# Joint Appendix — Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 135 S. Ct. 702 (2014) (No. 14-46) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0331%3A11 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 2014 ## 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 $2aT10g Paslj-[ROO Jo yUaQuad G7 oe : ‘20338 Am3Jom [Peyuemaya ‘snow aynmnonsed 40j peyuit, ‘seeds Ul SLAIN pue edoung Ul sO; 2 pesn useq aary Aaya ‘sTwjew aqnyjos -za48Mm §49]10q yanoyyye "g'A) 2yI UT SOM O} pardds waag r0u orey ‘sase3 ploy 834 40) %06 ‘WWATBUB gy UI pawn syUBid [epOM ety SY sys00 auTEE ay} IMUT Pom soTITTID; [Tw Fase pu AjuO seyBUTNSe OB #7800 (BUOLEU [BUA 5 “perst] UoRoNpal ayy aaaiyow plod AyiToW; Augae SurumMesy suoonpad peywuUTsT y “peseg are ey#0O (BNUUY [BUCK EU (YQUsejod puY FUON NPA: [eUOTEU fETyTe}Od Try UO saNdruToIe; Buy are senbruyoe] [aJUCO AIMIIeW peUT|ZepUn ey] “ALON uoryg o°98~ 699 009"e~ [Bol UONGIOSPE TWOGTH peyBaQoe perse. | [1 Amovew (wo NPSL %0O I) Suigqrse ewig poredacy ay Suten sued 069'r$ 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., Sy NBs ISN DIAIDU! WNW xe; eo. Ol eR 9 ai @1o-a1 @ 3) O43. 4a) Ol @ at @3i> I —E————————_z = —— uasoupAy VN 100°0 0 0 g Ol *8 g OIF @ sUBITY/UTROK(] VN 20'0 l OUT g-01 I g-01¥ Z punrmosy) WN 9000°0 0 0 z-ot XI iol rd ainrupe.) VN vo0'o 0 0 pOl ke Otte wn Aseg WN 20'0 4 ose gO ¥% g-OTF 8 oruessy eittensattine ix ol ‘yodsuvs} aJuBs-Fuo] JO UOISSNISTP 40; g°g UOTIIES dog “PpAaUTIqWIOD saIzITYN pary-[eOo [TB WOIy (WH EC JO apjs}no esnsodxe “'a"t) Hodsuvy o8usi-3uo] jo syoedurt aq} Suuapisuco usyM Jaywerd sau » ATYBno1 07 dn eq pfnoo eoueploUl Je0UBd ay 5 MI 389qSTY atp St SITY ‘WAH 94} GI pajepour squvjd peay-[809 PZ [18 JO g ‘syuByd pZp 043 Jo Aue PUNOIV UOIZBIZUSOUGS ITB ZUGIQUIB GYH Pe[epoul ywoysiy 943 07 SIBIA Oy 10} posodxo aq 07 pournsse uosied [B91}0100T3 @ 10} FSI JGOUBS UONB[VYU pasvsaioUl paywUNjse 9g} SI STG? ‘WAH e43 YIM pajspoml syuBld pary-[BOo PZP [TV JO , ‘queld 8 UTI BH} Og) jo Gins 943 SI (TH=) OH [83% ay “yuRId Bw UIGgiM SYYH [BNpLatput 4oj [AW JO wns oy) are [AW [BIO], = [BOL [7400 g-g a3vq] cal 126 [Page 6-4] MIRs greater than or equal to 10°. The MIRs for the remaining 424 coal-fired plants were lower than 1 x 106. Figures 6-la and 6-lb show that most inhalation risks were considerably lower than 1 x 10. The risk for chromium assumes that 11 percent of total chromium is hexavalent chromium, (a Class A, human carcinogen). The limited emissions speciation data (described in Appendix H of the EPA Interim Final Utility Report, Volume II)? found hexavalent chromium between 0.3 and 34 percent of total chromium. The average percentage of chromium VI based on limited speciation data was 11 percent. The other HAPs do not appear to make a significant contribution to the MIR from coal-fired plants. Figures 6-la and 6-lb present’ the distribution of plants at different MIR levels for the major carcinogens. Arsenic and chromium are the major contributors of inhalation cancer risks from coal-fired utilities. Of the 424 coalfired plants, the median MIR is 2 x 10% for arsenic and 2 x 10° for chromium. The 90th percentile MIR of all 424 plants modeled is 1 x 107 for arsenic and 4 x 10% for chromium (that is, 10 percent of the plants have MIR levels above, and 90 percent of the plants have MIR levels below, these risk levels). The total MIR due to inhalation exposure to the aggregate of HAPs for each plant was calculated by summing the MIR for each HAP for each plant. There are two coal-fired plants with total MIRs greater than 1 x 10°. The highest total MIR for a single coal-fired plant is 3 x 10*. Of the 424 coal- fired plants modeled, the median total MIR is 5 x 127 10°, and the 90th percentile is 2 x 10-7 (that is, 10 percent of plants pose an MIR greater than 2 x 10-7). 