1. page 1
    2. page 3
    3. page 4
    4. page 5
    5. page 6
    6. page 7
    7. page 8
    8. page 9
    9. page 10
    10. page 11
    11. page 12
    12. page 13
    13. page 14
    14. page 15
    15. page 16
    16. page 17
    17. page 18
    18. page 19
    19. page 20
    20. page 21
    21. page 22
    22. page 23
    23. page 24
    24. page 25
    25. page 26
    26. page 27
    27. page 28
    28. page 29
    29. page 30
    30. page 31
    31. page 32
    32. page 33
    33. page 34
    34. page 35
    35. page 36
    36. page 37
    37. page 38
    38. page 39
    39. page 40
    40. page 41
    41. page 42
    42. page 43
    43. page 44
    44. page 45
      1. page 1
      2. page 2
      3. page 3
      4. page 4
      5. page 5
      6. page 6
      7. page 7
      8. page 8
      9. page 9
      10. page 10
      11. page 11
      12. page 12
      13. page 13
      14. page 14
      15. page 15
      16. page 16
      17. page 17
      18. page 18
      19. page 19
      20. page 20
      21. page 21
      22. page 22
      23. page 1
      24. page 2
      25. page 3
      26. page 4
      27. page 5
      28. page 6
      29. page 7
      30. page 8
      31. page 9
      32. page 10
      33. page 11
      34. page 12
      35. page 13
      36. page 14
      37. page 15
      38. page 16
      39. page 17
      40. page 18
      41. page 19
      42. page 20
      43. page 21
      44. page 22
      45. page 23
      46. page 24
      47. page 25
      48. page 26
      49. page 27
      50. page 28
      51. page 29
      52. page 30
      53. page 31
      54. page 32
      55. page 33
      56. page 34
      57. page 36
      58. page 37
      59. page 38
      60. page 39
      61. page 40
      62. page 41
      63. page 42
      64. page 43
      65. page 44
      66. page 45
      67. page 46
      68. page 47
      69. page 48
      70. page 50
      71. page 52
      72. page 53
      73. page 54
      74. page 55
      75. page 56
      76. page 57
      77. page 58
      78. page 59
      79. page 60
      80. page 61
      81. page 62
      82. page 63
      83. page 64
      84. page 65
      85. page 66
      86. page 67
      87. page 68
      88. page 69
      89. page 70
      90. page 71
      91. page 72
      92. page 73
      93. page 74
      94. page 75
      95. page 76
      96. page 77
      97. page 78
      98. page 79
      99. page 80
      100. page 81
      101. page 82
      102. page 83
      103. page 84
      104. page 85
      105. page 86
      106. page 87
      107. page 88
      108. page 89
      109. page 90
      110. page 91
      111. page 92
      112. page 93
      113. page 94
      114. page 95
      115. page 96
      116. page 97
      117. page 98
      118. page 99
      119. page 100
      120. page 101
      121. page 102
      122. page 103
      123. page 104
      124. page 105
      125. page 106
      126. page 107
      127. page 108
      128. page 109
      129. page 110
      130. page 111
      131. page 112
      132. page 113
      133. page 114
      134. page 115
      135. page 116
      136. page 117
      137. page 118
      138. page 119
      139. page 120
      140. page 121

 
Exhibit A

 
Review of the nervous system and
cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposure
Deborah C. Rice, Ph.D .
Environmental and Occupational Health Program
Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Augusta, ME
March 2006
Report to the Illinois EPA
Introduction
The tragic outbreak of neurological disease in Minamata, Japan, in the late 1950s focused
attention on the potential for devastation by neurotoxic agents released into the environment. The
source of the exposure was a plant that used methylmercury as a catalyzer to produce
acetaldehyde. Methylmercury was dumped directly into surface water, which was then
accumulated by marine biota, passed up the food chain to fish, and eventually ingested by the
human population of the area. Thousands of people were exposed and hundreds of people
became clinically ill during the years before and shortly after the hazard was recognized (WHO,
1990). In 1963-1965, another outbreak of methylmercury poisoning was identified in Niigata
Prefecture involving hundreds of people ; the source was a fertilizer factory that released
methylmercury into a river that flowed into a bay from which fish were caught. The signs and
symptoms of adult Minamata disease have been well characterized
(e .g .WHO, 1990; Tsubaki
and Irukayama, 1977 ; Igata, 1993). Early in the exploration of effects of methylmercury
poisoning, attention was largely focused on constrictions of visual fields and other visual
abnormalities. However, peripheral neuropathy is also a cardinal feature of methylmercury
intoxication in humans. Sensory impairment is of the glove-and-stocking type, sometimes with
perioral dysesthesia. Other manifestations of methylmercury intoxication included hearing
deficits, ataxia, muscle weakness, tremor, and mental deterioration . It became clear that the fetus
is more sensitive to methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity than is the adult, and the effects may
be different. Effects included cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, and severe mental retardation
.
Lower doses produced deficits in vision and hearing, as well as motor and speech impairment
(WHO, 1990; Harada, 1978)
.
Our understanding of the devastating damage that methylmercury can produce in the
nervous system is due to description of the neuropathology produced by the episodes of human
poisoning in Minamata (reviewed by Reuhl and Chang, 1979) . Neuropathological lesions were
relatively localized to the cerebellum, motor and somatosensory cortices, and visual cortex, with
substantial cell loss in highly exposed individuals . Consistent with this pattern of more global
and severe deficits as a consequence of fetal versus adult exposure, neuropathology was also
more widespread and severe. Brains were often small and malformed, without the normal
1

 
gyration pattern . Cellular architecture was disrupted, as a result of failure of cells to migrate to
the appropriate area or layer of the brain . This effect was permanent, and would disrupt
formation of normal circuitry of the cerebrum . Similar effects were observed in brain of infants
in the poisoning episode in Iraq
.
A second episode of human poisoning occurred in Iraq in the 1970s, when
methylmercury-treated seed grain intended for planting was ground into flour and consumed
.
Exposures were of shorter duration than those in Japan, and may have been higher (NRC, 2000)
.
The constellation of effects was consistent with that in Minamata . The most highly affected
children exposed prenatally had severe sensory impairment (including blindness and deafness),
cerebral palsy, hypersensitive reflexes, and impaired mental development (Amin-Zaki
et al .,
1974). In a follow-up study, Marsh
et al .
(1987) studied the development of 81 infants exposed
prenatally. Assessment consisted of
a
clinical neurological examination and a maternal interview
regarding the age at which developmental milestones such as walking and talking were reached
.
There was an apparent dose-response relationship between methylmercury exposure and
neurological signs, including increased deep tendon reflexes, hypotonicity, ataxia, and athetoid
movements. Seizures were also observed in the most highly exposed children . Maternal hair
mercury ranged from I to 674 ppm . There was also an exposure-related increase in delayed
walking and talking as reported retrospectively by the mothers . Modeling of the dose-effect
relationship identified a threshold for delayed walking and neurological signs of about 10 ppm in
maternal hair (Cox
et al .,
1989). Assessment of affected individuals in this nomadic culture
presented significant challenges, as discussed by the NRC (2000)
.
Longitudinal prospective epidemiological studies
As a result of the episodes of mass human poisoning from methylmercury, three
longitudinal prospective studies were mounted in the late 1970s and 1980s
. Since it was clear
from the poisoning episodes that the fetus was more sensitive than the adult, these studies
assessed the effects of environmental mercury exposure on the developing organism, particularly
as a consequence of prenatal exposure
.
New Zealand study
The study in New Zealand was designed as a case-control study . On the initial
assessment, seventy-three women who consumed fish more than three times a week, with hair
levels above 6 ppm, were chosen from 935 women (Kjellstrom
et al .,
1986). The 74 children of
those women were designated as the high-mercury group . This study included children from
several ethnic groups, including white, Maori, and Pacific Islander. The most commonly
consumed fish was snapper, and snapper consumption was the greatest predictor of hair mercury
compared to other fish. Each high-mercury child was matched with a child based on age,
mother's age, ethnicity, and hospital of birth . When the children were four years old, they were
tested on the Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) . Fifty-two percent of the high-
mercury children had abnormal results, compared to 17% of the children in the control group
.
The high-mercury group was tested again at 6 years of age (Kjellstrom
et al .,
1989). Each child
was matched with three children on the basis of age, ethnic group, maternal age and smoking,
area of residence, and duration of maternal residence in New Zealand . The mean maternal hair
mercury concentration in the high-exposure group was 8 .3 ppm (range 6-86 ppm). The three
control groups were chosen with respect to maternal hair mercury levels and fish consumption
.
The control groups had maternal hair levels of 0-3 or 3-6 ppm . A battery of 26 psychological and
- 2
-

