computer simulation of long-range transport of
mercury suggests that about one-third (~ 52 tons) of
U.S. anthropogenic emissions are deposited, through
wet and dry deposition, within the lower 48 States.
The remaining two-thirds (~ 107 tons) is transported
outside of U.S. borders where it diffuses into the
global reservoir. In addition, the computer
simulation suggests that another 35 tons of mercury
from the global reservoir is deposited for a total
deposition of roughly 87 tons. Although this type of
[Page O-2]
modeling is uncertain, the simulation suggests that
about three times as much mercury is being added to
the global reservoir from U.S. sources as is being
deposited from it. What is not uncertain is that
additional emissions to air will contribute to levels in
the global reservoir, and concomitant deposition to
water bodies.
30
The highest deposition rates from anthropogenic
and global contributions for mercury are predicted to
occur in the southern Great Lakes and Ohio River
valley, the Northeast and scattered areas in the
South, with the most elevated deposition in the
Miami and Tampa areas. The location of sources, the
chemical species of mercury emitted and the climate
and meterology are key factors in mercury
deposition. Humid locations have higher deposition
than arid locations.
Public Health Impacts
Epidemics of mercury poisoning following high-
dose exposures to methylmercury in Japan and Iraq
demonstrated that neurotoxicity is the health effect
of greatest concern when methylmercury exposure
occurs to the developing fetus. Dietary
methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into
the blood and distributed to all tissues including the
brain; it also readily passes through the placenta to
the fetus and fetal brain. The reference dose (RfD) is
an amount of methylmercury, which when ingested
daily over a lifetime is anticipated to be without
adverse health effects to humans, including sensitive
subpopulations. At the RfD or below, exposures are
expected to be safe. The risk following exposures
above the RfD is uncertain, but risk increases as
exposures to methylmercury increase.
Extrapolating from the high-dose exposures that
occurred in the Iraq incident, the U.S. EPA derived a
Rf£D for methylmercury of 0.1 pg/kg bw/day. While
the U.S. EPA has been advised by scientific
reviewers to employ this RfD for this analysis, new
data are emerging. Currently ongoing are two large
31
epidemiology studies in the Seychelle Islands and in
the Faroe Islands that were designed to evaluate
childhood development and neurotoxicity in relation
to fetal exposures to methylmercury in fish-
consuming populations. Because of various
limitations and uncertainties in all of the available
data, the U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies
intend to participate in an interagency review of the
human data on methylmercury, including the most
recent studies from the Seychelle Islands and the
Faroe Islands. The purposes of this review are to
refine the estimates of the level of exposure to
mercury associated with subtle neurological
endpoints and to further consensus between all of
the Federal agencies. After this process, the U.S.
EPA will determine if a change in the RfD for
methylmercury is warranted.
Fish consumption dominates the pathway for
human and wildlife exposure to methylmercury. This
study supports a plausible link between
anthropogenic releases of mercury from industrial
and combustion sources in the United States and
methylmercury in fish. However, these fish
methylmercury concentrations also result from
existing background concentrations of mercury
(which may consist of mercury from natural sources,
as well as mercury which has been re-emitted from
the oceans or soils) and deposition from the global
reservoir (which includes mercury emitted by other
countries). Given the current scientific
understanding of the environmental fate and
transport of this element, it is not possible to
quantify how much of the methylmercury in fish
consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by
32
U.S. emissions relative to other sources of mercury
(such as natural sources and re-emissions from the
global pool). As a result, it cannot be assumed that a
change in total mercury emissions will be linearly
related to any resulting change in methylmercury in
fish, nor over what time period these changes would
occur. This is an area of ongoing study.
Critical elements in estimating methylmercury
exposure and risk from fish consumption include the
species of fish consumed, the concentrations of
methylmercury in the fish, the quantity of fish
consumed, and how frequently fish is consumed. The
typical U.S. consumer eating fish from restaurants
[Page O-3]
and grocery stores is not in danger of consuming
harmful levels of methylmercury from fish and is not
advised to limit fish consumption. The levels of
methylmercury found in the most frequently
consumed commercial fish are low, especially
compared to levels that might be found in some non-
commercial fish from fresh water bodies that have
been affected by mercury pollution. While most U.S.
consumers need not be concerned about their
exposure to methylmercury, some exposures may be
of concern. Those who regularly and frequently
consume large amounts of fish -- either marine
species that typically have much higher levels of
methylmercury than the rest of seafood, or
freshwater fish that have been affected by mercury
pollution -- are more highly exposed. Because the
developing fetus may be the most sensitive to the
effects from methylmercury, women of child-bearing
age are regarded as the population of greatest
33
interest. In this Report, an analysis of dietary
surveys led the U.S. EPA to conclude that between 1
and 3 percent of women of child-bearing age (i.e.,
between the ages of 15 and 44) eat sufficient
amounts of fish to be at risk from methylmercury
exposure, depending on the methylmercury
concentrations in the fish. These consumers should
be aware of the Food and Drug Administration and
State fish advisories that suggest limiting the
consumption of contaminated fish. Advisories in the
United States have been issued by 39 states and
some Tribes, warning against consumption of certain
species of fish contaminated with methylmercury.
To the extent that concern is focused on high-end
fish and seafood consumers, research is needed on
the actual consumption patterns and estimated
methylmercury exposure of this subpopulation. In
addition, the findings from such research should be
validated by analysis of hair samples from a
representative sample of members of this
subpopulation.
Environmental Impacts
The pattern of mercury deposition nationwide
influences which eco-regions and eco-systems will be
more highly exposed. Piscivorous (fish-eating) birds
and mammals are more highly exposed to mercury
than any other known component of aquatic
ecosystems. Adverse effects of mercury on fish, birds
and mammals include death, reduced reproductive
success, impaired growth and development, and
behavioral abnormalities.
34
Mercury contamination has been documented in
the endangered Florida panther and the wood stork,
as well as populations of loons, eagles, and
furbearers such as mink and otter. These species are
at high risk of mercury exposure and effects because
they either are piscivores or eat piscivores.
Concentrations of mercury in the tissues of wildlife
species have been reported at levels associated with
adverse health effects in laboratory studies with the
same species. However, field data are insufficient to
conclude whether piscivorous wading birds or
mammals have suffered adverse effects due to
airborne mercury emissions. Modeling analyses
conducted for this Report suggest that it is probable
that individuals of some highly exposed wildlife
subpopulations are experiencing adverse effects due
to airborne mercury emissions.
Mercury Control Technologies
Mercury is widely used in industry because of its
diverse properties and serves as a process or product
ingredient in several industrial sectors, however,
industrial demand for mercury has declined by about
75 percent between 1988 and 1996, due largely to the
elimination of mercury additives in paints and
pesticides and the reduction of mercury in batteries.
Most of the emissions of mercury are produced when
waste or fuel containing mercury is burned. The U.S.
EPA has already finalized emission limits for
municipal waste combustors and medical waste
incinerators. As a result, by the year 2000, emissions
from these categories will decline at least 90 percent
from 1995 levels. In addition, mercury emission
35
limits have been proposed for hazardous waste
incinerators.
[Page O-4]
The largest remaining identified source of
mercury emissions are coal-fired utility boilers.
Although a number of mercury control technologies
are being evaluated for utility boilers, most are still
in the research stages, making it difficult to predict
final cost-effectiveness as well as the time required
to scale-up and commercialize the technologies.
Because the chemical species of mercury emitted
from boilers varies from plant to plant, there is no
single control technology that removes all forms of
mercury. There remains a wide variation in the end
costs of control measures for utilities and the
possible impact of such costs on utilities. Preliminary
estimates of national control costs for utility boilers
(based on pilot scale data) are in the billions of
dollars per year. Ongoing research, as well as
research needs related to mercury controls for
utilities, are described in the document.
Cost-effective opportunities to deal with mercury
during the product life-cycle, rather than just at the
point of disposal, need to be pursued. A balanced
strategy which integrates end-of-pipe control
technologies with material substitution and
separation, design-for-environment, and
fundamental process change approaches is needed.
In addition, international efforts to reduce mercury
emissions as well as greenhouse gases will play an
important role in reducing inputs to the global
reservoir of mercury.
36
[Page 1-1]
1. THE MERCURY STUDY REPORT TO
CONGRESS
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA)
established section 112(n)(1)(B) which requires the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) to study the impacts of mercury air
pollution. In particular, section 112(n)(1)(B) specifies
the following:
The Administrator shall conduct, and
transmit to the Congress not later than 4
years after the date of enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, a study
of mercury emissions from electric utility
steam generating units, municipal waste
combustion units, and other sources,
including area sources. Such study shall
consider the rate and mass of such emissions,
the health and environmental effects of such
emissions, technologies which are available
to control such emissions, and the costs of
such technologies.
The U.S. EPA designed the Mercury Study to
address many different (but linked) types of
information:
data on type, sources, and trends in
emissions;
evaluation of the atmospheric transport of
mercury to locations distant from emission
sources;
37
e assessment of potential impacts of mercury
emissions close to the source;
e identification of major pathways of exposure
to humans and non-human biota;
e identification of the types of human health
consequences of mercury exposure and the
amount of exposure likely to result in adverse
effects;
e evaluation of mercury exposure consequences
for ecosystems and for non-human species;
e identification of populations especially at risk
from mercury exposure due to _ innate
sensitivity or high exposure; and
e estimates of control technology efficiencies
and costs.
The Report used the above types of information
to assess the impact of emissions to air of mercury
from a variety of sources. This assessment included
judgments as to the potential hazard to humans and
wildlife of methylmercury exposure which (as is
described in succeeding sections) is largely through
the consumption of contaminated fish.
There was no attempt in this Report to do a
comparative risk/benefit analysis of fish as an
important source of protein and calories in the diet of
U.S. populations. Such an analysis would be beyond
the scope of the CAA mandate. As emphasized in
succeeding sections, the typicai U.S. consumer of fish
is not in danger of consuming harmful levels of
38
methylmercury and is not being advised to reduce
fish consumption.
[Page 1-2]
This Mercury Study Report to Congress fulfills
the mandate of section 112(n)(1)(B). The Report is in
eight volumes:
Volume |: Executive Summary
Volume Ii: An Inventory of Anthropogenic
Mercury Emissions in the United States
Volume HUI: Fate and Transport of Mercury in
the Environment
Volume IV: An Assessment of Exposure to
Mercury in the United States ~
Volume V: Health Effects of Mercury and
Mercury Compounds
Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment for
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the
United States
Volume VII: Characterization of Human
Health and Wildlife Risks from Mercury
Exposure in the United States
Volume VIII: An Evaluation of Mercury
Control Technologies and Costs.
The various analyses documented in this Report
were designed and conducted in accordance with
accepted guidelines and procedures. For example,
the human health risk assessment performed for this
39
Report follows published Guidelines for Risk
Assessment (including guidelines on Exposure
Assessment, Developmental Toxicity, Carcinogenicity
and Germ Cell Mutagenicity) and uses established
methodologies for quantitative assessment of genera)
systemic toxicity (e.g., in the calculation of reference
doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs)).
Moreover, the assessment of ecological effects,
presented in Volume VI, follows U.S. EPA’s
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Criteria
values for protection of piscivorous wildlife were
developed using the methodology developed for the
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative.
In 1994, the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, in Science and
Judgment in Risk Assessment, recommended several
areas in which U.S. EPA could improve its risk
assessment and risk characterization practices.
These recommendations are listed below along with
a description of how they were implemented in this
Report.
e Provide an understanding of the type and
magnitude of an adverse effect that a specific
chemical or emission could cause under
particular circumstances. The Report
characterizes both the type and magnitude of
health and ecological effects associated with
airborne emissions of mercury’ from
anthropogenic sources.
e Validate methods and models. All models
used for the Report were critiqued by
scientific experts and model predictions were
40
compared to measured mercury levels using
the most appropriate data available.
Describe the basis for default options. All
assumptions are described and justified based
on available data. Where appropriate,
exposure models were modified to improve
assumptions and to focus on areas of
prediction where use of model assumptions is
most justified.
Articulate and prioritize data needs. The
Report includes a section on Research Needs
in each volume.
Distinguish between variability and
uncertainty. The Report provides discussions
that attempt to make these distinctions for
the risk results.
[Page 1-3]
Perform formal uncertainty analyses.