6.1.1.2 Population Cancer Risk. The population distribution at various risk levels is shown in Table 6-2 for each of the five major carcinogenic HAPs. As with the MIR, arsenic and chromium are the major contributors. The high-end estimate of number of people exposed to risks of 1 x 10 or greater from exposure to arsenic is 850 and from exposure to chromium is about 107. That is, based on this assessment, it is unlikely that more than 850 people are exposed to inhalation risks greater than 1 x 10-6 due to coal-fired utility nonradionuclide HAP emissions, and most likely fewer people are exposed (possibly as few as zero) to this level of inhalation risk. The HEM also calculated the annual incidence of cancer expected for each of the HAPs due to inhalation exposure within 50 km. As shown in Table 6.1, the high-end estimate for total cancer incidence from the nonradionuclide carcinogenic HAPs was estimated, using the HEM, to be as high as 0.1 cancer case per year for coal-fired plants due to emissions within 50 km of each plant. However, the estimate for incidence increases by about a factor of seven when considering emissions dispersion beyond 50 km (see section 6.6). Arsenic and chromium are again the major contributors and account for almost 90 percent of the estimated cancer incidences. Cal 89o-q1 Gal 93 9-"GT — -— -———ees — - s. (aly APY [ PetpiAcpuy MATA Lal %8-a1 9-A1 3 L-GI ———_ OL Ty WOJY +) (HDA 48tY [eNpiarpuy wnwoey 9-Al % 1-GT L-Al 9 9-aT opuesiy giz Bal> SWS \cf PRU 7189D JO WQWNN TUB\d PR +/@05 70 QUINN (HI J° 8]949] Aq) y8yy [wNPrAypay uUMUNXEY| jo 8[9Ae] SNOLIBA Buysog 89491]19() Pet} J-[VOD Jo requ “wI-g aunByy CLAD 48TY [WNPLArpUy WnWiKEYy S-QT 0 9-1 9-Fl % L-G1 L-Al 8-q1 -qI> : , —_— eb z ba 7 ool bee } 002 } ose 622 the - ose SdVH 2Ue60U;IIe> YY 910) 661 SUCi oj Pej 4- COD JO BQuny (UIW JO S[aaa] Aq) YStY [BNpPLArpuy wNnu XE jo S[@AA] SNOMBA BUISOY SAINI[4 Peltty-]BOD Jo saquiny ‘q]-9 eindiy (HDA) 48'y [BU pistpay umunxey SdVH ®2!ues0ulo18 +» [Ty [830], duesay winio0s1y) winiups) Bz | | SWE d PWis /COD 59 /8qQUMN 6 — ———— — H rt OOF SRMOSIU SSS SL90 CMe RB>0) u—— 4 [9-9 adBq| 7-4 ‘SOQXINOS J9YIO OF ENP SUOTYBIQUIOUOD PUNOISyIVQ SpNjout jou ssop yusUISSeEEN SY] “JOMO] OpNyrUseu jo s9pi0 UB 3889] 1B G19M BAYH 1940 [[¥ Joy sanrea Hp ‘veousSuwm Jo; oQ'p sem yaysty jXOU BY], [OH 10) 19 sem squerd Temod paly-[Boo wo payiwe BY} ITUaZoutorwoUCU 10} paseunjss HH Whur og] ‘IE ISIWIGON orig 0 LOL 082'T 00908 | ooo‘ors‘t | 2-OT*T 0 0 0 0€9'8 oos'sg | 1-01 * 9% 0 0 0 091% 066'9 pOt*s 0 0 0 LOT Z98 gO ¥I 0 0 0 0 0 gO ¥ 9% 0 0 0 0 0 gO *9 SUBINY PUIXOIC] kuNUIpPE,) [Arg ToIGD | Gesry eae] aSTY Tel SOT!) PAY [BOD “dVH Aq J9{BOID 10 YeTY VOB[eyU] Jo seavy snows, yw posodxy uoywmndog jo soyuNsy puy-ySry Jo AreuuME °7-9 atqey. (4-9 a8] 2 Surumg [emngnausy e) asn juTeg 2 BBOINOB aTIQoW 00 10> 1® sy[ypur] vO L0 90 suoneredesd peueg £0 Ul ot asn A10jB10Q 8] [siauas) oT gt rT eBeyveg dwery] zz re ve Gensase Cay «As0qu aan} T#I0], JO % eA4WU0} 9661-9661 AAW 9661-9661 eA1NDI0M1 Jo SVOINOg 4108038.) Aq soyey uorssturg Ammdiay_ [PUOTIBN Jo seyBUQSY yUIOg ISeq “[-1 BIqBL cel [g-2 adegq) 3 S49T1I0q PAT poo SISS [POD ro si9[10q [BUUapIEY @ BIOISNGWOS aas¥M SNOPUBTBY T5LMW ‘8[PA9] OGG] 190 Jusoued OG [BUOIIPpB Ue 3sBa] 3B Aq SUOIssIMS AINIIIM BONPAd [[La YOUym sILI0Ge7BI Bdinos asay} 10} seuljapmn3 uoIsstwWa pezI[eUYy s¥q Wy ‘S'O ‘asn jo jno pesvyd useq sey Amey ‘(894038 pOOm) LOTISNQUIOD poom [BIZUSpIsal apnyout jou saop ‘ATWO szefiog sepnpou] “BIOPSNGUIOD 9}SBM SNOPIBZBY $B PezUNOS Oe [any 410} 9I8BM SNOPsBZBY WING 1BY} SULLY JWeUTao ‘AIOJUWSAUT SITY] JO asod.md oq} 10,4 ‘A40Ha78d aoinos yuIOd JaZzB] UTYZLA [830}QNs aj0UapP sesayjUeIEY “SUOISSTWS OGG -FE61 9IVUITISS OF DONBUIIOFUI JUaTIYNSUy ‘Sutpunol jo esneoeq A]}98xe ppB OU Op siaquINA ‘JOPBIBUTOUT BFPNIS aBBMas = [SS ‘1OPBIOUTOUT O4SBM [BOTPaU = [MJ ‘1OWSNquioo o; "wm PedioruN;! = OMWN ret oo —— aso MNvevT oO [Page 14-8] 14.7 AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS There are numerous uncertainties and data gaps described throughout this report. This section identifies several of the important areas in which further research or scientific and technical work is needed. 