 
scholastic tests were administered. Multiple regression analyses were performed for five main
variables: the Test of Language Development spoken language quotient (TOLD SL), the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised (WISC-R) full scale and performance IQ, and
the McCarthy Scales perceptual performance and motor scale . Results were controlled for a
number of covariates. Maternal hair mercury was associated with 4 endpoints . In additional
analyses using maternal hair as a continuous variable, none of the five primary endpoints were
associated with mercury (Crump et al ., 1998). However, the negative results were a consequence
of one child whose mother had a hair level of 86 ppm (more than 4 times the nearest
concentration) but the child's scores were not outliers . When data from this child were excluded,
two endpoints from the initial analysis were significant . When all 26 endpoints were analyzed,
impairment on 6 was associated with maternal hair mercury concentrations at p < 0 .10 when the
most highly exposed child was excluded
.
Seychelles Islands study
A longitudinal prospective study was carried out in about 750 children in the Seychelles
Islands in the Indian Ocean. This is a black population. Median maternal hair mercury levels
were 5.9 ppm (interquartile range 6 .0 ppm). Exposure was through frequent (daily) consumption
of fish. Offspring were evaluated longitudinally, including a neurological assessment, the DDST-
Revised, and the Fagan Test of Infant Intelligence during infancy and age at achievement of
milestones . The Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID) were administered at 19 and 29
months. No mercury-related effects were identified (see NRC, 2000 for review) . Seven hundred
and eleven children from this cohort were evaluated at 66 months on the McCarthy Scales of
Children's Abilities, Preschool Language Scale, letter-word recognition subtest of the
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, the Bender Gestalt Test, and the Child Behavior
Checklist (Davidson et al ., 1998). Mean maternal hair level of children tested at 66 months was
6.5 ppm (range 0.9-25.8 ppm). The investigators reported no adverse effects associated with
prenatal exposure to methylmercury in their standard analyses ; in fact, increased mercury
exposure was associated with better performance on some measures . In a subsequent analysis
using nonlinear models, adverse associations were identified for the Preschool Language Scale
(prenatal exposure) and the McCarthy GCI (postnatal exposure) above 10 ppm (Axtell
et al.,
2000). The results for various endpoints was complex, and the authors concluded that there was
no overall evidence for adverse effects
.
Children were assessed again at 9 years on a number of endpoints including W1SC III
full-scale IQ, California Verbal Learning short and long delayed recall, Boston Naming Test, and
Woodcock-Johnson recognition and applied problems, continuous performance task, grooved
pegboard, finger tapping, haptic discrimination, Trailmaking, and a test of visual-motor
integration (Myers et al ., 2003). Some of these endpoints had also been assessed in the Faroe
Islands study (see below) . An adverse association was found between postnatal exposure and
performance on the grooved pegboard using the non-preferred hand, with no other adverse
effects. Better outcome on the hyperactivity index of the Connor's teachers rating scale was
associated with maternal hair mercury . A subsequent exploration of potential non-linear
associations suggested adverse effects above 12 ppm in maternal hair on several measures,
including full-scale IQ (Huang et al ., 2005)
.
A pilot study was carried out in the Seychelles Islands, prior to the longitudinal study, by
the same team of investigators (Myers et al ., 1995). Maternal hair mercury mean concentration
was 6.1 ppm (range 0.6 to 36 .4). A variety of endpoints was assessed between 5 and 109 weeks
- 3 -

 
of age by a pediatric neurologist blinded to the mercury status of the mother. Children were also
tested on the DDST-R during that time period . No mercury-related effects were found . A total of
317 children from the pilot study were assessed at 66 months of age on the same instruments as
in the main study. Mean maternal hair mercury was 7 .1 ppm (range 1 .0 to 36.4). Increased
maternal hair mercury levels were associated with significantly lower scores on the General
Cognitive Index and perceptual-performance scales of the McCarthy, and auditory
comprehension on the Preschool Language Scale . These results are in contrast to those in the
main Seychelles Island study . In the pilot study, important covariates that are frequently
associated with neuropsychological function were not measured, including socioeconomic status,
maternal IQ, and quality of the home environment . Eighty-seven children from this cohort were
evaluated at 9 years on the same endpoints as the main cohort (Davidson
et al.,
2000). Decreased
performance on the grooved pegboard in females was associated with maternal hair mercury,
whereas better performance in males was associated with maternal hair mercury on three
endpoints. The negative association on grooved pegboard was observed in both sexes in the main
cohort .
Faroe Islands study
The Faroe Islands study is a longitudinal prospective study of over 900 children in a
homogeneous white population in the North Atlantic. Women were recruited during pregnancy
and their offspring were tested at 7 years of age . This population consumed fish frequently, with
48% of the cohort consuming fish dinners three or more times per week (Grandjean
et al.,
1992)
.
However, the fish species consumed generally have low concentrations of mercury. A main
source of methylmercury exposure in this cohort was meat from pilot whales, which were landed
on average less than once per month (NIEHS, 1998), although women consumed dried whale
meat `snacks"on a regular basis . Pilot whale meat averaged 1 .9 ppm mercury (NIEHS, 1998)
.
About half this was inorganic mercury, which would not cross the placenta . Consumption of
whale blubber in the Faroese population resulted in significant exposure to PCBs in those women
consuming blubber. In a separate study, milk PCB concentrations in Faroese women were found
to exceed those of most other countries (Grandjean
et al .,
1995). In the developmental study,
cord blood mercury concentrations were used as the main independent variable, although
maternal hair mercury levels at birth were also used as a measure of mercury exposure
(Grandjean
et al .,
1997). Average maternal hair mercury level was 4 .27 ppm (geometric mean)
.
At 7 years of age, 917 children were tested on a series of psychological assessments
(Grandjean
et al .,
1997). A statistically significant (p < 0.10) association was observed between
cord blood mercury levels and poorer performance after control for confounders for the
following measures: NES2 finger tapping, preferred hand; NES2 continuous performance test,
reaction time and number of missed responses ; WISC-R digit spans ; Bender Gestalt reproduction
(p = 0.10); Boston Naming, with and without cues ; California Verbal Learning, short- and long-
term recall . The following tests were found not to be significantly associated with cord blood
mercury levels : NES2 finger tapping, nonpreferred or both hands ; NES2 hand-eye coordination,
error score; tactile performance test, preferred hand ; WISC-R, similarities and block design
;
Bender-Gestalt, errors or copying ; California Verbal Learning, learning and recognition .
Visual and auditory brainstem evoked potentials were measured in the Faroe Island study
at 7 years of age (Murata
et al.,
1999a). Delays in peak I-III of the auditory evoked potentials
were observed. There were no effects on visual evoked potentials . (However, visual evoked
potentials are a less sensitive measure of visual function than assessment of vision
per se .)
- 4
-