Uncertainty analyses were formally
conducted for the dose-response and exposure
assessment steps of the study, and were
implicit in weight-of-evidence processes used
in the hazard identification step of the human
health risk assessment and the problem
formulation phase of the ecological risk
assessment. Uncertainty also was analyzed
quantitatively in other components of the
study, such as in the calculation of
bioaccumulation factors and the RfD for
methylmercury.
41
4. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Possible Control Strategies
Effective control of mercury emissions may
require a mix of strategies. The four major types of
control techniques reviewed include:
e Pollution prevention measures, including
product substitution, process modification and
materials separation;
e Coal cleaning;
e Alternative approaches; and
e Flue gas treatment technologies.
Table 4-1 summarizes mercury control techniques for
selected source categories. Pollution prevention may
be suitable for those processes or industries where a
mercury substitute is demonstrated and available
(e.g., mercury cell chlor-alkali plants). Another
pollution prevention measure is material separation,
which may be an appropriate approach for processes
where mercury-containing products are disposed of
by incineration, or where mercury can be reduced in
the fuel prior to the fuel being combusted (e.g.,
medical waste incineration). Conventional regulatory
strategies may be applicable when mercury is
emitted to the environment as a result of trace
contamination in fossil fuel or other essential
feedstock in an industrial process (e.g., cement
manufacturing). Other non-traditional approaches
such as emissions trading or other market-based
approaches may also prove feasible for mercury
42
control. In addition, emissions control is only one
possible means for reducing human exposure. For
example, the issuance of fish advisories (or increased
public education about advisories already in place) is
an alternative that would need to be explored when
selecting among strategies for reducing risks to
human health (though not to ecosystems).
Cost-effective opportunities to deal with mercury
during the product life-cycle, rather than just at the
point of disposal, need to be pursued. A balanced
strategy which integrates end-of-pipe control
technologies with material substitution and
separation, design-for-environment, and
fundamental process change approaches is needed.
In addition, international efforts to reduce mercury
emissions as well as greenhouse gases will play an
important role in reducing inputs to the global
reservoir of mercury.
As noted above, because of the current, limited
scientific understanding of the environmental fate
and transport of this pollutant, it is not possible to
quantify the contribution of U.S. anthropogenic
emissions relative to other sources of mercury,
including natural sources and re-emissions from the
global pool, on methylmercury levels in fish
consumed by the U.S. population. Mercury
methylation and subsequent uptake in fish is
complex and not well understood. As a result, it
cannot be assumed that a change in total mercury
emissions will be linearly related to any resulting
change in methylmercury in fish, nor over what time
period these changes would occur. This is an area of
ongoing study.
43
The analyses of control technologies and costs
presented in this Report are not intended to replace
a thorough regulatory analysis, as would be
performed for a rulemaking. The information
presented is
**«*
[nyssacons
“seg SABY B[WIdsoY 38 saIBiZONd COKE Rdes [RIA THY |
|
Weed GZ 04
§ Wes, SaduUBs AoUaDIYs UIBITONd ‘saqyrUNMIWOD [eZaAae
aq peyuoweldun ueeaq sey uoTyEsEdas Ai9338q pljeyesnoy SIMWIV
20 SO MA Ut peuing
OTVAS 9488 34) JO JUsWUOO ANJaUa| saj}suM Suturewyuos
FUIAOW AZ jNOYILA JOYSNGUIOD B Oy ynduUI AuNsuew aonpad -ANosew uonjBiedes
UBS (SMi9zi |BOLLWO9/a JOY}O PUB syeWSOWIAY) ‘S343 jo sjueuodwo > JO 3U83Ka ay} UO SIMIN uouwedss
JUISAIONY “#ALI973Bq ‘“3°9d) SuOTZeIyUeOUOD AMDZe™ | 194}0 apNoUT pyno a) 894 | Sarpuadap ‘ajquue, P oAN s[BLIOIER
4aty Sururwyuod s[eza;eu sUINJOA- MO] Jo “ornwiEdag
SSB Winddeui yo Sutsodsrp 10 SuTpIAdeu Jo #802
Jurptoaw Aq iNeed ose A[quumsaud s8utass euouppy
sulcus A3iauea uv ul §}7Msau UOISIeAUOO jueyd
‘ssaooid [Jeo Ainosewl ey} UBY) spuBmap ALOU V8] a ound
4 SBYy sse001d []a0 aUBIQMIaT ay) esne.
mo] BY tt eaq oy a TeNye sory
Saesa0oid 3a.j-Anouaw A[Wastp auoy se, %O00L] [#9 Aunouzaqy
pasn syuUid TeA]w-sO/Yo 43 Jo J[BY-sUO ynogE ‘PEST Uy
AQITIqIs¥aj NMOUODa pu®
[BotuyIa7 Jurpnjout ‘seouByswNs9 syWeds uo spuedap sionposd sayjo pus
SBade ZOuIO oY LORNIASGns Jonposd Jo edu ay) — gyyFy yuadSaZONY
paaaryoe Sutaq st 3uayuoo Aunosew Pa, |
490] ING ‘AoUelDYya AB4aUa ay) Jo asnBIeq pesBesoUl —— aie
ae oe shina JO squauodwoo jo yuarxa aya uo
$9149338q ploqesnoy | ieyj0 apnjou prnod 804 | Suipuadap ‘ajqvuB, | SLM ‘SOMA
ur Amaze jo asn 843 paonpas sey uoNNysgns ynporg
peTjosquo) penondil | douatgyy waoway | ody, aaanog es
swusmwo,) sawnijeg sy | wpayY-ssory | Amavey persansy | ajquonddy | jonuoy Kanasoy
SadX] 8INOg paya[ag Joy Sanbjuqoa] [o1U0 > Aaundieyy jo Arsuuing
I-P 91981
ad
9GIt} FSYR WBS) 943 Ut UONBLado UT syed Ijux]B-s0[y9
as
. : seses poe ‘70S uotjdsospe
0% eu 78 a8 Ul Glam FUleIsAS uogaB. u
e473 JOR peq GOQsBS “pH! UL ‘sTejaw AaBay woqs¥o
anbraysay | 48uj0 ‘spunodweoo sued Poearoe
StY2 GO I/QUITBAB st UOBUIOFUT 94331] A194 ouesi0 [eNpIsey 894 06 Heyl e-sOUY peywed]
sjueid Suiqqgnss
aNbUyI9} SY) UO 3]/QBITBAB st VorVEMsOsUT 923] Aza aUuoN 804 %oN6 YBATY-40[YD | oursq payoideg
SrauasUoo UBINj
PUB UTXOIP pay BULOTYD-Jae8a] ‘2TKOY a10W WO;
ABW [B8odstp 03 2oUd 13,8M918EM Jo JUIUIZBAI) SasINboy
suBany
ssaqgqnis
yom aaBy A[WUSLIN $2aT10g Paslj-[ROO Jo yUaQuad G7 oe
: ‘20338 Am3Jom [Peyuemaya
‘snow aynmnonsed 40j peyuit, ‘seeds
Ul SLAIN pue edoung Ul sO; 2 pesn useq aary Aaya ‘sTwjew aqnyjos -za48Mm §49]10q
yanoyyye "g'A) 2yI UT SOM O} pardds waag r0u orey
‘sase3 ploy 834
40) %06< q URE
‘SLAIN “SOMA | Surqqnics 12m
peq a4) Ul sez 10} [BIVUaQOd ayy puB UOgsBO jUAads jo
[Bsodsrp 94} Uptm poywisossy Syoye aaQusoU [wUIO,
peidde uaeq you sey yng ‘suajjaws Jo
SLAW 88 ons ‘sa07NOs 18430 04 alqie¥ay A;TeoruYyse |,
adoung Ul suo; BseULUl aaseM
SNOPIVTBY dayj WO paTTeisuT aq of paaueld pus ‘AuBdiisr)
ul sjuBid semod a[828-|[Ny aay OF petjdde sUaLIN)
sases plow ‘TOS
‘s[Bjew Aavey
Jayio ‘spunod uo
siatiog
jeuysnput
‘siaqiog
Aan «paq
atueduo penpisey 89% 4066 ‘SOMNN | 4831g woqaeD
yes ouda] anbruqoey
pe[josjuo) SIpeW =| Aouayoyg [eaouiay | addy ao1nos Jos300)
sjueuNmO,) sUBIN[JOYg 1ag10 #801) | Aanosey_ powwurEg, alquonddy Ainas9q
sadA], a04N0g paidal[ag 10j sanbuyoay jOuIGOD Aind41ay jo Areurumng
(panurjuoo) {-p a1qey
cr
{e-p adeq]
“O10 MON|S FUCISETMe YONS sewAIDT! Ng 2416 aUO jw AmaueW jo SUOTSBTUIe FUIOGITS BSWAiIe, , [BIQUEZOd ey) 01 Jejai FROWdUTI
BTped seo ‘YOQNIQSQns yNpoid jo asw oy) U] Ajaaredsai ‘veysem pmby pu¥ prow Suwurwyuco-4mssew jo [weodsrp pu¥ uoNReual ayy
Ul y[Neel {Ng sUOWSETWE ITB Way Lins) BAOUIe! SJeqgTLOe Jem PUB speq Jay, UOGIWO ‘a[dureKe Joy -12;¥M soNjINS pus ‘1e}8m puNOL ‘Tos
$8 YoNs “ITE TUG} JeqIO Vipew o7 AinaieW! severed puw JayeUET OF [eTVUMOd aq) Oo sayar S1o¥dUN vIPaMT-seasd ‘a1qH) sTYy Jo oBOdnd 943 Joy y
SLAIN 40 6M WON 2 | |
20U 3ng “seTtog 4QTTGN Gay pesoderp Buumbai
42430W ay8(NoQ7ed jo yUNOUTS Uc peda
JUBYTUSs eavy p[noo UoqiWO jo UONTPPY | |
pesn uoquwo jo adAy paw sad any ui
AIMD1aW yo sewede pu’ WOR BBQUBITOD '10738/]00
JoqjeM aemonsed jo eddy ‘peyelur uoques |
PeIBaro” jo junowe ‘aingesedma; sud eny
@pnout eouwuLsopred soucn yu yyy e108 y anenie |
Aqurwepeoun aye [oa-rwae
Jo SeiBep YBTy 8 aABYy Yons SY PUY KIWP e[woe | seo Aj wJUBOd Yonsei
‘world Uo peseq are KiaIoq AyTTIN 30} poyrode | ‘wuBITy pus suatiog AQTIN woqs¥o
seroUaDUge TorIe(M UOQIBD peywAZY | sULLOTP peywuLLO[Y) 00}, %+06°09 ‘SLM “OMAN poreaney
Faery ayy eq
Mod] peyime Suieq wn tueles jo AyrITQuBsod
oq) GO pepeed Ton eUuLiO;UI BOW
On SHY POTYPas] oq wena
AmnacaG Puv AINUajes Burutwy Woo 194 ;y yUadg
d od
SLAW 03 #1quoridde djjeumod io
‘ued Jamod UVULIOL) ¥ 78 UONRTTEISUT CMOTy ‘
‘Uspemg U1 AlojwUIeD 8 PUY OMIN 8 eB ( on
(]@% #8 aiaq[amIe 38 sUOTBIT|dd¥ Umouy nog a a
1U@jU00 INP #e3 ony puv eunNguiedmay pear Arearud
888 ang ‘suoN¥QUsOUCO Amazed yajuT soved plos ‘y0m ‘azay[ams a
epNPUT aouBULOjJed souenyU yy) B00 4 ene woA %06 seddoo Arwunig wnruereg
ou0pwa
Pe[oa3005 |vaomey are
Haw Nog _iroeduy SAND adh] aornog jondo)
aeumMM0’) 20TH *IPeW F802) peseuey e[quoyiddy AanaseK
GedAy soan0g SSO SS Toy SOMBIE TO TTS yo S
(penurjuos) [-5 aquy
oF
47
[Page 4-5]
intended to present the range of available options
and provide a relative sense of the extent of mercury
reductions achievable and the general magnitude of
the cost of such reductions.
Pollution Prevention Measures
One possible means of achieving reductions in
mercury emissions is through the use of pollution
prevention or source reduction. Such approaches to
achieving reductions involve changes in processes or
inputs to reduce or eliminate emissions of mercury
from a particular product or process. They could
include, for example, the replacement of mercury
with an appropriate substitute or the use of
lowmercury constituents.