14.7.1 Emissions Data for Dioxins Emissions data for dioxins were available from only eight of the tested utility plants. Therefore, there are greater uncertainties with the dioxin emissions than for many of the other HAPs. All types of utility units were not tested (e.g., there are no data available from coal-fired units with hot-side ESPs). 14.7.2 Speciation of Nickel and Chromium There are significant uncertainties regarding the forms of nickel being emitted from oil-fired utilities and the health effects associated with those different forms. Therefore, further research and evaluation of the emissions to determine what forms are being emitted and the health effects associated with those different forms would be of value. Further evaluation of chromium speciation is also needed. 14.7.3 Multipathway Risk Assessment As mentioned previously, further work is needed to study the msks due to multipathway exposure to 136 HAPs that are persistent and bioaccumulate. Arsenic and dioxins are two HAPs identified as priority for further multipathway assessment. 14.7.4 Long-range Transport Exposures Uncertainties remain regarding long-range transport of HAPs. Further modeling and evaluation could be helpful to assess the impacts of long-range transport of HAPs from utilities. 14.7.5 Mercury Issues There are numerous areas regarding mercury that may need further research, study, or evaluation. A number of potential areas for further study include the following: e review the estimates of the levels of exposure to mercury associated with subtle neurological endpoints; ane 14-9] quantify and/or evaluate the relationship between a change in United States mercury emissions and the resulting change in methylmercury levels in fish; e evaluate actual consumption patterns and estimates of the methylmercury exposure of the subpopulations of concern; e gather additional data on the mercury content of various types of coal; e establish improved methods for measuring mercury concentrations in water; 137 e study the occupational, dietary, and behavioral factors that affect mercury exposures for people who are determined to be exposed above a threshold of concern; e study the public health and environmental benefits that would be expected by reducing mercury emissions from utilities; e evaluate and/or research control technologies or pollution prevention options that are available, or will be available, that could potentially reduce mercury emissions and what are the costs, economic impacts, and feasibility of those options; e evaluate how other regulations, programs, and activities (e.g., acid rain program, electricity restructuring, NAAQS, climate change) affect mercury emissions; e gather additional data on mercury emissions (e.z., how much is emitted from various types of utility units, how much is divalent vs elemental mercury, and how do factors such as control device, fuel type, and plant configuration affect emissions and speciation); and e study how much mercury is emitted from natural sources and past anthropogenic sources. 14.7.6 Projections to the Year 2010 There are. significant uncertainties and unknowns in the emissions and risk projections made to the year 2010 (e.g., impact of industry restructuring; impact of State efforts to regulate restructuring; impact of any climate change 138 initiatives). Further research and evaluation in this area is needed. 14.7.7 Ecological Risks The effects of HAPs on wildlife, endangered species, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems were not evaluated in this study. Although not mandated by section 112(n)(1)(A), further evaluation of [Page 14-10} ecological risks due to HAP emissions would be needed to fully evaluate the impacts of utility HAP emissions. 