 
Auditory evoked potentials were assessed again at 14 years (Murata
et al ., 2004 ;
Grandjean
et
al., 2004) .
As was the case at
7
years, cord blood mercury levels were associated with a
prolonged 1-111 interpeak intervals . In addition, the child's hair mercury concentration at
14
years
was associated with a prolonged III-V interpeak interval . Geometric mean hair mercury
concentration was
0.96
ppm (interquartile range
0.45-2 .29)
at
14
years .
Other prospective studies
A prospective study in the Philippines assessed the relationship between cord blood
mercury (prenatal exposure) and hair or blood mercury in about
120
children at
2
years of age on
language development and a visuospatial-problem solving task (Ramirez
et al., 2003)
.
Subjects
were recruited from two towns with the same ethnic background and language, one a gold
mining community. Mercury was detected in
17%
of cord blood samples, and of those, the mean
was
53
ug/L. Higher cord blood mercury was associated with poorer expressive language
development and poorer performance on the visuospatial task, with no effect on receptive
language. These results are consistent with those from the Faroe Islands study with respect to
domains affected (visuospatial and expressive language) .
A recent prospective study in Massachusetts assessed the relationship between maternal
hair mercury levels and fish intake with performance on a test of short-term visual memory in
135
infants at six months of age (Oken
et al., 2005) .
Geometric mean maternal hair levels were
0 .45
ppm, with 10% of women having hair mercury levels greater than
1 .2
ppm (the hair level
associated with the U .S. EPA reference dose of 0 .1 ug/kg/day) (discussed below). Women
consumed an average of
1 .2
meals per week of fish, including tuna, dark meat, white meat, and
shellfish. Increased hair mercury was significantly associated with poorer performance after
covariate adjustment, and increased fish intake was associated with improved performance . For
each additional fish meal, infant score improved by
4.0
points. However, each I ppm increase in
hair mercury was associated with a decrement of
7.5
points. Scores were highest in infants of
mothers who ate > two fish meals per week but had mercury hair levels <=
1 .2
ppm. These
results areconsistent with those from the Faroe Islands with respect to effects on memory
.
A study in Poland assessed performance of
233
on the Bayley Scale of Infant
development in one-year-old infants as a function of mercury concentrations in cord blood and
maternal blood at delivery (Jedrychowski
et al., 2006) .
Children were dichotomized according to
normal (score >
84)
or delayed (score <
85)
.
The maternal blood mercury level was significantly
lower in the normal group (geometric mean =
0.52
ug/L, CI,
0.45-0.58
ug/L) than in the delayed
group (GM =
0.75
ug/L, CI,
0.59-0.94) .
A similar pattern was observed for cord blood mercury
levels
(0.85
ug/L versus
1 .05
ug/L), which was marginally significantly different (p =
0.07) .
Risk
for delayed performance was significantly elevated at cord blood levels greater than
0.80
ug/L
(RR =
3.58, CI, 1.40-9.14)
on maternal blood mercury levels greater than
0.50
ug/L (RR =
2.82,
CI, 1.17-6.79)
.
Comparison of prospective studies
At least two expert panels have addressed the issue of what factors might account for the
differing findings in the Faroe and Seychelles Islands studies (NIEHS,
1999
;
NRC,
2000)
.
Both
studies are relatively large, well-controlled studies deemed to be of high quality
. An initial
suggestion was that the domain-specific tests used in the Faroe Islands were more sensitive than
the global clinical instruments used in the Seychelles study ; however, some of the endpoints (e.g
.
- 5
-

 
IQ) assessed in the Seychelles Islands were impaired in the New Zealand study . In addition,
assessment of the Seychelles cohort at 9 years, using many of the same tests used in the Faroe
Islands at 7 years, found little evidence of adverse effects
.
Another suggestion was that the age of assessment in the Seychelles study, 5 .5 years, was
problematic because children are undergoing rapid cognitive development at that age, resulting
in increased variability (and therefore less power to detect an effect) . In contrast, children in the
Faroe Islands study were tested at 7 years, a more optimal age for testing . However, the
Seychelles Islands study reports little evidence for adverse effects even at older ages
.
A third possibility is co-exposure to relatively high levels of PCBs in the Faroe Islands
study, which may have interacted with methylmercury, resulting in deficits that would not be
present otherwise. Of the nine endpoints identified as significantly correlated (p < 0 .10) with
methylmercury exposure in the Faroe Islands study, four were also associated with PCB
exposure (p < 0 .10) (Grandjean
et al.,
2001). These were reaction time on the continuous
performance task, Boston Naming with and without cues, and California Verbal learning long-
term recall. It is important to explore the possibility that effects observed on these four variables
are the result of PCB exposure rather than methylmercury exposure, or are the results of an
interaction between PCBs and methylmercury . When both PCBs and methylmercury were
included in the multiple regression analysis, only CPT reaction time was independently related to
mercury exposure (Grandjean
et al .,
2001). For the other three outcomes, the association with
either mercury or PCBs was not statistically significant . Analyses relevant to this issue of a
potential mercury-PCB interaction were performed by Budtz-Jorgensen
et al .
(1999). They
divided the Faroese subjects into tertiles with respect to cord tissue PCB levels, and performed
regression analyses for the effect of mercury separately for each of the four endpoints previously
reported to be associated with PCB exposure, listed above, as well as finger tapping . (The
authors did not state why this measure was included in the analysis .) There were not statistical
differences in the regression coefficients for the three tertiles, thereby failing to provide evidence
for a PCB-methylmercury interaction. In addition, these authors failed to find evidence of a
mercury x PCB interaction for any of these five endpoints when the mercury and PCB exposure
variables and their interaction terms were included in regression analyses (Budtz-Jorgensen
et
al .,
1999). In addition, effects were found in the New Zealand study as well as in a number of
cross-sectional studies (discussed below) at comparable body burdens, in which PCB exposure
was assumed not to occur because of the source and species of fish consumed . The NRC (2000)
also examined this issue in detail (see section on NRC analysis) and concluded that the effects of
methylmercury and PCB were independent
.
A fourth suggestion was that methylmercury exposure in the Faroe Islands may have
included episodes of meals high in mercury as a result of ingestion of whale meat, and that such
bolus doses might have produced effects different from effects resulting from continuous lower-
dose exposure . An analysis of the effect of variability in hair mercury levels during pregnancy
revealed that exclusion of children whose mothers had the most variable hair mercury
concentrations had no impact on the conclusions of the study (Grandjean
et al .,
2003). In fact,
some associations were stronger after elimination of the 10% of women with the most variable
hair mercury level. These results suggest that variable exposure was not the explanation for the
discrepancy between the Faroe Islands and Seychelles Islands studies .
- 6
-