In considering opportunities for pollution
prevention or source reduction it is important to
consider both the potential reductions achievable and
the costs of these options. Any consideration of the
potential reductions, should examine whether (and
the extent to which) emission reductions from the
particular sources in question will yield reductions in
risk to public health and the environment. It is also
essential to understand the costs associated with
implementing a _ pollution prevention measure,
including any changes in the quality of the end
product.
Removing mercury-containing products such as
batteries, fluorescent hghts and thermostats from
the waste stream can reduce the mercury input to
waste combustors without lowering the energy
content of the waste stream. The mercury removal
48
efficiency would vary, however, depending on the
extent of the separation. Many materials in wastes
contain mercury. Materials that comprise a large
portion of the waste stream, such as paper, plastic,
dirt and grit and yard waste, contain very low
concentrations of mercury. Therefore, obtaining
appreciable mercury reduction from separation of
these types of materials would require separating a
large fraction of the total waste stream. Separating
these materials would counter the intended purpose
of the combustion process, which is to disinfect and
reduce the volume of waste materials.
Other materials contain higher concentrations of
mercury, but make up only a very small portion (less
than 1 percent )of the total waste stream. These
materials include mercuric oxide batteries,
fluorescent lights, thermostats and other electrical
items. Separation of such materials can reduce
mercury input to a combustor without removing any
of the energy content of the waste stream. To
evaluate a materials separation program, the
feasibility and costs of separating a particular
material should be compared with the mercury
emission reduction achieved. Furthermore, the
current and future mercury reduction achieved by
separating a certain material should be considered
since the mercury content of some items such as
household __ batteries has already declined
considerably.
Coal Cleaning
Coal cleaning is another option for removing
mercury from the fuel prior to combustion. In some
states, certain kinds of coal are commonly cleaned to
49
increase its quality and heating’ value.
Approximately 77 percent of the eastern and
midwestern bituminous coal shipments are cleaned
in order to meet customer specifications for heating
value, ash content and sulfur content. Any reduction
in mercury content achieved by coal cleaning results
in a direct decrease in mercury emissions from the
boiler. The mercury removed by cleaning processes is
transferred to coal-cleaning wastes, which are
commonly in the form of slurries. No data are
available to assess the emissions of mercury from
coalcleaning slurries.
Volume II of this Report (An Inventory of
Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United
States) presents available data on the mercury
concentrations in raw coal, cleaned coal and the
percent reduction achieved by cleaning. These data,
which cover a number of different coal seams in four
states (Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and
Alabama), indicate that mercury reductions range
from 0 to 64
[Page 4-6}
percent, with an overall average reduction of 21
percent. This variation may be explained by several
factors, including different cleaning techniques,
different mercury concentrations in the raw coal and
different mercury analytical techniques. It is
expected that significantly higher mercury
reductions can be achieved with the application of
emerging coal preparation processes. For example, in
one benchscale study, five types of raw coal were
washed by conventional cleaning methods followed
by column froth floatation or selective agglomeration.
50
Conventional cleaning and column froth flotation
reduced mercury concentrations from the raw coals
by 40 to greater than 57 percent, with an average of
55 percent. Conventional cleaning and selective
agglomeration reduced mercury concentrations from
the raw coals by greater than 63 percent to 82
percent, with an average of 68 percent. In a second
benchscale study in which three types of coals were
cleaned with a heavy-media-cyclone (a conventional
cleaning method) followed by a water-only-cyclone
and a column froth flotation system, mercury
concentrations in the raw coal were reduced by as
much as 63 to 65 percent. Bench-scale testing is also
being carried out by DOE to investigate the use of
naturally occurring microbes to reduce mercury (and
other trace elements) from coal.
Alternative Approaches
There are a variety of flexible approaches for
reducing the emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
These include incentive- or market-based systems,
“co-control,” and energy conservation and renewable
energy initiatives.
Incentive-based systems are tools that provide
industry with more flexibility than traditional
regulatory programs. In such a _ system, the
regulatory agency generally sets a ceiling on
allowable emissions (a cap) for each source along
with clear and certain penalties for missing the
target, but regulated entities have complete choice in
how these targets will be met. The cost to industry is
determined by the market and by the innovation
used in meeting the cap. Emissions cap programs
allow for increased incentives because sources that
51
reduce emissions below their cap can sell the surplus
reduction to sources that cannot achieve their cap.
Trading is promising where sources have different
compliance costs, or where local environmental
impacts are minimal. Sources that reduce emissions
before they are required to do so can “bank” the
excess reductions and save them for later. Examples
of existing market-based programs include the SO2
allowance trading and NO, averaging programs
implemented under Title [V of the CAA Amendments
to reduce acid deposition; the Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market Program and Rules developed in
California to reduce emissions of NO,, SOx, and
reactive organic compounds; and U.S. EPA’s Lead
Trading Program designed to reduce the emissions of
lead from gasoline in the mid-1980’s.
Incentive-based systems to reduce mercury
emissions, either through regulation or voluntary
means, may be attractive to utilities and other
facilities for several reasons: to reduce mercury
emissions at a lower per unit cost, to insure against
future regulation, to reduce the compliance costs of
regulation, to bank credits tov’ard future regulatory
requirements, to build experience with technology
and to demonstrate environmental leadership. Also,
incentive-based programs could provide financing for
the control of mercury among different industries
(and potentially other countries) and may be a viable
option for utilities and other sources where cost-
effective technologies have yet to be identified.
Co-controi refers to the control of mercury by
control devices or other management measures that
were designed or prescribed to limit the emissions of
}
52
pollutants other than mercury. Co-control can also be
achieved through the implementation of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone
and particulate matter (PM). In support of the
revised ozone and PM NAAQS, the U.S. EPA
conducted numerous detailed analyses to predict
what control approaches industry might use to
achieve the new standards. Fuel switching, in which
one fuel is switched to another (e.g., high-sulfur coal
to lowsulfur coal, or coal to natural gas) to achieve
emissions reductions, is also an alternative to direct
control.
[Page 4-7]
U.S. EPA estimates that implementation of the
New Fine Particle Standard for ambient air quality
through a regional control strategy that significantly
reduces SOx below the CAA’s Title [IV requirements
can indirectly lower forecasted mercury emissions in
2010 by about 11 tons from electric power generation
by units burning fossil fuels. This reduction occurs
from both the additions of flue gas desulfurization
units (scrubbers) at coal-fired boilers to lower SOx
emissions and through greater reliance by the power
industry on producing electricity from natural gas as
another way to reduce SOx. In the Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the new NAAQS, U.S. EPA
estimated that in 2010 a regional SOx reduction
stracegy for the electric power industry to lower fine
particle formation will lead to the installation of
scrubbers on additional 60 GWs of coal-fired capacity
(increasing forecasted scrubber capacity under Title
IV by about two-thirds). U.S. EPA assumes that
scrubbers remove close to 30 percent of the mercury
contained in coal flue gas. U.S. EPA also estimated
53
that electricity produced from natural gas would
increase by 16 percent above baseline levels. Natural
gas combustion produces negligible levels of mercury
emissions.
Title IV of the CAA also encourages energy
conservation measures and use of renewable energy
as a long-term strategy for reducing air pollution and
other adverse effects of energy production and use.
Renewable energy is defined as energy that is
derived from biomass, solar, geothermal or wind.
Flue Gas Treatment Technologies
Most metals have sufficiently low vapor
pressures at typical air pollution control device
operating temperatures that condensation onto
particulate matter is possible. Mercury, on the other
hand, has a high vapor pressure at typical control
device operating temperatures, and collection by
particulate matter control] devices is highly variable.
In Volume VIII of this Report (An Evaluation of
Mercury Control Technologies and Costs), add-on
controls to reduce mercury emissions are described
in detail including information on commercial status,
performance, applicability to the specified mercury
emission sources, and secondary impacts and
benefits. The controls described are:
e Carbon filter beds;
e Wet scrubbing for waste combustors and
utility boilers;
e Depleted brine scrubbing;
04
e Treated activated carbon adsorption;
e Selenium filters; and
e Activated carbon injection.
The most important conclusions from the
assessment of flue gas treatment technologies
include:
Factors that enhance mercury control are low
temperature in the control device system (less
than 150 °Celsius [C} [300 to 400 °Fahrenheit
(F)]), the presence of an effective mercury
sorbent and a method to collect the sorbent. In
general, high levels of carbon in the fly ash
enhance mercury sorption onto particulate matter
which is subsequently removed by the particulate
matter control device. Additionally, the presence
of hydrogen chloride (HCl) in the flue gas stream
can result in the formation of mercuric chloride
(HgClz), which is readily adsorbed onto carbon-
containing particulate matter, or can be
efficiently scrubbed by a wet FGD system.
Conversely, sulfur dioxide (SOz) in flue gas can
act as a reducing agent to convert oxidized
mercury to elemental mercury, which is more
difficult to collect.
Conversion of mercury cell chlor-alkali plants to a
mercury-free process is technically feasible and
has been previously demonstrated.
[Page 4-8]
Control technologies designed for control of
pollutants other than mercury (e.g., acid gases
55
and particulate matter) vary in their mercury-
removal capability, but in general achieve
reductions no greater than 50 percent (except for
high removal efficiencies for HgCle by wet
scrubbers).
Selenium filters are a demonstrated technology in
Sweden for control of mercury emissions from
lead smelters. Carbon filter beds have been used
successfully in Germany for mercury control on
utility boilers and MWC’s. These technologies
have not been demonstrated in the U-S. for any of
these source types.
Injection of activated carbon into the flue gas of
MWC’s and MWIs can achieve mercury
reductions of at least 85 percent. The addition of
activated carbon to the flue gas of these source
types would not have a significant impact on the
amount of particulate matter requiring disposal.
No full-scale demonstrations of activated carbon
injection for utility boilers have been conducted in
the U.S. Based on limited pilot-scale testing,
activated carbon injection provides variable
control of mercury for utility boilers (e.g., the
same technology might capture 20 percent of the
mercury at one plant and 80 percent at another).
The most important factors affecting mercury
control on utility boilers include the flue gas
volume, flue gas temperature and chloride
content, the mercury concentration and chemical
form of mercury being emitted.
The chemical species of mercury emitted from
utility boilers vary significantly from one plant to
56
another. Removal effectiveness depends on the
species of mercury present. To date, no single
control technology has been identified that
removes all forms of mercury.
e The addition of activated carbon to utility flue gas
for mercury control would significantly increase
the amount of particulate matter requiring
disposal.
Cost of Controls
The overall approach for assessing the cost of
“end-of-pipe” flue gas treatment technologies was to
select a subset of source categories on the basis of
either their source category emissions in the
aggregate or their potential to be significant point
sources of emissions. Consideration was also given to
whether a particular source category was a feasible
candidate for application of a control
technologybased standard under section 112 of the
CAA. The cost analyses cover four source categories:
municipal waste combustors (MWC), medical waste
incinerators (MWI]), chlor-alkali plants, and utility
boilers.
In addition to determining the cost effectiveness
of applying mercury control technology, a financial
analysis was performed to evaluate the affordability
of mercury control (in terms of potential price
increases or impacts on financial impact) for the
selected source categories.