14.7.8 Criteria Pollutant and Acid Rain Programs Further evaluation is needed to assess the impacts of the Acid Rain and Criteria Pollutant programs (e.g, impact of revisions to the PM-fine and ozone NAAQS; impact of Ozone Transport Assessment Group [OTAG] activities) on HAP emissions. 14.7.9 Short-term Emissions A limited assessment of short-term exposures was completed. However, further evaluation of short- term releases, especially highend, peak releases, could be useful to fully assess the potential impacts to public health due to emissions of HAPs (particularly HCl and HF) from utilities. 139 Federal Register /Vol. 69, No. 20 / Friday, January 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules [Page 4657] x*** C. What Are the Health Effects of HAP Emitted From Coal- and Oil-Fired Utility Units? Data collected during development of the proposed section 112 rule show that coal- and oil- fired Utility Units emit a wide variety of metal, organic, and inorganic HAP, depending on the type of fuel that is combusted. Today’s proposed rules, both under CAA section 111 and 112, would protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of Hg and Ni from coal- and oil- fired Utility Units. Exposure to Hg and Ni at sufficiently high levels is associated with a variety of adverse health effects. The EPA cannot currently quantify whether, and the extent to which, the adverse health effects occur in the populations surrounding these facilities, and the contribution, if any, of the facilities to those problems. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, either of today’s proposed actions would reduce emissions and subsequent exposures. Following is a summary of the health effects for the Hg and Ni emissions that would be reduced by either of the proposed rules. Mercury. Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic metal that exists in three forms: elemental Hg (Hg®), inorganic Hg (Hg**) compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic Hg compounds (primarily methylmercury). Each form exhibits different health effects. Various 140 major sources may release elemental or inorganic Hg; environmental methylmercury, the form of concern for this rulemaking, is typically formed by biological processes after Hg has precipitated from the air and deposited into water bodies. Mercury is toxic to humans from both the inhalation and oral exposure routes. In the proposed rulemaking, we focus [Page 4658] on oral exposure of methylmercury as it is the route of primary interest for human _ exposures. Methylmercury is a_ well-established human neurotoxin although, as with many chemicals, the scientific community is divided on the specific dose and frequency of exposure required to elicit adverse effects. According to the NAS, chronic low-dose prenatal methylmercury exposure has. been associated with poor performance on neurobehavioral tests in children, including those tests that measure attention, visual-spacial ability, verbal memory, language ability, fine motor skills, and intelligence. Furthermore, it has _ been hypothesized that there is an association between methylmercury exposure and an increased risk of coronary disease in adults; however, this hypothesis warrants further study as the few studies currently available present conflicting results. (NEJOM; 2002; Yoshizawa, 2002; Guallar, 2002; Salonen, 1999: Salonen, 1995; Bolger, 2003). Fish consumption dominates the pathway for human and wildlife exposure to methylmercury. There is a great deal of variability among individuals in fish consumption rates. Critical elements in 141 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 the fish is consumed. The typical U.S. consumer eating a wide variety of fish from restaurants and grocery stores is not in danger of consuming harmful levels of methylmercury from fish and is not advised