 
Cross-Sectional Studies
Developmental studies
A study was performed in 149 first graders, in the Madeira Islands, a Portuguese island in
the mid-Atlantic (Murata
et al .,
1999b), by the Faroe Islands investigators. This is a fish-eating
population ; fish mercury levels were 0 .7-1 .8 ppm. Concurrent hair mercury concentrations in the
mothers of these children averaged 9.64 ppm (geometric mean), with the highest hair mercury
level at 54.4 ppm. 52.4% of the mothers had hair mercury levels greater than 10 ppm, and 80%
of mothers reported that they had not changed their diet since they were pregnant with the child
who was a subject in the study . An association was found between both auditory and visual
evoked potentials and maternal hair mercury. As in the Faroe Island study, delays in the 1-III
peak were observed for auditory evoked potentials . There were no associations for any of the
other tests, which included finger tapping, hand-eye coordination, continuous performance, digit
spans, block design, and Stanford-Binet bead memory
.
The Faroe Islands team also investigated the effects of methylmercury exposure in
children in the Brazilian Amazon (Grandjean
et al .,
1999). In the Amazon, elemental mercury
used in gold mining is vaporized by heating, as well as being discharged directly into waterways
.
It is converted to methylmercury and bioaccumulates and bioconcentrates in fish. In a cross-
sectional study, 351 children between the ages of 7 and 12 from a total of four villages were
studied, although for any one endpoint, only two or three villages were assessed . Average hair
mercury level was 11 .0 ppm (geometric mean) for the children, and 11 .6 ppm for the mothers
.
More than 80% of the children had hair mercury levels greater than 10 ppm . One village had a
distribution of mercury levels lower than the other three villages (Village A), with most of the
children having hair mercury levels below 10 ppm . When data were analyzed from that village
alone, mercury-related effects were found on Santa Ana pegboard and Stanford-Binet copying,
but not on finger tapping, digit spans, or Stanford-Binet bead memory . (Data were not presented
separately for the villages other than Village A .) When the villages were analyzed together
correctingfor community, these measures plus Stanford-Binet recall were significantly
associated with mercury hair concentrations . However, when the villages were analyzed together
without correcting for community, all measures were significant. This may be the result of added
statistical power and the fact that a wider range of mercury hair levels was represented,
particularly between Village A compared to the other three villages. However, there were
differences between villages that may have confounded the results
.
A study in French Guiana (a gold mining area) assessed a variety of endpoints in about
370 children from infancy to 12 years of age in three communities with different levels of
exposure (Cordier
et al .,
2002). Geometric mean mercury hair levels in the children were 10 .2,
6.5, and 1 .4 ppm for the three communities . Increased neurological signs were observed in boys
only as a function of methylmercury exposure . Deficits in Stanford-Binet Copying and
McCarthy digit span forward and backward were observed as a function of increased hair
mercury concentrations after appropriate covariate control (e .g . age, sex, examiner, mother's
Rauen score, parity as required) . No effect was observed on fine motor (finger tap) or gross
motor (leg coordination) function .
In another study in a gold-mining area, auditory function was assessed in children and
adults in Ecuador (Counter
et al.,
1998). Median blood mercury levels were 15 ug/L in the study
area (range 4-67 ug/L) and 2 .0 ug/L in the reference area, documenting increased exposure in the
- 7
-

 
gold-mining area. Auditory brain stem response was assessed in the study area, and there was a
relationship between increased blood mercury and a I-HI interpeak latency on the left side
. There
was one statistically-significant effect on pure tone auditory thresholds between 2-8 kHz : at 3
kHz in the right ear in children . The effects on auditory evoked responses is consistent with
effects observed in other studies (Grandjean
et al .,
2004; Murata
et al .,
2004, 1999b). High-
frequency auditory thresholds may be affected before lower ones (Rice and Gilbert, 1992, 1990)
.
Eight kHz is about an octave lower than the upper range of human hearing ; perhaps testing at
higher frequencies would have revealed deficits
.
The relationship between blood lead and urine mercury and visual function, as measured
by visual evoked potentials and contrast sensitivity, was assessed in a study in Germany
(Altmann
et al.,
1998). This cross-sectional study included 384 6-year-old children who had no
known elevated exposure to mercury. Urinary mercury level were associated with decreased
contrast sensitivity at some frequencies between 1 .5 and 18 cycle/degrees. The highest frequency
tested is in the middle range of frequencies detectable by humans ; high frequencies were not
tested. Average mercury excretion was 0 .157 ug/24 hour period. Median urinary mercury levels
in women in the NHANES survey was about 0 .6 ug/L, with a 95`" percentile of about 4.0 ug/L
for 1999-2002 . Although results are not directly comparable, the data suggest that the German
children were not highly exposed . The number of amalgam fillings averaged less than 2, but
there was a relationship between fillings and urinary mercury levels . It is not possible to
determine whether the observed effects were the result of exposure to inorganic or organic
mercury; however, effects on visual contrast sensitivity are known to be associated with
methylmercury but not inorganic mercury exposure
.
In a study in Cree in northern Quebec, psychomotor function was assessed in 234 12-30-
month-old children (McKeown-Eyssen
et al.,
1983). Mean hair mercury concentration was 6 .0
ppm. There was little evidence of a deleterious effect on language, fine or gross motor status, or
social scales . Abnormal muscle tone was associated with prenatal mercury exposure in boys but
not in girls.
Adult studies
In a study in frequent tuna consumers versus non-consumers in Italy, tests of cognitive
function and fine and gross motor function were assessed (Carta
et al .,
2004). Average age of the
men was 51 years . The median of total mercury in blood of the fish eaters was 44 ug/L, and in
the non-fish eaters it was 3 .9 ug/L. Forty-one percent of fish eaters ate fish more than three times
per week, and 65% of all fish meals in the exposed group was fresh tuna . Color word reaction
time and digit symbol reaction time (both tests of speed of information processing and cognitive
flexibility) were associated with total urinary mercury and organic mercury in blood (available
for only a subset of the population), whereas simple reaction time, finger tapping, digit span, and
the Luria-Nebraska battery of motor performance were not . The Branches Alternation Movement
Test of gross motor integration was affected . Serum prolactin was also higher in the exposed
versus control group
.
In a study in the Brazilian Amazon, 68 individuals between 15 and 79 underwent
assessment of motor performance (Dolbec
et al.,
2000). Median hair mercury level was 9 ppm
.
Hair mercury levels were associated with deficits on the Santa Ana dexterity test, grooved
pegboard test of dexterity and fine motor movement, and fingertapping speed . In another study
of 91 adults between 15-81 years (Lebel
et al.,
1997,1998), median hair mercury levels were
8 -

 
about 12 ppm, with a peak of about 17 ppm . Deficits in coordination on the Branch Alternating
Movement were found, as in the Carta
et al .
(2003) study. Constriction of visual field was
associated with peak hair mercury levels, and decreased contrast sensitivity at all but low
frequencies was associated with peak mercury hair levels in younger but not older individuals
.
The latter effect was also observed in developmentally-exposed monkeys (see below) and
probably reflects developmental exposure in this study . Gold mining began about 25 years before
the study was performed, so that older individuals were presumably exposed to less mercury
during development . Constriction of visual fields and deficits in gross motor movement could be
the result of adult and/or developmental exposure. Cytotoxicity has also been documented in this
study population (Amorim
et al .,
2000)
.
In a study in the United States, a cross-sectional assessment was performed on 474
participants, 50-70 years old, in the Baltimore Memory Study (Weil
et al.,
2005). Average blood
mercury concentration was 2 .76 ug/L (SD = 2.35 ug/L). Twenty endpoints assessing cognitive
and motor function were analyzed . A negative association was found between blood mercury
levels and delayed recall on a visual memory task (Rey complex figure delayed recall), with a
marginal effect on a verbal memory task (Rey auditory delayed recall). In contrast, increased
mercury levels predicted better performance on a finger tapping task of fine motor function
. The
authors concluded that there was no strong evidence that blood mercury levels were associated
with worse neurobehavioral performance. However, recall memory was affected in the Faroe
Islands and other studies, so the negative association with memory may not be spurious
.
A study of neuropsychological function was conducted in 129 men from six fishing
villages in Brazil (Yokoo
et
al.,
2003). Mean hair mercury was 4.2 ppm, and the median was 3 .7
ppm. Analyses were performed for 21 endpoints of cognitive and motor function, as well as a
questionnaire of mood. Six of the comparisons were statistically significant with respect to the
relationship between hair mercury levels and performance, all in the direction of poorer
performance. It is unlikely that these results were solely due to chance. Deficits were observed,
after covariate adjustment, on fine motor speed, logical memory, digit span forward and
backward (tests of working memory), and easy learning from the Portuguese version of the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale . Increased hair mercury levels also predicted increased errors
of commission on the Concentrated Attention Test of the Toulouse Pierrin Factorial Battery
. This
finding suggests a deficit in impulse control .
The relationship between motor effects and methylmercury exposure was assessed in a
total of 66 Cree over 40 years old in Quebec (Beater and Edwards, 1998 ; Beuter
et
al .,
1999) .
Active, static, and postural tremor were measured objectively, and there were differences
between exposed (hair mercury range 2 .3-31.1 ppm) and unexposed groups for several measures
of all three tremor types. In addition, differences were identified between high hair mercury (27
ppm) and low-mercury (8 ppm) groups. Rotational movement of the hands was also objectively
assessed in these same subjects . There was some evidence that the higher exposure group had
impaired motor control relative to the controls .
Review of the Health Effects of Methylmercury by the National Research Council
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) derived a reference dose (RfD) for
methylmercury, based on the Iraqi study in 1995 . An RfD is defined as "an estimation of a daily
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during the lifetime ."The reference dose was 0 .1
- 9
-