‘Wanted O§ 2AouIss OF POUINsY arW GoTy A s19qqesIE Jom JO VOHSTWISU [BUOIIIPPS puY SuTyriime /OTy Pos saInsey |
‘SOVVN Wad PUP atozo ayy wiouy BoHoNped Uo}
TT @Q J0j SUNUNODW ‘sU04 Tp Jo JUedQIEd Og SI UOYINPaI SUN J ¢ ET] “VORIEMT WOgIw peyBANoV amnjguedue; YSty UO pes¥g PUNO seddn
Qr8 680 [OQUOT) ‘WON wOTddY sef0g AT[GN efwow- "TY B 203 PeyE.QSUCWEp Ueeq jou s¥y BOTIefUT HOGTIED peyBANsy “yuesied (j6 4q BeTIOG
AQITN pary-[Boo Woy sTOISSTWA AMIE! [ANUS 04 UOGTHO PaPRATWR Jo s[UNOWS JUeDYNS sWeYyeu FUOLINpes PeUONWE [yQUE}Od FY] ,
‘SLAW 40) souTjepmd worssture aqy Aq permbes sv SBF On|)
tnt Sp SRS ee enn omnes ee ae “@UOTB [OTTOS AMIUeW 0} PePNGLASB oq JOU P[NOYs 101,409 JO yO) p
“GSuys JaAMNTP JP Sony PHe eae
@4} eal Fon(Ba OY ‘BFUWI BSB PeyUVeeId GIy SANTBA SeIUaAtDOe-1809 BzEU A, >
‘WWATBUB gy UI pawn syUBid [epOM ety SY sys00 auTEE ay} IMUT Pom soTITTID; [Tw Fase pu AjuO seyBUTNSe OB #7800 (BUOLEU [BUA 5
“perst] UoRoNpal ayy aaaiyow plod AyiToW; Augae SurumMesy suoonpad peywuUTsT y
“peseg are ey#0O
(BNUUY [BUCK EU (YQUsejod puY FUON NPA: [eUOTEU fETyTe}Od Try UO saNdruToIe; Buy are senbruyoe] [aJUCO AIMIIeW peUT|ZepUn ey] “ALON
uoryg o°98~
699 009"e~ [Bol
UONGIOSPE TWOGTH peyBaQoe perse. | [1 Amovew
(wo NPSL %0O I) Suigqrse ewig poredacy ay Suten sued
069'r$ UorTTTU gos soy [2 ey 9? A! TEATS 4014)
#3800 [QMUCO AinoueW | oQuOO Amoew
fwywemesut oN = — | PHyuaTIeIDUT ON yo703 11 SOVYN Wa PUY SUSz "TONM-O)
Speq 4939 ToqrB)
UOTESOTUT WOYIWT PRBATIIY (S1afiog
(SuOIZINPas % 08) ‘
4 P SuTuva]) [woo psouBapy! ¥0'T) ene
000'0L-00L'L9$ Ing gf suo} LE Suryoitms ang, = 9B 9ZF Aan peay-[vo)
soutjeping
euotsstTwe euy worpeful UOgsBD mm
uo peseq ‘000% Aq
poor (wornpes %96) si0ywsauIout
p000 b$-000'78 | QBT-098 su0} GI L'Ool oor 'Z~ 168.48 [BOTpPey
7 t
| sautjepms soqqn.2oe yom SuTyeTo,
UoTeeTIZe [BUY Speq 4039
© peseq ‘0007
Ag (UoTIN par %OG) onngsqns jon sr0j,enquT0S
OL8-11z$ MOTTE Lb-P' TIS U0} 9% Herudes [vLIa} L'6I 621 oye [edioTUN
As0VU@AT]
o(peaouiad queeg Tenauy vores y
AINIIOW JO QL/g) [wuoTIeN gsuoKonpey nae sououy Aroseies
SBIUGATIIE IY -300) fenceag =| (BUOREN [eUUeO" sendruyel [AnUOD Ama SNP% | JOsrequMY | eamMog Amare
#0
OAR) BINOG pI}de[og 10; #80) pUw sUoRONpeY UOjssFUNY AINSI W [wpUaI0"
ZF 1981 [6-> 284)
Lg
58
Table 4-2 presents the four source categories for
which a control technology and cost analysis was
performed. The selection of a particular type of
control for the cost analysis should not be construed
to mean that the U.S. EPA has selected, or has
preference for, this technology for a given source
category. The table presents the number of facilities
in each category and the percent contribution of each
to the national inventory. Potential national mercury
reductions, potential national control costs and cost-
effectiveness estimates are also presented. These
estimates are based on the assumption that all
plants within a source category will achieve the same
reductions and incur the same costs as the model
plants used in the analysis. Because this assumption
would not be applicable in all circumstances, the
estimates of potential reductions and costs should be
used only for relative comparisons among the source
categories to give an initial indication as to where
mercury controls could provide the most emission
reduction for the least cost.
The cost of mercury control incurred by any
specific facility may be underestimated by the cost
analysis presented in this Report because of
variability inherent in the assumptions that were
made in the analyses. These assumptions include the
efficiency of the various control techniques for
reducing mercury, the amount of mercury in the flue
gas stream and other site-specific factors such as
down-time and labor costs. In addition, costs for
monitoring and recordkeeping were not included in
the cost analyses. These requirements would be
specific to a regulatory action. On the other hand,
the costs represent retrofit application of controls.
39
Installation of controls at new facilities can be
significantly less expensive than retrofitting an
existing facility.
The estimates of cost for mercury reductions also
do not illustrate two important considerations. One
is that, as presented, all of the cost of control could
mistakenly be attributed to mercury removal. As
described previously in this Report, many of these
controls achieve reductions of other pollutants as
well (e.g., acid gases, dioxin, other metals). In some
cases (e.g., the emission guidelines for MWI), the
choice of control technology or control strategy is
aimed at reducing pollutants other than mercury. In
these cases, there is a co-control benefit of mercury
reduction. The benefits of reducing other pollutants
should be considered when interpreting the mercury
control costs. Second, the technologies available for
mercury control represent’ relatively new
applications of these technologies. Thus, in the
future, it is likely that as new or emerging
technologies develop, the cost-effectiveness of control
will improve. Air pollution control and prevention
techniques are continuously under development and
improvement. There is a fairly rapid pace of
innovation in the air pollution control sector. The
demand for cleaner products and cleaner processes
that lower overall costs, combined with the necessity
for improved air and water quality, create strong
incentives for technological innovation and a growing
market for such innovations. As the demand for more
innovative, cost-effective and cost-saving
technologies increase, new technologies will move
from the research and development or pilot program
phase to commercial availability.
60
While existing technology will play a key role in
reducing mercury from some sources, emerging
technology may be more appropriate for others.
Innovations in environmental policies may also play
a key role in developing a national management
strategy for mercury. These innovations could
include multi-media approaches, greater emphasis
on pollution prevention, regional control strategies
and optimization of co-control opportunities.
fe eo
61
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-98-004a
February 1998
Air
EPA
Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant
Emissions from Electric Utility Steam
Generating Units — Final Report to
Congress
Volume 1.
[Page ES-1]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE
In section 112(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (the Act), Congress directs the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to:
“.. perform a study of the hazards to public
health reasonably anticipated to occur as a
result of emissions by electric utility steam
generating units of .. fhazardous air
62
pollutants] ... after imposition of the
requirements of this Act.”
Section 112(a)(8) of the Act defines an “electric utility
steam-generating unit” as “any fossil-fuel—fired
combustion unit of more than 25 megawatts electric
(MWe) that serves a generator that produces
electricity for sale.” A unit that cogenerates steam
and electricity and supplies more than one-third of
its potential electric output capacity and more than
25 MWe output to any utility power distribution
system for sale is also considered an electric utility
steam-generating unit (i.e., utility unit).
Section 112(n)(1)(A) also requires that:
e The EPA develop and describe alternative
control strategies for hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) that may warrant
regulation under section 112; and
e The EPA proceed with rulemaking
activities under section 112 to control
HAP emissions from utilities if EPA finds
such regulation is appropriate and
necessary after considering the results of
the study.
ES.2 REGULATORY DETERMINATION
This report does not contain a determination as
to whether or not regulations to control HAP
emissions from utility units are appropriate and
necessary. The Agency has deferred the regulatory
determination until a later date.
63
ES.3 OVERVIEW APPROACH TO COMPLETING
THE STUDY
The study included numerous separate and
interrelated analyses. First, HAP emissions test data
were gathered from 52 utility units (i.e., boilers),
including a range of coal-. oil-, and natural gas-fired
utility units. Second, the emissions test data along
with facility specific information (e.g., boiler type,
control device, fuel usage) were used to estimate
HAP emissions from all 684 utility plants in the
United States (U.S.). Third, a screening level
hazard/risk assessment was completed to prioritize
the HAPs for further analyses. Fourth, various
priority HAPs were analyzed for inhalation and
[Page ES-2]
multipathway exposures and risks and other
potential impacts. In addition, potential control
strategies were analyzed for the priority HAPs. The
overall summary of the study is presented in Figure
ES-1.
This report presents the findings of the study.
The primary components of this report are: (1) a
description of the industry; (2) an analysis of
emissions data; (3) an assessment of hazards and
risks due to inhalation exposures to 67 HAPs; (4)
assessments of risks due to multipathway
(inhalation plus non-inhalation) exposures to four
HAPs (radionuclides, mercury, arsenic, and dioxins);
and (5) a discussion of alternative control strategies.
The study was based primarily on two scenarios:
(1) 1990 base year emissions; and (2) 2010 emissions.
In addition, emissions for 1994 were estimated using
64
the most recent data. The 1990 scenario was chosen
since that was the year the Amendments to the Act
were passed and was the latest year for which utility
operational data were available at the time the study
was initiated. The 2010 scenario was selected to
meet the section 112(n)(1)(A) mandate to evaluate
hazards “after imposition of the requirements of the
Act.” Primarily, this meant assessing the hazards
after the acid rain program is in place. The 2010
scenario also included estimated changes in HAP
emissions resulting from projected trends in fuel
choices and projected increases in electric power
demands. However, the effects of other on-going or
potential activities that were not factored into the
2010 projections (e.g., industry restructuring, new
ozone and particulate matter [PM] standards, global
climate change programs) may result in the 2010
projections being either underestimated or
overestimated.
ES.4 EMISSIONS DATA ANALYSIS
A total of 684 utility plants (i.e., utilities) were
identified as meeting the criteria for the study in
1990 in the U.S. These utilities are fueled primarily
by coal (59 percent of total units), oil (12 percent), or
natural gas (29 percent). Many plants have two or
more units and several plants burn more than one
type of fuel (e.g., contain bovh coal- and oil-fired
units). In 1990, there were 426 plants that burned
coal as one of their fuels, 137 plants that burned oil,
and 267 plants that burned natural gas.
Emission estimates for the years 1990, 1994, and
2010 were based on emissions test data from 52 units
obtained from extensive emission tests by the
65
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, the
Department of Energy (DOE), the Northern States
Power Company, and the EPA. The testing program
was designed to test a wide range of facility types
with a variety of control scenarios; therefore, the
data are considered generally representative of the
industry. However, there are uncertainties in the
data because of the small sample sizes for specific
boiler types and control scenarios.
teen I cupeingon
OBIE OrSQy Qpeo, GuneN TAeg
(POO) FOZ AD win ® UAOUCD O PBy3 - PAL ORC, at at
OUED Peppa, 0 A is NOOK AED OMEIPE: 4 100 C-
ena) oy ye Om | AsEry LUBLRUOG Sam UR me
wuneey - euaxcG ey recy - ney qneny poem
t + *
v
—m * A
er Ry IW wo, |
NU vagsadec
put LogEgquBOUO> (yO 9 woo) AveeemS UO 'PO “fy IN) Sug a
Jy DLS 3 0 souepmL | OUD Fv WOH SYN 7 DeR@DOR - oumeeamal
; « GO-FE wl LIV) BRON BL Obey, - acta wl
8d fv ©8008 'S°9 0) Uy 09 Pucteg - Ev Why CIV £8 PRED YY -
mux fy SW tywH, (C6 d¥D) 990R BOC) eu ar bu07 end |900> yey ec)
muedgiy
PVR ay ) 90m PLC Bey ,
WeUssessy ySYW/eNsodxy AemyedniNWw
JUCWSSOSSY NSW UNSOdX yg UO{}B/BYU
r
=
SHIH - 4
i POYNUEP! SdH FL-
kromn SdVH SZALOd 03
seKeuy seBenang weussessy Bujueaios
JOQUOD SAQRWeyy
t
sisAjeuy 8j8Q Sucjss;Ww5
|
‘SA Yl SUCld FBG 40, SBJBUISS SUO/SS/WS -
POWIUSP! SdH 19 -
SUUP) ZS WO, BYE }Se| -
sesfjeuy Apnyg s2jxo4 sry AMIRA JO GUNJOMUYS []e18AQ *|-S¥ eunBi4
99
=
SHOdU) /BVUBIOY 40
MOVBY GUTRUCL) -
3H Pus DH
[§-Sq 338g)
67
[Page ES-4]
These test data provided the basis for estimating
average annual emissions for each of the 684 plants.
A total of 67 of the 188 HAPs listed in section 112 of
the Act were identified in the emissions testing
program as potentially being emitted by utilities.
Tables ES-1 and ES-2 present estimated emissions
for, respectively, a subset of priority HAPs for 1990,
1994, and 2010, and for a set of characteristic boilers
for 1994.