to limit fish consumption. Those who regularly and frequently consume large amounts of fish, either marine or freshwater, are more 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 interest. The EPA, Food and Drug Administration, and many States have issued fish consumption advisories to inform this population of protective consumption levels. The EPA’s 1997 Mercury Study RTC supports a plausible link between anthropogenic releases of Hg 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 Hg (which may consist of Hg from natural sources, as well as Hg which has been re-emitted from the oceans or soils) and deposition from the global reservoir (which includes Hg 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 Hg (such as natural sources and 142 reemissions from the global pool). As a result, the relationship between Hg emission reductions from Utility Units and methylmercury concentrations in fish cannot be calculated in a quantitative manner with confidence. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding over what time period these changes would occur. This is an area of ongoing study. Given the present understanding of the Hg cycle, the flux of Hg from the atmosphere to land or water at one location is comprised of contributions from: the natural global cycle; the cycle perturbed by human activities; regional sources; and local sources. Recent advances allow for a general understanding of the global Hg cycle and the impact of the anthropogenic sources. It is more difficult to make accurate generalizations of the fluxes on a regional or local scale due to the sitespecific nature of emission and deposition processes. Similarly, it is difficult to quantify how the water deposition of Hg leads to an increase in fish tissue levels. This will vary based on the specific characteristics of the individual] lake, stream, or ocean. As part of routine U.S. population surveillance, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) assessed Hg concentrations in blood of over 1,500 women of child-bearing age. A recent analysis of these data reported that about 8 percent of these women of child-bearing age have levels of Hg in their blood that are at or above the U.S. EPA’s RfD. The CDC also surveyed the same group of women about their eating habits. The surveyed women reported eating shrimp and tuna more frequently than other fish and shellfish options. Hg concentrations in seafood may 143 be largely responsible for elevated levels of Hg in U.S. women of child-bearing age. We have little information about how Hg emissions from U.S. power plants may affect Hg concentrations in shrimp, tuna, and other marine fish. We seek comment on this issue and in particular, any data or other information that would allow us to better estimate the extent to which today’s proposal would reduce blood Hg concentrations in U.S. women. Recent estimates (which are highly uncertain) of annual total global Hg 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 Hg associated with past anthropogenic’ activity. Current anthropogenic emissions account for the remaining 2,000 tpy. Point sources such as fuel combustion; waste incineration; industrial processes; and metal ore roasting, refining, and processing are the largest point source categories on a world-wide basis. Given the global estimates noted above, U.S. anthropogenic Hg emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. utilities are estimated to account for about 1 percent of total global emissions. (Utility RTC at 7—1 to 7-2.) Nickel. Nickel is a natural element of the earth’s crust; therefore, small amounts are found in food, water, soil and air. Food is the major source of Ni exposure. Ni is an essential element in some animal species. Individuals may also be exposed to Ni if they are employed in occupations involved in Ni 144 production, processing, and use, or through contact with