 
ug/kg/day. In 1997, Congress mandated that EPA fund an expert panel under the auspices of the
National Research Council (NRC) to determine whether the RfD was scientifically justifiable
.
The NRC panel concluded that an RfD of 0 .1 ug/kg/day was scientifically justifiable based on its
review and analysis (NRC, 2000). Information from studies not available in 1995 was thoroughly
reviewed by the expert panel : specifically, the longitudinal prospective studies in New Zealand,
the Faroe Islands, and the Seychelles Islands . The latter two studies had been previously
reviewed by an expert panel (NIEHS, 1999) and deemed to be of high quality. The conclusion of
the NRC panel was that all three studies were high-quality, well-designed studies . The NRC
panel performed extensive analysis of all three studies, including exposure (body burden)-
response modeling and a bench-mark dose (BMD) analysis of a number of endpoints . A BMD
analysis identifies a point on the exposure-effect curve that is associated with a defined risk
.
The first step in BMD analysis is determining the shape of the relationship between
exposure and effect. The NRC modeled the relationship between maternal body burden and the
child's performance on five endpoints from the Faroe Islands study from a total of nine that had
been reported as significantly affected by methylmercury exposure (Grandjean et al., 1997)
(Table I). Similarly, five endpoints negatively associated with methylmercury exposure in the
New Zealand study (Kjellstrom et al., 1989) were used in the BMD analysis by the NRC . All of
the endpoints assessed in the Seychelles study were also modeled, even though the Seychelles
study was reported as negative . For the Faroe Islands study, maternal blood mercury
concentration was used as the exposure metric ; for the other two studies, only hair mercury
levels were available
.
In BMD analysis, the first step is to model the relationship between the endpoint
(neuropsychological performance) and exposure (body burden). The NRC used the K power
model, and determined the K value that best fit the data . The model was constrained to K >= 1
.
This allowed a sublinear relationship
:
i .e ., a lower slope at lower body burdens and a
comparatively greater slope at higher body burdens . The NRC reasoned that a supralinear model
was biologically implausible . Under these conditions, the best fit to the data was K=1, or a linear
dose-effect relationship, which was the model used for all endpoints from all three studies . In
fact, for the Faroe Islands endpoints, supralinear models such as the square root or logarithmic
transformations were a better fit than the linear model (Budtz-Jprgensen et al., 2000). In other
words, there was evidence that the slope was actually steeper at lower body burdens compared to
higher ones. This was also the case for the endpoints from the New Zealand study (Louise Ryan,
statistician on the NRC panel, personal communication) . This means that there was no evidence
of a threshold within the body burdens of these studies (range of 0.17-39.1 ppm in hair in the
Faroe Islands study [Grandjean
et al.,
2005]) .
Benchmark dose analysis requires two additional decisions once an appropriate model
has been chosen . When continuous data are used, a point on the curve below which responses
are considered "abnormal" must be chosen, termed P 0
. A value of PO = 0.05 was used in the
NRC assessment: that is, the cutoff for abnormal response was set at the lowest 5% (5th
percentile) of children. This is roughly comparable to an IQ of 75 in terms of population
distribution. The second decision that must be made is the choice of the increase in the
proportion of individuals that will be expected to perform in the "abnormal" category in an
exposed versus an unexposed population. This is defined as the benchmark response (BMR) . A
BMR of 0.05 was chosen for this assessment, which would result in a doubling of the number of
-
1 0
-

 
children with a response at or below the 5th percentile in an unexposed population. The lower
95% confidence limit on the BMD (BMDL) was determined for each endpoint
.
The BMDLs were highest for the Seychelles Islands study and lowest for the New
Zealand study (Table II). The NRC also performed a combined BMD analysis, using hair
methylmercury data from all three studies . The BMDLs from the Faroe Islands study were 12-15
ppm total mercury in maternal hair, whereas those in the New Zealand study were 4-6 ppm
.
BMDLs from the Seychelles Islands study were 17-25, about 50% higher than those in the Faroe
Islands and 250-300% higher than those from the New Zealand study . It is important to
recognize that the BMDL represents a defined risk level : in this case, a doubling of the number
of children performing in the abnormal range. It is therefore not equivalent to the NOAEL (no
observed adverse effect level), which be definition is a level at which no adverse effects are
identified
.
The NRC examined the issue of potential confounding by PCBs in the Faroe Islands
study in some detail. PCB body burden data were available for half the cohort (about 450
children). Analyses were performed controlling or not controlling for PCBs, with no systematic
effects on BMDLs (Table III) . Additional analyses were performed dividing the cohort into
tertiles with respect to PCB levels; again there was no evidence that higher PCB body burden
was related to a greater effect of methylmercury
.
The NRC believed that the negative Seychelles Islands study should not be used as the
basis for risk assessment, given the evidence of adverse effects found in the Faroe Islands and
New Zealand studies. The NRC recommended the Faroe Islands study as the study upon which
to base a hazard analysis for several reasons. First, the Faroe Island study is considerably larger
than the New Zealand study. In addition, this study has been ". .
. extensively analyzed and re-
analyzed to explore the possibility of confounding, outliers, differential sensitivity, and other
factors" (NRC, 2000, p. 299). The NRC recommended the cord blood concentration of 58 ug/L
associated-with the BMDL from the Boston Naming Test as a suitable basis for derivation of the
RfD .
Conversion of Cord Blood Concentration to Maternal Methylmercury Intake
Cord blood was a better predictor of performance than hair in the only study that used
both biomarkers (Faroe study), although maternal hair mercury was also associated with
decrements in performance in both the Faroe and New Zealand studies . Hair mercury represents
an integration of exposure throughout gestation if a sufficient length of hair is analyzed . Cord
blood mercury represents exposure more proximal to delivery. Hair represents an excretion
compartment more removed for the fetus than cord blood . The NRC stated that there was no
compelling evidence to consider one biomarker more appropriate than the other. The committee
recommended the use of cord blood because it explained
".
. . more of the variability in more of
the outcomes" (NRC, 2000, p . 286). In addition, modeling the association between cord blood
and maternal mercury intake is more straightforward than inclusion of a hair excretion
compartment
.
The U .S. EPA (2001) used a one-compartment pharmacokinetic (PK) model to estimate
the intake associated with BMDLs from a number of endpoints from both the Faroe Islands and
New Zealand studies, as well as the integrated analysis of all three studies . The EPA used