Although the EPA used average annual
emissions estimates in assessing long-term
exposures to individual HAPs on a national basis,
emissions test data were not available for each
utility in the U.S. Therefore, estimates for individual
plants are particularly uncertain. Based on an
uncertainty analysis, the average annual emissions
estimates are expected to be roughly within a factor
of plus or minus three of actual annual emissions.
However, even this uncertainty analysis had
limitations. For example, the uncertainty analysis
did not include data on potential upsets or unusual
operating conditions; therefore, the range of
uncertainty could be greater.
ES.5 GENERAL APPROACH TO EXPOSURE AND
RISK ASSESSMENT
Most of the risk assessment focused on
inhalation exposure. All 67 HAPs were assessed for
inhalation exposures, at least at a screening level.
For many of the 67 HAPs, inhalation exposure is
believed to be the dominant exposure pathway.
However, for HAPs that are persistent and/or
bioaccumulate, and are toxic by ingestion (or are
68
radioactive), the non-inhalation exposure pathways
could be more important. Based on a screening and
prioritization assessment, which is described below,
the EPA identified four high priority HAPs
(radionuclides, mercury, arsenic, dioxins) to assess
for noninhalation exposures. In addition, cadmium
and lead were identified as next highest priority.
Multipathway assessments are presented for
radionuclides, mercury, arsenic, and dioxins. The
other two HAPs (lead and cadmium) were examined
qualitatively for their potential for multipathway
hazards.
ES.6 SCREENING ASSESSMENT
As outlined in Figure ES-1, EPA initially
conducted a screening assessment that considered
inhalation and non-inhalation exposure routes for all
67 HAPs to identify priority HAPs for more detailed
assessment. To screen for inhalation exposures, the
EPA used the Human Exposure Model (HEM) to
model the 67 HAPs from all 684 utility plants
utilizing generally conservative assumptions (1.e.,
assumptions that are more likely to overestimate
rather than underestimate risks) to estimate
inhalation risks for maximally exposed individuals
(MEIs).
(AGOL'8'L'8'% “2't) urxorp-d-ozueqrporopqousya3
“8'LE'S 03 aatQB]e2 Az19tx0} Jo; JuNen(pE seye szeueZUOD 4oBe JO BUOIESIWe 84} JO UOIWBUIUINS By
UO posed St Gory “yovordde (Hq) Aouapearnbe 1x0} ay} Furs peyefnoyes azaM sazBUITySe SUOTSHIWO B804], p
‘painsBewl JON = WN >
‘(WOIssNIsTp
J0} PSY Uorjoee ees) ssaquinu esey) Ul satjUTeZI90"UN o78 a10q} ‘MOMIYT, “SOLIBUAIB [01}U09 puB sad4j JayIOg
aytoeds jo ajdures pazrun 8 uo paseq suoKsefoud Popoul Wow peaLiop 318 3[Qe) SQ) UI sa}vUQ8e SUOIsSTWA ay], q
6 Jaydeyp Ul poyuosoid are suoiserwe epr[nuoIpeYy “uMoYs BIW} 22430
84} 0} UoSstedmos jUBAs]al B apLAoid jou pmnom ‘Mojoi0g} ‘pus (aBeA Jed sauIMd “a't) sz1UN yuarayIp UI pommsvow
S28 SUOISSTUIS OPI|NUOIPBs IsNBIaq 2[qBz TY} UO pepnjout you FYH Asoud auo ay} aw sepronuorpey B
79 60 % v6 t6 61 oF 6z rr epryeprwansog |
WN WN WN g Ol FE gO FG | 9-0 ET ozoo0'0 | stoooo | ze0000” puma
W W
WN N WN WN WN N re Lg 9% ureorsy
WN x WN Ll ORz OFI 00092 000'2 000'0Z apuony uasampAyy
WN “KN WN oe T oOrz 006% ooo'esT | Ooo FET OOO'SFT [| Spuojys walorpay |
ve ve tt 00% ze 068 69 z9 89 PAIN
PZ00 Tio 0 3100 0 S10 z0 0 09 19 oF AINDIe
: I? 1 t6 Biz TT Ti aeouesU, |
390 ax) a) v9 oe Tl iT) z9 GL pee]
: rz be ty ie z9 GL waniaory,)
60 TI TI ve te fe Tape
WN WN NN £20 0 or 0 zs 6L UL many Gey
0 810 70 C 7 g TL 9¢ ig say
0108 9661 06681 O108 ¥661 0661 0108 ¥661 0661
[WangUN rire) ~ [805
qi¥ak sed su0y) soyeuitise cojeejae Fyy] aplauojiey dvi
w®dVH Ayuoug wseyryy, 40; suse AYIA apLAUONBN “T-gy Aq],
69
[e-Sq 2384)
‘TSH F981 JP P 270U300) 9eg ,
“‘POIBINITW ION = Ng
“SUOLSBIWa [BNIB Jo aay} APYANOs jo 10,98] B UIYPA A[TBs19Ue 1B SayBUITYSo SUOISSIMe
04) 78U SyoIpeld Yqq og} ‘sIsA[wUB AQUTBLGOUN UB UO pos¥g “SJaqUINU aseUy Ul BOTUTBPsIUN GIB B1eq], ,
r00'0 if Ll ON (@%91N
ON 8200000000 €1000000°0 geared
ON ON v1 apuony uadorpay
ON 06 061 aptioryo usZospAyy
ON Z100°0 S00 Aunaaa yy
ON rto'0 1z0°0 per]
ON 29000 Iv'0 winruzory))
qQuN P1000 €200'0 wniupE)
£0000 2900°0 0s00'0 oruasay
0v3 09 S38 *(@MA) 0218 3a
sud [wingEN tO [Pog jong
gltBed
dad sU04 “p66 1) 81UQ ANIM oNsUepETEYD WO sqYy}{ A}4OLIg GUL 40; sUOISSIMIY payeUINSY “7-Sq e[qUL
[9-Sa a3eq)
OL
71
If the MEI risk was above a minimum measure (e.g.,
exposure greater than one-tenth the inhalation
reference concentration [RfC]* or cancer risk greater
than 1 chance in 10 million), then the HAP was
chosen for more study. For non-inhalation exposures,
the 67 HAPs were prioritized by considering five
criteria: (1) persistence; (2) tendency’ to
bioaccumulate; (3) toxicity; (4) emissions quantity;
and (5) radioactivity.
Based on this screening assessment, a total of 14
HAPs were identified as priority. Twelve HAPs
(arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
manganese, nickel, hydrogen chloride [HCl],
hydrogen fluoride [HF], acrolein, dioxins,
formaldehyde, and radionuclides) were identified as
priority pollutants for further study based on
potential for inhalation exposures and risks. Four of
these 12 HAPs (arsenic, cadmium, dioxins, and
radionuclides) plus 2 additional HAPs (mercury and
lead) were considered priority for multipathway
exposure); of these 6 HAPs, 4 (arsenic, mercury,
dioxins, and radionuclides) were identified as the
highest priority to assess for
[Page ES-7]
multipathway exposures and risks. Overall, a total of
14 of the 67 HAPs were considered priority. The
other 53 HAPs were not evaluated beyond the
screening assessment.
® The RfC is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps
an order of magnitude) of the daily inhalation exposure of the
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely
to be without appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a
lifetime.
72
ES.7 INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT -- LOCAL
ANALYSIS
The EPA estimated inhalation exposures and
risks due to dispersion of HAP emissions within 50
kilometers (km) of each of the 684 plants (i.e., local
analysis). For 13 of the 14 priority HAPs, the HEM
was used; for radionuclides, the Clean Air Act
Assessment Package-1993 (CAP-93) model was used.
The HEM exposure modeling conducted for the
inhalation risk assessment was very similar to the
modeling conducted for the screening assessment.
The same default options and same input data were
used. However, there is one important difference. For
the inhalation risk assessment, a distinction was
made between urban and rural! locations. If a plant is
located in an urban area, it was modeled using the
urban mode (i.e., dispersion is assumed to be
characteristic of emissions emitted by a facility in an
urban location where there are buildings nearby).
Dispersion of the pollutant plume in an urban area is
expected to exhibit greater turbulence because of
heat transfer and obstacles (i.e., large buildings). If a
plant is located in a rural location, it was modeled
using the rural mode (i.e., dispersion is assumed to
be characteristic of a facility located in a rural
location). In the screening assessment, all plants
were modeled using the urban default because using
the urban default typically leads to more
conservative (i.e., higher) estimates of human
exposures, which is appropriate for a screening
assessment. However, using the urban and rural
distinction is believed to reflect more realistic
conditions.
73
The cancer risks for all gas-fired plants were well
below one chance in one million (i.e., < 1 x 10%) and
no noncancer hazards were identified. Therefore,
gas-fired plants are omitted from the following
discussions.
In cases where data were missing or incomplete,
the EPA had to make various assumptions. A few of
these assumptions are more likely to overestimate
risks. Other assumptions used are likely to
underestimate risks. Based on an _ uncertainty
analysis conducted for this study, it is estimated that
these assumptions taken together lead to a
reasonable high-end estimate (i.e., conservative, but
within the bounds of reasonable estimates) of the
risks due to inhalation exposure within 50 km of
plants. Within the limits of current scientific
information, this approach is, therefore, most likely
to overestimate health risks for these pollutants. The
uncertainty analysis suggests that the most likely
estimated inhalation MIRs (i.e., central tendency
MIRs) may be roughly 2 to 10 times lower than the
high-end MIRs presented below. The average
individual risks due to inhalation exposure to utility
HAP emissions for the total exposed U.S. population
(roughly 200,000,000 people) are predicted to be
roughly 100 to 1000 times lower than the high-end
inhalation MIRs.
[Page ES-8]
ES.7.1 Inhalation Cancer Risks for Coal-Fired
Utilities Based on Local Anaivsia (1990
The vast majority of coal-fired plants (424 of the
426 plants) are estimated to pose lifetime cancer
risks (i.e., increased probability of an exposed person
74
getting cancer during a lifetime) of less than 1 x 10*
due to inhalation exposure to utility HAP emissions.
Only two of the 426 plants are estimated to
potentially pose inhalation risks greater than 1 x 104
(see Figure ES-2).
The increased lifetime cancer MIR due to
inhalation exposure to coal-fired utility HAP
emissions, based on the local analysis, is estimated
to be no greater than 3 x 10°. Arsenic and chromium
are the HAPs contributing most to the inhalation
risks (see Table ES-3). All other HAPs, including
radionuclides, were estimated to present inhalation
risks less than 1 x 10° for coal-fired units.
The cancer incidence in the U.S. due to
inhalation exposure to HAPs (including
radionuclides) from all 426 coal-fired plants based
on the local analysis is estimated to be no greater
than approximately 0.2 cancer case per year
(cases/yr), or 1 case every 5 years. However, as
described in later sections, the consideration of
longrange dispersion of HAPs (beyond 50 km) results
in increased estimates for cancer incidence.
ES.7.2 Inhalation Cancer Risks for Oil-Fired
Utilities Based on Local Analysis (1990)
The majority of the oil-fired plants (125 of the
137 plants) are estimated to pose inhalation cancer
MIRs less than 1 x 10°. However, up to 11 of the 137
oil-fired plants are estimated to potentially present
inhalation MIRs above 1 x 10* (see Figure ES-3).
Nickel, arsenic, radionuclides, and chromium are the
primary contributors to these cancer risks.
75
For oil-fired utilities, the highest contribution to
the MIRs is from nickel. However, there are
substantial uncertainties with the nickel risk
estimates. Nickel is emitted in several different
forms (e.g., nickel oxides, soluble nickel, sulfidic
nickel) and the health effects of these different forms
vary, and for some forms are unknown or uncertain.