every day items such as Ni-containing jewelry and stainless steel cooking and eating utensils, and by smoking tobacco. The route of human exposure to Ni that we are concerned with in this rulemaking is Ni that is found in ambient air at very low levels as a result of releases from oil-fired Utility Units. The differing forms of Ni have varying levels of toxicity. There is great uncertainty about the different species of Ni emitted by Utility Units. Respiratory effects, including a type of asthma specific to Ni, decreased lung function and bronchitis have been reported in humans who have been occupationally exposed to high-levels of Ni in air. Animal studies have reported effects on the lungs and immune system from inhalation exposure to soluble and insoluble Ni compounds (nickel oxide, subsulfide, sulfate heptahydrate). Soluble Ni compounds are more toxic to the respiratory tract than less soluble compounds. The EPA has not established a reference concentration (RfC)for Ni. No information is available regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of Ni in humans, but animal studies have reported such effects, although a consistent doseresponse relationship has not been seen. Human and animal studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from exposure to Ni refinery dusts and Ni subsulfide. The EPA has classified Ni carbonyl as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen based on lung tumors in animals. (see [Page 4659] http:/ /www.epa.gou/ttn/atw/hithef/ nickel.html). 145 We ask for comment on all aspects of our proposed revised determination that it is necessary and appropriate to regulate Ni emissions from oil- fired Utility Units under section 112. In particular, we ask for comments and additional information related to the speciation of Ni compounds directly emitted by oil-fired Utility Units and those that may be formed through atmospheric transformation, as well as information on potential health effects. We also ask commenters—especially current owners and operators of potentially affected oil-fired units—to provide information on the current operating status and anticipated mode of operation in the future of potentially affected oil-fired Utility Units, including current control technology. To the extent possible, we would like to have up-to-date information on fuel use, emissions, stack parameters and other location- specific data that would be relevant to the assessment of emissions, dispersion, and ambient air quality. We also ask for comment on our finding in the Utility RTC that only 11 of 137 oilfired Utility Units considered in the Utility RTC posed an inhalation risk to human health greater than one in a million (1 X 10°) and whether data exists as to whether emissions from these plants no longer pose such risk. 146 Federal Register /Vol. 70, No. 59 /Tuesday, March 29, 2005 /Rules and Regulations [Page 16019] xk F. Fish Tissue Levels of Methylmercury Modeled To Result After Implementation of CAIR and CAMR This section describes the amounts of Utility Unit attributable Hg deposition onto watersheds (termed HUC), as well as the Utility-attributabie methylmercury in fish tissue, all under the various control scenarios modeled. 1. Utility-Attributable Hg Deposition Patterns The air quality modeling shows that total Hg deposition is not highly impacted by utility deposition. The small size of this impact is evident when utility emissions are, in effect, zeroed out in the 2001 base case. The following tables summarize impacts on total Hg deposition and Hg deposition attributable to Utility Units. (81e}0@ asenbs sed surazZ0z01m1 ut pessoudxe eiv #y1UN [[y) wz ure 98% |sror | svusnseusensssansnnpouscumsenseansonseaeonevsses sesweeseenecorecasonees ajauacied igs 68°0 ort se 90 F> | Siaticapenabenee spenca [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0331%3A11. Public record. Not legal advice.