 
central tendencies for the parameters rather than estimating distributions . The EPA also assumed
that the ratio of cord :maternal blood mercury concentration was 1 .0, even though EPA
acknowledged that it was probably greater than one . The EPA applied a total uncertainty factor
(UF) of 10 below the BMDLs from the various endpoints modeled by the NAS (EPA, 2005 ; Rice
et al .,
2003) (Table II). It is unclear whether this OF provides sufficient protection against
adverse effects, given that there was no evidence of a threshold in the modeling performed by the
NRC, as well as new analyses regarding the pharmacokinetics
of
methylmercury
.
Since the EPA assessment, two important analyses have been published . A distributional
analysis
of
the cord:matemal blood ratio identified a central tendency of 1 .7, and a 90` h percentile
of 3.3 (Stern and Smith, 2003). Using the central tendency of 1 .7, 58 ug/L in cord blood would
be associated with 34 ug/L in maternal blood. For mother-fetal pairs at the 90 th percentile, a cord
blood level of 58 ug/L would be associated with a maternal blood level of about 18 ug/L
. These
are maternal blood levels associated with a doubling in the number of children performing in the
abnormal range on the Boston Naming Test of the Faroe Islands study
.
Stern subsequently performed a probabilistic (Monte Carlo) full distribution analysis of
the one-compartment PK model (Stern, 2005). The one-compartment model is preferable to a
physiologically based (PB) PK model because it requires fewer assumptions . In addition, the
one-compartment model provides a good predictor of the relationship between intake and blood
mercury levels under steady-state (chronic intake) conditions . Stem expanded the model used by
EPA (2001) to include the cord blood:maternal blood ratio
:
D_Cx(1/R)xbxV
WxAxF
where D = maternal intake of meHg (ug/kg)
C = mercury concentration in cord blood (58 ug/L)
R = ratio of cord:maternal blood (unitless)
b = rate constant of elimination from blood (day
-')
V = maternal blood volume (L)
W = maternal body weight (kg)
A = fraction of ingested dose that is absorbed (unitless)
F = fraction of absorbed dose in blood (unitless)
The BMDL value of 58 ug/L recommended by the NRC was used in the analysis
.
Distributions for each variable were chosen from the published literature, with preference given
to third-trimester data. Studies were chosen for which distributions were provided in the
publication under consideration or could be derived from the data provided in the paper. Results
were based on the average of five separate simulations of 5000 iterations each . Sensitivity
analyses of variability revealed that R made the biggest contribution to output variability,
followed by b, F, and W. V and A made no significant contribution to the variability .
Sensitivity analysis of central tendency suggested that uncertainty in the most uncertain input
parameters would likely influence the estimate of maternal dose by <= 20%
.
The analysis identified a mean intake of 0 .99 ug/kg/day and a median (50` h percentile) of
0.81 ug/kg/day associated with a cord blood concentration of 58 ug/L . The 5`h percentile was
-
1 2 -

 
0.30 ug/kg/day, and the V' percentile was 0 .20 ug/kg/day. In other words, for 1% of U.S .
women, an intake of 0.20 ug/kg/day would result in a cord blood mercury concentration of 58
ug/L. This is only a factor of two greater than the RfD, and may provide no safety factor against
risk for these mother-infant pairs
.
Behavioral effects in animals
Neuropathological effects of developmental exposure to methylmercury have been
characterized in humans, monkeys, and rodents (see reviews by Reuhl and Chang, 1979
;
Burbacher
et
al .,
1990a). There are both similarities and differences, with the pattern of damage
in the monkey being more like that of the human than is the pattern in the rodent . Nonetheless, in
all species, methylmercury exposure at high doses produces decreased brain size ; damage to
cortex, basal ganglia, and other brain areas ; loss of cells; disorganized cell layers; ectopic cells
;
and loss of myelin. Therefore animal models may provide important information regarding
mechanism of action of methylmercury toxicity, as well as characterization of functional deficits
.
Effects in monkeys
There is a substantial database documenting adverse effects produced by methylmercury
exposure in animals, particularly following developmental exposure (NAS, 2000 ; Newland and
Paletz, 2000; Rice, 1996a; Gilbert and Grant-Webster, 1995) . A significant body of research has
been performed in monkeys, for several reasons . The structure of the monkey brain is more
similar to that of the human than is the rodent brain . The rodent brain has a smooth
(lyssencephalic) cerebral cortex, whereas the cortex of the primate (including human) brain has a
highly convoluted surface (gyrencephalic brain). This difference is particularly important with
respect to the damage produced by methylmercury, which preferentially damages structures
within sulci. The kinetics of methylmercury in rodents is quite different from that in the primate
.
Methylmercury is bound to sulfur in red blood cells, and the ratio of red blood cells to plasma is
much higher in the rat than the primate. The ratio of methylmercury in the brain compared to the
blood is about 1 :10 in rodents, but between 2:1 and 5 :1 in primates (see Rice, 1996a) . The
monkey is capable of more complex behavior than the rodent. The visual system of the monkey
is virtually identical to that of the human, whereas the rodent system is quite different . This is
particularly important since visual deficits are a hallmark of methylmercury exposure. Finally,
episodes of human poisoning and the resulting recognition of the potentially devastating effects
of methylmercury encouraged research in the most appropriate species
.
Research on macaque monkeys was performed in two laboratories (University of
Washington and Health Canada), in which cohorts of monkeys were exposed
in utero
only,
in
utero
plus postnatally through adolescence, or beginning at birth through young adulthood (7
years). In all these studies, infants were separated from their mothers at birth and reared in a
primate nursery. In the studies in which monkeys were exposed prenatally, the mothers were
dosed until blood mercury levels were stable, before initiation of breeding, to mimic
environmental exposure in humans
.
Visual function was assessed in all cohorts using a behavioral procedure in which the
stimuli and experimental task were controlled by computer. Deficits in spatial visual function
were observed in all three cohorts (Burbacher
et
al., 2005; Rice, 1996a; Rice and Gilbert, 1982)
.
High frequency and low luminance vision were most affected . Assessment of temporal visual
function indicated remodeling of the visual system during development, with preferential
-
1 3 -

 
damage to small cells . Auditory function was assessed in monkeys exposed pre- plus postnatal or
postnatally only (Rice, 1998 ; Rice and Gilbert, 1992) . Individuals in the former cohort were
impaired in their ability to detect pure tones across a range of frequencies . The monkeys exposed
beginning at birth were impaired only at high or high and middle frequencies, with low
frequencies spared. The ability of the monkeys in these cohorts to detect a vibrating needle in
contact with the tip of the finger was also determined (Rice and Gilbert, 1995) . As in the other
assessments of sensory system function, the stimulus presentation was controlled by computer
.
The monkey's hand was held in position over the blunt needle, and the frequency and amplitude
of the vibration were precisely controlled . Monkeys in both cohorts exhibited impairment in their
ability to detect vibration over a range of frequencies, which probably resulted from central
rather than peripheral damage. Monkeys in both cohorts were also impaired on a fine motor task
during middle age (Rice, 1996b), presumably as a consequence of somatosensory impairment
(see section on delayed neurotoxicity)
.
Experiments in monkeys also provide evidence for cognitive impairment . Monkeys
exposed to methylmercury only during gestation were impaired on an object permanence task
during infancy (Burbacher
et al.,
1988). This task tested the infants' ability to realize that a
desired object placed behind a screen was still present, as measured by their reaching behind the
screen to retrieve it. Methylmercury-exposed infants took longer to learn the task, and were
retarded in the development of the skill of simple reaching for the object when it was in view
.
These same monkeys were also deficient on a series of visual recognition tasks (Gunderson
et
al .,
1986, 1988). In this task, the subject is shown a stimulus (usually a picture), and after a delay
the subject is shown the original stimulus and a novel one . A normal animal or human infant will
gaze longer at the novel stimulus, which is considered to be indicative of recognition memory
and is a reasonable predictor of later IQ . Methylmercury-exposed monkeys were impaired,
exhibiting a decreased percentage of time looking at the novel stimulus compared to controls
.
The results of this study could also be due to deficits in higher-order visual processing, however,
as discussed by Newland and Palentz (2000) . Deficits were also reported on this task in U .S
.
infants at low maternal body burdens (Oken
et al .,
2005). This cohort also behaved differently
than controls in a social situation, exhibiting increased nonsocial and passive behavior, and
decreased rough-and-tumble play but not quiet social interaction (Burbacher
et al .,
1990b) .
The effects of methylmercury have been assessed on performance on a fixed interval (FI)
schedule of reinforcement . On this schedule, a response after a certain period of time has elapsed
is reinforced with food . Even though only one response is required, the FI engenders a response
pattern characterized by a gradually accelerating rate of response terminating in reinforcement
.
One aspect of performance assessed by this schedule is the temporal control of behavior, which
may be considered a higher-order cognitive ('bxecutive') function . Monkeys exposed prenatally
only (Gilbert
et al .,
1996) or pre- plus postnatally (Rice, 1992) exhibited a different temporal
pattern of performance compared to controls
.
In a study in squirrel monkeys exposed prenatally (Newland
et al.,
1994), the effects of
methylmercury were determined on a complex learning task that required adaptive response to
changing environmental contingencies . In the concurrent random interval-random interval
schedule, responses were reinforced on each of two levers, with one delivering a reinforcement
for a response at a shorter interval than the other . A normal subject will apportion responses
accordingly (e.g . if one lever pays off four times as frequently as the other, the subject will
respond on it about four times as often) . After the monkey learned the task, the relative
-
1 4
-