Nickel subsulfide (which is one of the possible forms
of sulfidic nickel) is a known human carcinogen and’
appears to be the most carcinogenic form based on
available data. Based on limited data, 3 to 26 percent
of the nickel emissions are believed to be sulfidic
nickel. It is not known how much of the sulfidic
nickel emissions are nickel subsulfide. Several other
nickel species (e.g., nickel oxides) are also potentially
carcinogenic but the potencies are not known. ’
OLE L DUE OFX | Ubemiag DW LP asod 0) peprumse ae sjud (6 je, SMOUS aunty ayy ants SG U) 9-34 SB UMOUS SI, OL HL ay) Uowma
O00 8 SOUND GUO 10 9S) OUED PESPEDU) UP ORRUEXS 104 aundy Sag Ws S\udUOdse se Dojuasedd aur (Sui) SxSL ENP YEU WNUEKEW pueYBu au, ZION
| eave BP onmeeanl)] seaaen BB co
481) (@NDIAIDU) WNW) xewy
—- 0
Os
A s (da
7 Wie Hy ee
Wy, 4 ’ Lee Ov. :
es Ge
Yee tiie :
Wy Yi -ooe 86g
Z 17 Yee rt
GY Hee °
YY Vy Wy, 2
LM :
eer r ooe .
— a —_—____- ~ occ
SdH @pljonuoIpel-uoU s1ueBOUDIeD {IY
(UI $0 SjOAS7 Ag) SxSIY |eNPIA/pU; LUNWIxeEYy
JO SOAS) SNOHBA Bulsog SEIU Peil4-jB@OD so soquuNN *Z7-S3g eunBi
[6-Sq seq)
90) ¥ | DUR, OL X | UdeMlad SHI Da}euunse Wy Swe d pay) §
ae away snous aunby ay, aR 93) SE UMOYS Si, OL * | JO YSU HOUT? Peseanu ue ‘oplume cy aundSy Sag wl S\wweundkes se pojuesoid ae SHV) aL a10N
wai ass BR cas cress = @3i:e14 Bs UA «-3s ° 8-3, CT e-as> Sy
NBs ISN DIAIDU! WNW xe;
eo. Ol eR 9 ai @1o-a1 @ 3) O43. 4a) Ol @ at @3i>
I —E————————_z = ——<C ] a
Hh
— | HH L os
Hi i |
| Hill or
WT
Aik ez i
MA tee
TA :
| BAH Lit
or r os
rs
+ oo
|
}
-—~-- — = — — —_— _—_—_-_ SS ——-_—-_-—-——-- -——_——_ -——— Ci
(WI $0 S}@Ae7 Ag) SySIY [eNPIAIPU) LUNWIxeYy
JO S|@AG7 SNOBA Bulsod SE11I/117 POsIj-|IO JO JEQUUNN, *E-S3g eunBig
[Ol-Sq e3eg)
‘SIWH Wtuesgouties
TSNPIAIPUT QZ 4Oy Yes yo Ajtatrppe Surwinsse sqyH jo ayeSes88e oY} JO BOBTBYUT OF ONp jel pazeuiye” q
‘(WoLsENIStp Joy Fy Gg
GOtj088 898) SEIUUII}Se pus-43TY a[qeuOSswal pereprsucO are SO},BUIIZ88 OS9Y} ‘SISATBUB AJUTBJI80UN UB UO paseg “juETd
Peay [80 AS ysoyasry,, Oy} 403 amsodxe uorsreyM 03 anp (YTW) YSU [SNPAIPUL UMNUTXeW awTaz] paemnsg
é o¢e gO x8 KSAVH JO o7889183y) , [830],
t O1t g-Ol XI wnrwolmy)
gO X 1 < aIW gO ®I< —
[43} sjuuid requin ourt79;1| Yi UoRUdo ged 49008) 10431)
0661 282, 343 10;
SOHETAA, POET 405 stedpouy [woo] wor sqUSY ysrY JOUR) UOHETEqU] pug-ysH Jo Creu “¢-gq a1qU]
[It-Sq a3eq)
BL
79
[Page ES-11 cont.]
To evaluate the range of potential risks due to
nickel emissions, the EPA estimated risks using
various assumptions for nickel cancer potency
(presented in chapter 6). For example, assuming the
nickel mix is 50 percent as carcinogenic as nickel
subsulfide, the highest inhalation cancer MIR due to
the aggregate of HAP emissions from the highest
risk oil-fired utility plant is estimated to be 6 x 10°5.
Assuming the nickel mix is 10 percent as
carcinogenic as nickel subsulfide, the highest
inhalation cancer MIR due to the aggregate of HAP
emissions from the highest risk oil-fired utility plant
is approximately 3 x 105. The values in Table ES-4
and Figure ES-3 are based on the conservative
assumption that the nickel mix is 50 percent as
carcinogenic as nickel subsulfide.
Estimated risks due to inhalation exposure for a
subset of HAPs based on the local analysis are
presented in Table ES-4. All other HAPs analyzed
were estimated to pose inhalation cancer risks below
1 x 10° for all 137 oil-fired plants.
The cancer incidence in the U.S. due to
inhalation exposure to HAP emissions (including
radionuclides) from all 137 oil-fired utilities, based
on the local analysis, is estimated to be no greater
than 0.5 cancer case/yr.
ES.7.3 Inhalation Cancer Risks Based on Long-
Range Transport
In addition to the above analyses, the EPA
conducted long-range transport analyses to assess
emissions dispersion and exposures on a national
scale for 1990. The Regional Lagrangian Model of Air
80
Pollution (RELMAP) was used to estimate the
dispersion of HAP emissions from the facility stack
out to the borders of the continental U.S. This is in
contrast to the HEM, which estimates dispersion and
air concentrations within 50 km of the source.
‘8qVH tuasoutares
(ENPIATPUr PI 40f FSU Jo AWARIppe Surunese sqyH jo ovSas93w oy; jo uoIBTEYLT oO} anp yeu paywunisy
“OPYTNSQNs [@ROU SB MUaFOUIITBS 8B jUadIed
O¢ St Spunodwioo jayoTu jo x1u ayy yey} UONduUMsse 94} GO peseg AB SAY [8}O) PUB [ayOTU 10; Sa}BUIYSS ay] q
‘(uoIssnastp 10; HL Sq
GO1}I98 988) 8ezBWIIISa PUd-Y3TY a[quuUOsBes paloptsuCD ale SeyBUIISS B60q3 ‘sIsA;eUB AQUTBZIGIUN UB UO paseg “juBId
POU THO ASHE WOgsrY,, 24} 40} omsodxa worjeyequr oy onp (YT) YSU [ENprarpur umurxew ewes] paywunsy |
IT 000‘0I1 g-01 X9 (oye3a283e) peo]
I oP g Ol Rs wunTUIpeD)
I 008% g-OI XS mnraorys)
Zz 00r'Z g-OI XT saprjonuorpey
zZ 00t'Z g-O1 XT otuasry
tt OO0'OTT g-O1 ¥¢ ql®49IN
g-OT X1< gO XI<
IW GI WSs ay 7031]
s3uujd saquiny 43} worneindog ed IW 389431H dWH
0661 FBOA OG} 10} BALI] POMLZ-[1O 40} StsApwUY [BIO] UO pasug
SopBUIgS” FSY 490uUBH UoHeTeyu] pus-ystpy jo Arewuing “p-Sq arquy,
[Z1-Sq adeq]
18
82
[Page ES-12]
The RELMAP modeling was conducted for all
coal- and oil-fired utilities, but was limited to
mercury, cadmium, chromium, arsenic, nickel, lead,
and dioxins. Only inhalation exposures to the
carcinogenic HAPs are discussed in this section.
Deposition and multipathway concerns are discussed
elsewhere in this report. The long-range transport
modeling indicates that the local HEM analysis
alone does not account for a substantial percentage
of the population exposures due to coal-fired utility
emissions. A comparison of the HEM results to the
RELMAP results indicates a significant portion of
emissions disperse further than 50 km, as would be
expected for these HAPs, which are mostly fine
particulate substances emitted from elevated stacks.
The RELMAP results for arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, and nickel (which are emitted mainly as
PM) were used to estimate the potential long-range
transport inhalation exposures for other carcinogenic
HAPs. Using this methodology, the highest cancer
incidence due to inhalation exposure to HAPs from
coal-fired utilities considering both local and long-
range transport is estimated to be up to 1.3 cases/yr,
which is about 7 times greater than the incidence
estimated in the local analysis alone. The cancer
incidence for oil-fired utilities did not change (see
Table ES-5).
WOISSNOSTP JOJ FL Sq SUONI08 dog “Sa;UUITISe SLI O¥OY) YaLa POYWIOONSY sORUIEIOOUN av Qe],
‘(Sy8u Jo Aarnrpps Suramese ‘syyH WueSouTDIBd [Te 0) aiNsodxe UONR[BYU! Oj enp ysL) Yeu ABBAaTy
‘(SePIPNUoIped PUW “cANTUApeS “UIMYMORYD ‘SuISIN ‘eqITU SuTpHpxe “8'}) pesd|wuy sqyH SuTurwuse [[v 0 esNsodxe 0 eNp sxe pewUTY |
‘SPYTMsSqns joyor se orUsSouTIIVO se JUsded Og H GINGTITI je_IU Oy} WWYY SeUNesy |
st g Ol FF #0 gt 89 ities
8z0'0 ** 900'0 pSt hs qe no lv
900'0 pO FE 900°0 gS te wnruspe)
Le0 gt FE q0°0 g-Ot I otuesiy
ato gO FZ z0°0 g-0 #9 wnimary:)
800 gt Ft ZO g-Ot #9 wlOTN
L0 PeeWse ON z'0 gt St soprjnuorpey
souaptout (HWW) souspraa (HW) yuneeye,
sa0uw peswaiou! [wNUTY yeu [eNpLalpar WNGITKE RY ssouwo paswanm [wnuUY yeu [UNpLAIpar WNT CKE PY
SINVId GSULIIVOO SINVId Gaula 110
“CSA TaWamMwOS jo SrepI0g OF HT tp) SLOVdWI SDNVY-ONO' Sid TVO7T
z0 porte 70 ole SOL
000 et 9000 pores gO TV
9000°0 pot XZ 200'0 gO % wniwpes
90°0 g-01 *% F0'0 g-O1 ¥I musery
Z0'0 g Ot ¥T Z0°0 g-OI FS wniwasy.)
$00°0 ,OreL ro puree RIN,
10 g-Ol ¥% Z0 gl FI sepronuorpEy
eouaptout (HW) aouapouy (HW)
seouwo peswaput [enuuy yeu [enpiatpur wnurow yy ssouw) pasvenut [ynuLy yeu (enpuarpyr amare | NNOd
SINVId aaa 1VOD SINVIG Cau TIO™
p vueid AWN Gows Fo Way OG UlGIja Gojeredsjp) SLOVAWI 1VDO1
es
54
A comparison between the HEM local dispersion
results and the long-range transport modeling
results indicates that long-range transport is much
less important for the MIR than it is for cancer
incidence. For example, the MIR from the local
analyses for coal-fired utilities (i.e., inhalation risk of
3 x 10) is predicted to
[Page ES-14]
increase by roughly 10 to 20 percent to about 4 x 10°6
when ambient concentrations are added from long-
range transport of arsenic from all other utilities in
the continental U.S. For oil-fired utilities, the long-
range transport of HAPs’ has no impact on the
highest inhalation MIR because of the remote
location of the two highest risk oil-fired plants.
ES.7.4 Uncertainties with the Inhalation Cancer
Risk Assessment
There are several areas of uncertainty in the
inhalation risk assessment including: (1) the impacts
of long-range transport; (2) the emissions and health
effects of different forms of chromium and nickel; (3)
the use of a linear non-threshold high-to-low dose
extrapolation model for estimating cancer risks at
low exposure concentrations; (4) the impacts of
episodic releases resulting from upsets or unusual
operating conditions; (5) how residence times and
activity patterns impact the exposures; (6) the
impacts on sensitive subpopulations; (7) the impacts
of background exposures; and (8) the risk of complex
pollutant mixtures.
The uncertainty analysis indicates that the
inhalation cancer MIRs and incidence estimates
presented above are reasonable high-end estimates
85
of the risks due to inhalation exposure within 50 km
of each plant. That is, the estimates are considered
generally conservative (i.e., predicted to be roughly
the 90th to 95th percentile). The uncertainty
analysis suggests that the most likely estimated
inhalation MIRs (i.e., central tendency MIRs) may be
roughly 2 to 10 times lower than the high-end MIRs
presented above. The average individual risks due to
inhalation exposure to utility HAP emissions for the
total exposed U.S. population (roughly 200,000,000
people) are predicted to be roughly 100 to 1,000
times lower than the high-end inhalation MIRs.