 
frequencies of reinforcement opportunity between levers was changed . Control monkeys
followed these changes in schedule contingencies appropriately, whereas the exposed monkeys
did not. This learning deficit suggests that the methylmercury-exposed monkeys were insensitive
to changes in the rules of their environment
.
In contrast to these findings, methylmercury-treated monkeys were not impaired on other
learning tasks (Rice, 1996a ; Gilbert
et al .,
1993). This suggests that the effects of methylmercury
on cognition are not global in nature
.
The doses in the studies with macaque monkeys (10-50 ug/kg/day to mother and/or
offspring)
resulted in blood mercury levels above those expected in human environmental
exposure. The highest dose, the only dose administered in the studies of
in utero
only or
postnatal only exposure, resulted in peak blood mercury levels during infancy of 0.8-1 .2 ppm. In
the study of pre- plus postnatal exposure, doses of 10, 25, or 50 ug/kg/day were given to the
mother during pregnancy and the offspring from birth to 4 years of age . Unfortunately, only a
single infant was born in the lowest dose group ; the maternal blood level was 37 ug/L, and the
infants' blood at birth was 46 ug/L (Rice, 1989a) . The infant born at the 10 ug/kg/day dose was
as impaired as individuals at higher doses. The effects observed on sensory systems were robust,
although the monkeys appeared normal upon observation until middle age (see section on
delayed toxicity). A no-effect level was not identified. Testing on many of these endpoints
occurred years after cessation of dosing, indicating that the effects were permanent
.
Behavioral effects in rodents
Methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity in the adult rodent is manifested mostly as
impairment to motor systems. Methylmercury neurotoxicity as a result of developmental
exposure was identified in the mouse by Spyker
et al .
(1972), who reported retarded growth and
increased mortality in pups exposed
in utero,
with no obvious effect on motor function
.
Neurotoxicity was revealed when these mice were forced to swim, however, displayed as
abnormal.swimming movements and posture . A number of subsequent studies in rats or mice
exposed to high doses of methylmercury during several days of gestation demonstrated gross
neurological signs, changes in activity, or impairment on simple learning tasks, usually in
conjunction with decreased maternal or pup weight, or increased pup mortality (Reviewed by
Rice, 1996a) .
Methylmercury has been chosen as a model agent for the validation of various test
batteries and/or determination of inter-laboratory reliability because of its potent action as a
neurotoxic agent in humans . In a collaborative study involving six laboratories in the United
States, the effects of 2.0 or 6.0 mg/kg of methylmercury administered on gestational days 6-9
were studied on negative geotaxis, olfactory orientation, auditory startle habituation, activity,
activity following a pharmacological challenge, and a visual discrimination task (Buelke-Sam
et
al .,
1985) . Facilitation of auditory startle at the high dose of methylmercury was reliably
observed across laboratories, with inconsistent or minimal effects on activity, pharmacological
challenge, and the discrimination task, in the presence of overt signs such as decreased weight
gain and delayed developmental landmarks . Additional research with a different battery of tests
using a subset of the rats from the U .S. collaborative study revealed delayed righting and
swimming ontogeny and decreased activity (Vorhees, 1985). Impairment was also observed on
performance in a complex water maze, a task heavily dependent upon intact motor function
.
Most effects were observed only at the high dose .
-
1 5 -

 
In a collaborative study in Europe, dams were exposed to methylmercury in drinking
water during pregnancy and lactation . Delayed sexual maturity and impaired righting and
swimming ability were observed in the offspring (Suter and Schon, 1986) . Assessment of
complex learning measured by visual discrimination reversal and spatial delayed alternation
performance revealed increased response latencies and an increased incidence of failure to
respond during a trial, with no effect on accuracy of performance (Schreiner
et al .,
1986; Elsner,
1986) . In addition, the pattern of locomotor behavior in a complex activity monitor differed
between control and methylmercury-treated offspring, with treated rats exhibiting less behavioral
diversity. In a follow-up study involving five European laboratories, dams were exposed to
methylmercury in doses of 0.0025-5.0 mg/kg/day on days 6-9 of gestation (Elsner
et al.,
1988) .
This study in general confirmed results of the previous study with respect to the lack of effect on
accuracy of performance in the visual discrimination and delayed alternation tasks
.
Methylmercury-treated offspring exhibited delayed vaginal opening, impaired swimming
behavior, decreased locomotor activity, increased amplitude in auditory startle, and decreased
activity on a variety
of
endpoints in the learning tasks . Most effects were observed only at the
highest dose, while impaired swimming ability, increased auditory startle, and failure to respond
on a spatial alternation task were observed at 0 .5 mg/kg. Delayed vaginal opening was observed
at 0.025 mg/kg, the lowest dose at which an effect was observed
.
In another study in which methylmercury was used to validate a test battery, dams were
dosed on days 6-15 to doses of 1, 2, or 6 mg/kg of methylmercury (Goldey
et al .,
1994). No
effects were observed on T-maze alternation, locomotor activity, amplitude or habituation
of
auditory startle, observational assessment, or olfactory discrimination at the lowest two doses
.
(The highest dose was lethal .)
In a pair of studies specifically designed to be sensitive to the known effects of
methylmercury neurotoxicity in the rodent, rat dams were gavaged with methylmercury on days
6-9 of gestation at doses between 0 .005 and 0.50 mg/kg (Musch
et al .,
1978; Bornhausen
et al .,
1980). Offspring were impaired in their ability to perform on a DRH schedule of reinforcement,
in which a number of responses on a lever were required in a specified (short) period of time
.
Methylmercury-treated offspring performed normally when required to press a lever twice within
one second to be reinforced (DRH 2/1), but not when the response requirement was
incrementally increased to DRH 4/2 and then DRH 8/4 . Both male and female rats were reliably
affected at a dose of 0.01 mg/kg, the lowest dose at which effects have been observed in rodents
.
The robust effects observed on this paradigm may be the result of motor impairment, although
cognitive deficits also may have contributed to the poorer performance of the treated rats
.
Rats whose dams were exposed to 0 .5 or 1 .5 ppm methylmercury during gestation were
trained as adults to press a small platform with a force between two defined limits (Elsner, 1991)
.
The exposed rats were impaired on this task, which could reflect sensory and/or motor
impairment. These rats also displayed impaired swimming ability, which could also result from
both sensory and motor deficits . These results replicated previous findings (Elsner
et al .,
1988) .
Some individuals had tremors, clearly a motor effect
.
In a study of several aspects of behavior, mouse dams were exposed to 0, 4, 6, or 8 pm
methylmercury in drinking water during gestation and lactation (Goulet
et al.,
2003). Pups were
tested on rotorod (a test of gross motor function), spatial alternation (a test of working memory),
and locomotor activity. Working memory was impaired in females in the two highest dose
groups on one of two tests of working memory, and locomotor activity was decreased in females
- 16
-