ES.7.5 Summary of the Inhalation Cancer Risks
For the majority of utility plants (approximately
671 of the 684 plants), the estimated inhalation
cancer risks due to HAP emissions are less than 1 x
10-*. However, several plants (2 coal plants and up to
11 ol plants) are estimated to potentially pose
inhalation cancer risks above 1 x 10°. One oil plant
is estimated to pose a high-end inhalation cancer
MIR of up to 6 x 10-5. Based on the assessment, no
greater than 1.8 cancer cases/yr are estimated to
occur in the U.S. due to inhalation exposure to HAP
emissions from all coal- and oilfired utilities. Further
research and evaluation may be needed to more
comprehensively assess the inhalation cancer risks,
especially to reduce the uncertainties associated with
the nickel risk estimates.
ES.7.6 Inhalation Noncancer Risks
The EPA also assessed noncancer risks (i.e.,
health effects other than cancer) due to short- and
long-term inhalation exposure. Manganese, HCl, HF,
86
and acrolein were found to be the four HAPs of
highest potential concern for noncancer effects.
[Page ES-15 }
Based on modeling HAPs for all 684 plants with
the HEM, estimated long-term ambient HAP
concentrations were generally 100 to 10,000 times
below the RfC or similar benchmark. The highest
estimated longterm ambient HAP concentration was
10 times below the RfC.
Using a short-term air dispersion model that
considers all reasonable meteorological conditions,
EPA modeled maximum one-hour concentrations for
three HAPs (HCl, HF, and acrolein). The highest
short-term exposure was 140 times below the acute
reference level.
ES.8 MERCURY MULTIPATHWAY ASSESSMENT
ES.8.1 Background Discussion for Mercury
Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of
natural and human (anthropogenic) activities. The
amount of mercury mobilized and released into the
biosphere has increased since the beginning of the
industrial age. Most of the mercury in the
atmosphere is elemental mercury vapor, which
circulates in the atmosphere for up to a year, and
hence can be widely dispersed and transported
thousands of miles from likely sources of emission.
After it deposits, mercury commonly is emitted back
to the atmosphere either as a gas or associated with
particles, to be re-deposited elsewhere. As it cycles
between the atmosphere, land, and water, mercury
undergoes a series of complex chemical and physical
87
transformations, many of which are not completely
understood.
Mercury is a persistent element and
bioaccumulates in the food web. Mercury
accumulates most efficiently _n the aquatic food web.
Predatory organisms at the top of the food web
generally have higher mercury concentrations.
Nearly all of the mercury that accumulates in fish
tissue is methylmercury. Inorganic mercury, which is
less efficiently absorbed and more readily eliminated
from the body than methylmercury, does not tend to
bioaccumulate.
Fish consumption dominates the pathway for
human and wildlife exposure to methylmercury. The
EPA’s 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress
supports a plausible link between anthropogenic
releases of mercury from industrial and combustion
sources in the U.S. and methylmercury in fish.
However, these fish methylmercury concentrations
also result from existing background concentrations
of mercury (which may consist of mercury from
natural sources, as well as mercury which has been
re-emitted from the oceans or soils) and deposition
from the global reservoir (which includes mercury
emitted by other countries). Given the current
scientific understanding of the environmental fate
and transport of this element, it is not possible to
quantify how much of the methylmercury in fish
consumed by the U.S. population is contributed by
U.S. emissions relative to other sources of mercury
(such as natural sources and re-emissions from the
global pool). As a result, it cannot be assumed that a
change in total mercury emissions will be linearly
88
related to any resulting change in methylmercury in
fish, nor over what time period these changes would
occur. This is an area of ongoing study.
[Page ES-16]
ES.8.2 Methylmercury Health Effects
Epidemics of mercury poisoning following high-
dose exposures to methylmercury in Japan and Iraq
demonstrated that neurotoxicity is the health effect
of greatest concern when methylmercury exposure
occurs to the developing fetus. Dietary
methylmercury is almost completely absorbed into
the blood and distributed to all tissues including the
brain; it also readily passes through the placenta to
the fetus and fetal brain. The reference dose (RfD) is
an amount of methylmercury, which when ingested
daily over a lifetime is anticipated to be without
adverse health effects to humans, including sensitive
subpopulations. At the RfD or below, exposures are
expected to be safe. The risk following exposures
above the RfD is uncertain, but risk increases as
exposures to methylmercury increase.
Extrapolating from the high-dose exposures that
occurred in the Iraq incident, the U.S. EPA derived a
RfD for methylmercury of 0.1 microgram per
kilogram body weight per day (yg/kg bw/day). While
the U.S. EPA was advised by scientific reviewers to
employ this RfD for this analysis, new data are
emerging. Currently ongoing are two large
epidemiology studies in the Seychelle Islands and in
the Faroe Islands that were designed to evaluate
childhood development and neurotoxicity in relation
to fetal exposures to methylmercury in fish-
consuming populations. Because of various
89
limitations and uncertainties in all of the available
data, the U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies
intend to participate in an interagency review of the
human data on methylmercury, including the most
recent studies from the Seychelle Islands and the
Faroe Islands. The purposes of this review are to
refine the estimates of the level of exposure to
mercury associated with subtle neurological
endpoints and to further consensus between all of
the Federal agencies. After this process, the U.S.
EPA will determine if a change in the RfD for
methylmercury is warranted. (Note: see the 1997
EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress for further
discussion and assessment of mercury health effects
and public health impacts).
ES.8.3 Mercury Multipathway Exposure Assessment
Mercury was considered highest priority for
multipathway exposure analysis. To assess the
transport and deposition of mercury emissions from
utilities and to estimate concentrations in
environmental media and biota, three modeling
efforts were undertaken: (1) long-range modeling, (2)
local scale modeling, and (3) modeling of
environmental concentrations. The RELMAP was
used to predict long-range dispersion and deposition
across the U.S. For the local analysis, a model
designed to predict deposition of HAPs within 50 km,
the Industrial Source Complex Version 3 (ISC3) air
dispersion model, was used. Next, the EPA’s Indirect
Exposure Model Version 2M (IEM-2M) was used to
estimate mercury environmental concentrations and
human exposures. Hypothetical exposure scenarios
were evaluated for four model plants (a large coal-
fired, a medium coal-fired, a small coal-fired, and a
90
medium oil-fired utility boiler), The analysis
included three types of plant locations: (1) rural
(agricultural), (2) near lakes
[Page ES-17]
(lacustrine), and (3) urban. Three human fish
consumption scenarios were considered.
The modeling provided information on whether
local and/or long-range transport of mercury is
significant in a variety of scenarios. The models
indicate that most of the mercury from utilities is
transported further than 50 km from the source. The
fate and transport models provided an assessment of
potential inhalation and ingestion exposures.
ES.8.4 Summary of Mercury Assessment Results for
Utiliti
Recent estimates of annual total global mercury
emissions from all sources (natural and
anthropogenic) are about 5,000 to 5,500 tons per year
(tpy). Of this total, about 1,000 tpy are estimated to
be natural emissions and about 2,000 tpy are
estimated to be contributions through the natural
global cycle of re-emissions of mercury associated
with past anthropogenic activity. Current
anthropogenic emissions account for the remaining
2,000 tpy. Point sources such as fuel combustion;
wasté incineration; industrial processes (e.g., chlor-
alkali plants); and metal ore roasting, refining, and
processing are the largest point source categories on
a world-wide basis.
For the year 1994, coal-fired utilities were
estimated to emit approximately 51 tpy of mercury in
the U.S., which is estimated to be 33 percent of the
91
158 tpy of airborne anthropogenic emissions of
mercury in the U.S. If one assumes that current
anthropogenic activity represents between 40 and 75
percent of the total airborne’ emissions
(anthropogenic plus other emissions [e.g., natural
emissions]), one can calculate that U.S. utilities emit
roughly 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus
anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the
U.S.
Given the global estimates of 5,000 to 5,500 tpy
(which are highly uncertain), U.S. anthropogenic
mercury emissions are estimated to account for
roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S.
utilities are estimated to account for roughly 1
percent of total global emissions.
A computer simulation of long-range transport of
mercury emissions from all U.S. sources conducted
for the EPA’s 1997 Mercury Study Report to
Congress suggests that about one-third (~ 52 tons) of
the 158 tpy of U.S. anthropogenic emissions are
deposited, through wet and dry deposition, within
the lower 48 States. The remaining twothirds (~ 107
tons) is transported outside of U.S. borders where it
diffuses into the global reservoir. In addition, the
computer simulation suggests that another 35 tons of
mercury from the global reservoir is deposited for a
total deposition of roughly 87 tpy in the US.
Although this type of modeling is uncertain, the
simulation suggests that about three times as much
mercury is being added to the global reservoir from
U.S. sources as is being deposited from it. What is
not uncertain is that additional emissions to air will
92
[Page ES-18]
contribute to levels in the global reservoir and
deposition to water bodies.
Long-range transport modeling conducted as
part of this Utility Study predicts that approximately
30 percent (15 tpy) of the utility mercury emissions
deposit in the continental U.S. The estimated annual
deposition rates resulting from utility mercury
emissions range from 0.5 to greater than 10
micrograms per square meter. Long-range transport
modeling also predicts that the highest deposition
occurs in the eastern half of the U.S., particularly
areas such as southeastern Great Lakes and Ohio
River Valley, central and western Pennsylvania,
large urban areas in the eastern U.S. (e.g.,
Washington, D.C., New York City) and various
locations in the vicinity of large coal-fired utilities.
Based on the limited available receptor monitoring
data, the RELMAP model seems to be accurate
within a factor of plus or minus 2. That is, the
RELMAP model seems to over- and underestimate
mercury values within a factor of two and appears to
be relatively unbiased in its predictions.
The modeling assessment in conjunction with
available scientific knowledge, supports a plausible
link between anthropogenic mercury emissions and
mercury found in freshwater fish. As noted above,
there are many sources of mercury emissions
worldwide, both natural and anthropogenic. The
coal-fired utilities are one category of the mercury
sources.
Mercury is considered the highest priority for
multipathway analyses because it is an
93
environmentally persistent, toxic element.. Mercury
is deposited to soil and terrestrial vegetation but at
levels that do not result in human exposures likely to
be detrimental to health through terrestrial exposure
pathways. However, in its methylated form mercury
bioaccumulates in the food web (especially the
aquatic food web). Modeling results suggest that
most of the mercury emitted to the atmosphere is
deposited more than 50 km away from the source,
especially sources that have tall stacks. As stated
above, the modeling assessment from the Mercury
Study in conjunction with available scientific
knowledge, supports a plausible link between
anthropogenic mercury emissions and mercury found
in freshwater fish. Additional emissions to air will
contribute to levels in the global reservoir and
deposition to water bodies. As a result, mercury
emissions from utility units may add to the existing
environmental burden. At this time, the available
information, on balance, indicates that utility
mercury emissions are of sufficient potential concern
for public health to merit further research and
monitoring. The EPA recognizes that there are
substantial uncertainties that make it difficult to
quantify the magnitude of the risks due to utility
mercury emissions, and that further research and/or
evaluation would be needed to reduce these
uncertainties. Remaining questions include the
following: (1) what is the quantitative relationship
between a change in U.S. mercury emissions and the
resulting change in
[Page ES-19]
methylmercury levels in fish; (2) what are the actual
consumption patterns and estimated methylmercury
94
exposures of the subpopulations of concern; (3) what
are the actual mercury levels in a statistically valid
and representative sample of the U.S. population
and susceptible subpopulations; (4) what exposure
levels are likely to result in adverse health effects;
(5) what affects the formation of methylmercury in
waterbodies and its bioaccumulation in fish; (6) how
much mercury is emitted from natural sources and
past anthropogenic sources; and (7) how much
mercury is removed during coal cleaning and other
ongoing practices for pollution control. New data that
could reduce some of the uncertainties are likely to
become available in the next several years, and EPA
plans to review and consider these data, as
appropriate, in future decisions.
Regarding potential methods for reducing
mercury emissions, the EPA has not identified any
demonstrated add-on control technologies currently
in use in the U.S. that effectively remove mercury
from utility emissions. (However, there may be add-
on control technologies used in. other source
categories that effectively reduce mercury
emissions.) Based on available data, total mercury
removal by existing PM control devices on coal-fired
utilities varies considerably, ranging from 0 to 82
percent removal (with a median efficiency of 15
percent removal) for cold-side electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs), and from 0 to 73 percent
removal (with a median efficiency of 8 percent
removal) for fabric filters. Also, hot-side ESPs
exhibited no mercury control. Existing flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) units exhibit limited mercury
control, ranging from 0 to 62 percent removal, with a
median removal of 23 percent. The mercury control
95
efficiency of FGD units is a function of several factors
including temperature, plant configuration, and type
of coal. Pilotscale studies have shown that mercury
removal can be enhanced through the use of
activated carbon injection. However, the limited
results to date utilizing carbon injection are
inconsistent and more data and research are needed.
Other various pollution prevention strategies, such
as coal cleaning, have shown some effectiveness in
reducing utility emissions of mercury. Conventional
coal cleaning removes, on average, approximately 21
percent of the mercury contained in the coal. Also,
fuel switching, such as switching from coal to natural
gas, would result in decreased emissions of mercury.
ES.9 SCREENING LEVEL MULTIPATHWAY
ASSESSMENT FOR ARSENIC
Arsenic is a naturally occurring element found
normally, in various concentrations, in soil. In
addition, arsenic can also be naturally present in
other media (e.g., various food sources and water).
Arsenic levels have been measured in a variety of
foods. Even though shellfish and other marine foods
contain the greatest concentrations of total arsenic,
much of the arsenic present in fish and shellfish
exists in the less toxic organic form. Other food
products, such as meats, rice, and cereals, contain
higher percentages, and often higher total amounts,
of inorganic arsenic, which is the form of primary
toxicological concern.
[Page ES-20]
Arsenic is also naturally present in trace
amounts in coal and oil. When coal or oil are burned,
some of this naturally occuring arsenic is released to
96
the atmosphere. The quantity of arsenic released
from any utility plant is dependent on many factors
including the concentration of arsenic in the fuel,
control device efficiency, and other factors.
Utilities emit about 62 tpy of arsenic nationwide,
about 3 to 4 percent of the total anthropogenic
arsenic emissions in the U.S. Because of its chemical
and physical characteristics, arsenic emitted to the
atmosphere may be transported to. other
environmental media (soil or water), thus allowing
non-inhalation exposures to occur.
ES.9.1 Exposure Modeling
It was not possible to model every utility plant
for arsenic multipathway exposures. Therefore, a
screening level model plant approach was used. Four
model plants (i.e., a large coal-fired, a medium coal-
fired, a small coal-fired, and a mediuf oil-fired
utility boiler) were designed to characterize typical
utility plants. In taking the model pliant approach, it
was realized that there would be a great deal of
uncertainty surrounding the predicted fate and
transport of arsenic as well as the exposures.
However, the assessment was useful for estimating
potential risks due to utility arsenic emissions. Three
models were used to predict environmental arsenic
concentrations and exposure: the RELMAP, the
ISC3, and the Indirect Exposure Model Version 2
(IEM-2). These models were used to predict the fate
and transport of arsenic emissions and to estimate
human exposures to arsenic through multiple
exposure routes, including food consumption, water
ingestion, and inhalation. Three basic exposure
scenarios were considered: a subsistence farmer
97
(adult and child), a subsistence fisher (adult and
child), and a pica child (i.e., a child that ingests
significant quantities of soil). These scenarios were
considered because they represent possible high-end
scenarios for exposure to arsenic.
ES.9.2 Health Effects of Arsenic
Inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic has
been strongly associated with lung cancer in
humans. Human exposure to inorganic arsenic, via
ingestion, has been associated with an increased risk
of several types of cancer, including skin, bladder,
liver, and lung cancers. Oral exposure to inorganic
arsenic has also been associated with noncancer
effects, including effects to the central nervous
system, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, and
blood.
ES.9.3 Approach for Estimatin reenin
! ‘° Rial
Increased cancer risks were estimated for each
hypothetical scenario, for the four model plants, each
of which was placed in two different hypothetical
locations (i.e., an eastern humid site and a dry
western site). For each of the exposure scenarios,
except for the pica child, it is assumed that the
hypothetical person is exposed for 30 years. For the
pica child, it is assumed that exposure occurs for
[Page ES-21]
7 years. Risks were estimated by multiplying the
estimated intakes of arsenic by the EPA’s cancer
potency factor for arsenic.
98
ES.9.4 Screening Level Arsenic Risk Assessment
Results
The results of the screening level multipathway
arsenic exposure assessment provide an indication of
the potential hazards and risks that may occur due
to emissions from a utility plant. However, the
results are not applicable to any particular plant.
There are uncertainties and limitations to the
analysis.
Exposures to inorganic arsenic due _ to
background levels and due to emissions from the
model utility boilers were predicted to be mainly
through the ingestion of grains. Exposure to
inorganic arsenic through the ingestion of fish was
not predicted to be a major pathway of exposure
because there is considerable evidence that little of
the total arsenic in fish tissue is inorganic arsenic.
Soil ingestion is the major route of exposure to
inorganic arsenic for the pica child.
ES.9.4.1 Arsenic Cancer Risks. The cancer risks
due to multipathway exposures to inorganic arsenic,
as estimated in the model plant analysis using
hypothetical scenarios, due to utility emissions alone
(no background) were estimated to range from 4 x
10-7 to 1 x 104. The highest estimated risk (1 x 10-4)
was for a pica child assumed to be living at the point
of maximum deposition. The arsenic emissions from
the large coal-fired model utility boiler at the eastern
humid site were estimated to pose this highest risk
for the pica child. When the risk from background
exposure (2 x 10°) is added to the maximum risk
from utility exposure, the risk for the pica child is
99
estimated to be up to 3 x 10+. The “pica child” is
considered a highend, conservative scenario.
Background exposures were estimated to
dominate the exposures and risks in all scenarios.
When considering only the arsenic emissions from
the model utility units (not including background), in
all scenarios it was the large coal-fired unit that was
estimated to pose the greatest multipathway risks
and the medium coal-fired unit was estimated to
pose the next highest risks. The small coal-fired unit
and the oil-fired unit were estimated to present
lower risks.
ES.9.4.2 Uncertainty Discussion. There are
uncertainties associated with the cancer risk
estimates from arsenic. The analysis was based on
model plants and hypothetical constructs; therefore,
the results are not applicable for any specific utility
plant. Further analyses are needed to better
characterize the risks posed by arsenic emissions
from utilities. A few uncertainties are discussed here.
Exposure to arsenic through the ingestion of tap
or well water was not included in this assessment.
The exposure modeling assessment was based on a
model plant analysis, hypothetical scenarios, and
incorporated data with varying degrees of
uncertainty. Also, there are uncertainties associated
with the health effects data for arsenic.
[Page ES-22}
For example, the animal ingestion studies have not
clearly shown an association between arsenic
ingestion exposure and cancer.
100
ES.10 DIOXIN SCREENING LEVEL
MULTIPATHWAY ASSESSMENT
The highest MEI inhalation cancer risk due to
dioxin emissions from any utility plant based on the
HEM analysis (described in section ES.7) was
estimated to be 1 x 10°’. The EPA estimates that
coal-fired utilities emit 0.2 pounds per year (lb/yr) of
dioxin (toxic equivalents, TEQ) and that oil-fired
utilities emit 0.01 lb/yr. These estimates combined
are roughly 1 percent of the nationwide
anthropogenic dioxin emissions. However, dioxin
emissions data were only available for twelve utility
plants and 42 percent of the measurements were
below the minimum detection limit. Moreover,
dioxins are not part of the naturally occuring fossil
fuel. They are formed in highly complicated reactions
which may occur with unknown frequency during
combustion. Therefore, the emissions data for dioxins
from utilities, which are the basis of exposure
modeling, are considered more uncertain than the
emissions data for many of the other HAPs.
For the screening level multipathway analysis,
the transport, deposition, multipathway exposures,
and human cancer risks were assessed for utility
emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) and_ polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs), collectively referred to as_ dioxins.
Atmospheric deposition of dioxin emissions can be
important because dioxins tend to persist in the
environment and bioaccumulate in the food web.
Environmental persistence and bioaccumulation,
coupled with carcinogenic effects at very low levels,
101
make multipathway exposure an _ important
consideration for dioxins.
ES.10.1 Methods
The basic approach for estimating screening level
multipathway exposures to dioxins was similar to
the methods described above for mercury and
arsenic. However, there were some differences. The
EPA’s ISCST3 model was used to predict deposition
and air concentrations of dioxins within 50 km of
each of four model plants. Model plants were selected
to represent both large and small coal- and oil-fired
utilities. A modified version of the IEM spreadsheet
model was used to estimate environmental
concentrations, exposures to the environmental
concentrations for 16 hypothetical human scenarios,
and the resulting cancer risks. Pathways assessed
include inhalation, dermal contact with soil, and
ingestion of water, soil, fish, plants, and animals.
ES.10.2 Results
Since the analysis was based on model plants,
using hypothetical scenarios, the results are not
applicable to any specific plant and contain
substantial uncertainties about the risks due to
dioxin emissions. Total modeled screening level
lifetime cancer risks related to multipathway
exposure to dioxins for the four-model plant analysis
ranged from 1 x 10-!°to 2 x 10+. The results of this
[Page ES-23)
analysis indicate that the exposures and risks due to
fish consumption are the highest of all pathways
considered. The highest modeled result of 2 x 10%
lifetime cancer risk was obtained for the subsistence
fisher exposure scenario. In all modeled scenarios,
102
the noninhalation exposures were at least one order
of magnitude larger than the inhalation exposures,
thus demonstrating the potential significance of
including multipathway exposure analysis in the risk
assessments for pollutants that are environmentally
persistent and tend to bioaccumulate. Also, unlike
the results for arsenic, modeled exposures to dioxins
for each pathway exceed the background exposure
estimates for dioxins.
ES.10.3 Uncertainty Discussion
Several sensitivity analyses were completed for
the screening level multipathway assessment of
utility dioxin risks to assess the reasonableness of
the results. The assumptions with the greatest
impact on the predicted risk to the subsistence fisher
were those made about the biota-sediment
accumulation factor. This sensitivity analysis
suggests that the modeling results are reasonable for
a screening level analysis.
ES.11 MULTIPATHWAY ASSESSMENT FOR
RADIONUCLIDES
Radionuclide emissions from utilities may result
in human exposure from multiple pathways
including: (1) external radiation exposure from
radionuclides suspended in air or deposited on the
ground, and (2) internal exposure from the
inhalation of airborne contaminants or ingestion of
contaminated food. The CAP-93 model was used to
estimate multipathway exposures and risks due to
radionuclide emissions to humans within 50 km of
all 684 utilities. However, this assessment did not
use site-specific data for the non-inhalation exposure
103
analysis, but rather relied on various generic
assumptions and general input data.
Based on the CAP-93 modeling, 667 of the 684
plants are estimated to pose multipathway risks less
than 1 x 10°. The highest estimated multipathway
radiation exposure for the MEI due to radionuclide
emissions from utilities was predicted to be 1.5
millirems (mRems) per year, which is estimated to
pose an increased cancer risk of 3 x 105. Seventeen
plants (13 coal- and 4 oil-fired plants) were estimated
to pose multipathway risks between 1 x 105 and 3 x
10-5. The estimated cancer incidence in the U.S., due
to emissions and dispersion of radionuclides within
50 km of each utility, is estimated to be 0.3 cancer
deaths/yr. The cancer incidence appears to be mostly
due to inhalation exposure. The non-inhalation
exposures contribute only slightly to the incidence.
The non-inhalation exposure pathways have a
greater impact on the MEIs, especially for coal-fired
plants.
The risks due to exposure to radionuclides from
utilities are substantially lower than the risks due to
natural background radiation. The average exposure
to natural background radiation (excluding radon)
for the U.S. population has been estimated to be
[Page ES-24]
roughly about 100 mRems per year, which is about
67 times higher than the highest exposure due to
utility radionuclide emissions.
104
ES.12 QUALITATIVE MULTIPATHWAY
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The EPA recognizes that non-inhalation
exposure pathways could be important for additional
HAPs that are persistent and tend to bioaccumulate.
A few additional HAPs that were not modeled for
multipathway exposures are discussed below.
ES.12.1 Cadmium and Lead
Cadmium emissions from the vast majority of
plants (683 of the 684 plants) are estimated to pose
inhalation risks less than 10°, and the highest
modeled air concentration of lead was 200 times
below th
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.