 
in all groups . This study reported cognitive effects in mice in the absence of gross motor
impairment as measured by ability to stay on a rotating rod . Similar effects on working memory
were observed in a previous study by this group of investigators (Dore
et al., 2001) . .
In a study on the potential interaction of methylmercury and PCBs on behavior, rat dams
were exposed during pregnancy to 0 .5 ppm methylmercury in drinking water to postnatal day 16
(Widholm
et al., 2004) .
Offspring were tested on a spatial memory task (delayed spatial
alternation) beginning at 110 days of age. Methylmercury-exposed rats were impaired on this
task across all delay values, suggesting a cognitive deficit other than memory. There was not an
interaction between methylmercury and PCBs in this study
.
It is clear that the most salient effect of methyl mercury exposure in the rodent is
impairment of motor function, particularly on test batteries . Results of tests of cognitive function
were largely negative or showed a very weak high-dose effect . However, testing on more
sophisticated tasks revealed cognitive impairment . (See section on delayed neurotoxicity for
description of other studies in which cognitive impairment in rodents was reported .) Little
research has been performed in the rodent on the effects of methylmercury exposure on sensory
system function
.
In utero
exposure has been reported to result in changes in visual evoked
potentials (Zenick, 1976 ; Dyer
et al .,
1978). Goldey
et al .
(1994) found no effect on auditory
threshold for pure tones .
Evidence for long-term and delayed effects
Effects in animals
The possibility that methylmercury may produce toxicity during old age was recognized
early. Mice exposed to methylmercury
in utero
displayed abnormalities of various sorts as these
animals aged not present earlier, including kyphosis, obesity, apparent immune impairment, and
severe neuropsychological deficits (Spyker, 1975)
.
Evidence of delayed neurotoxicity as a result of developmental exposure to
methylmercury has also been observed in monkeys in the Health Canada laboratory . When the
group of monkeys exposed from birth to 7 years of age was 13 years old, it was noted
incidentally by animal care staff that some of these individuals appeared clumsy and hesitant in
the large exercise cages. This observation was considered to be particularly important in view of
the possibility that these signs represented methylmercury-induced delayed neurotoxicity
manifested many years after cessation of exposure . Observation of these monkeys in the large
cages in which they had exercised and socialized since infancy revealed clumsiness in some
treated individuals, a tendency for the hind feet to slip down the bars when climbing, and a
preference for climbing from area to area rather than jumping. Assessment by a veterinarian
revealed a higher incidence of failure to respond to a light touch or pin prick to the hands, feet, or
tail (Rice, 1996b). In a test of fine motor control, treated monkeys retrieved raisins from recessed
wells more slowly than controls, with some treated monkeys having difficulty removing the
raisins from deep compartments. These monkeys had undergone routine clinical assessment of
sensory and motor function from infancy to about four years of age, with no signs of toxicity
noted. The observation of overt toxicity at age 13, six years after cessation of dosing, therefore
represents delayed neurotoxicity as a consequence of methylmercury exposure . During old age,
some of these individuals had protruding tongues, which was considered indicative of perioral
hypoesthesia, a recognized effect of methylmercury poisoning . The group of monkeys exposed
in utero
to four years of age were also slower than controls to retrieve raisins from recessed
-
1 7
-

 
compartments, even though these monkeys were not overtly clumsy . While it was not possible to
rule out motor damage in these groups of monkeys, it seemed reasonable to assume that the
observed slowness and clumsiness was at least partly the result of somatosensory damage, based
on the results of these relatively crude assessment procedures . Objective assessment of
somatosensory function confirmed impairment in the ability of these monkeys to detect vibration
in the fingers. (See section on behavioral effects in animals .)
The ability to detect pure tones over a range of frequencies was examined at I 1 and 19
years of age in the group of monkeys exposed during gestation and continuing to four years of
age (Rice, 1998). At the first assessment, monkeys in the high-dose group were impaired at
higher frequencies, whereas at the second assessment, the high-dose group was impaired at more
frequencies relative to controls, and the lower-dose individuals were also impaired . This
represents delayed neurotoxicity for this functional domain, and demonstrates an interaction of
aging and previous methylmercury exposure in these monkeys . Visual function was also
reassessed in both cohorts of monkeys during old age (Rice and Hayward, 1999), and compared
to results from assessment at younger ages . Visual function declined in all animals as a result of
aging, with no differential effect produced by methylmercury. However, some treated individuals
displayed mild constriction of visual fields that had not been present when younger
. Constriction
of visual fields is a hallmark of high exposure to methylmercury in adults
.
The effect of methylmercury exposure was studied in mice exposed to 1 or 3 ppm
perinatally or over the lifetime (Weiss
et al .,
2005). Mice in all groups were impaired on landing
foot splay (an assessment of gross motor integrity), wheel running, and delayed alternation
.
There was an interaction between performance and age at testing, which was different for
different measures. These data provide additional evidence for the interaction of aging and
methylmercury exposure on neurotoxicity
.
Evidence for delayed neurotoxicity was documented in a study of rats exposed to
methylmercury during gestation and until postnatal day 16 (Newland and Rasmussen, 2000),
using the DRH schedule described above . This task requires a sustained motor response . Rats
were tested beginning at about 120 days old and continued until they were more than 900 days of
age. The rate of response declined in all groups, but declined at younger ages in methylmercury-
exposed groups in a dose-dependent manner . These results indicate an interaction of aging and
developmental methylmercury exposure
.
The effect of gestational and lactation exposure to methylmercury on performance of
aging rats was also explored in the concurrent random interval-random interval schedules of
reinforcement (Newland
et al .,
2004). Performance on this schedule was also assessed in
monkeys, described above. The rate of each rat's ability to adapt was measured by determining
how quickly the relative response rate changed following a change in the relative payoff on the
two levers. There was no difference on this measure or other measures of performance in 1
.7-
year-old rats whose mothers were exposed to 0 .5 or 6.4 ppm mercury in food. When their 2.3-
year-old littermates were tested at 2 .3 years of age, however, both groups of treated rats were
slower to make the transition . These results demonstrate failure to adapt to new environmental
contingencies (learning) in old rats exposed developmentally to methylmercury, but not in
younger ones .
Effects in humans
-
1 8 -

 
There is also evidence for delayed neurotoxicity as a result of methyhnercury exposure in
humans. It was recognized early that the onset of Minamata disease was delayed in some
individuals, by as long as several years, and that manifestations of disease became worse over
time in some cases (Igata
et al .,
1993; Tsubaki and Irukayama, 1977). Hundreds of cases were
diagnosed in Niigata years after the presumed cessation of ingestion of contaminated fish,
although some individuals may well have been ill before presenting themselves for diagnosis
.
Interestingly, the frequency of signs showed a different distribution compared to early-onset
Minamata disease (Tsubaki and Irukayama, 1977) : in particular, the lower incidence of
constriction of visual fields observed in `late onset" Minamata disease. In patients diagnosed
after 1974, the frequency was less than 5% . On the other hand, disturbances of somatosensory
function were present in almost every individual. This is consistent with the somatosensory
deficits observed in aging monkeys
.
An important study of 1144 patients over the age of 40 with Minamata disease,
representing over 90% of diagnosed patients, and an equal number of age and gender matched
controls, was undertaken to determine the functional ability of people with Minamata disease as
they aged (Kinjo
et al.,
1993). Subjects completed a questionnaire of subjective complaints and
ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) including eating, bathing, face washing,
dressing, and using the toilet . People with Minamata disease had higher rates of response than
controls in all 18 subjective complaints investigated in the study . Perhaps the most important
finding, however, was that for ADLs, the relative deficit between controls and people with
Minamata disease increased with increasing age in a statistically-significant manner . In other
words, the interference of Minamata disease with the individual's ability to perform the
necessities of daily life grew worse as the individual aged, even though exposure to
methylmercury had ceased 20-30 years previously. These findings represent concrete evidence of
`delayed neurotoxicity" in a human population as a result of exposure to an environmental
neurotoxicant .
Individuals exposed to methylmercury in the Japanese poisoning episode reported
paresthesias of the distal extremities 30 years after cessation of exposure (Ninomiya
et al.,
2005)
.
Increased touch thresholds were present in both proximal and distal extremities, as were two-
point discrimination thresholds in forefingers and lips of 3 MD individuals . Similar effects were
also found in 32 persons exposed to methylmercury but not officially diagnosed as having MD
.
Median hair mercury levels in the group not diagnosed with MD was 37 ppm in 1960, and 2 .4 at
the time of testing (the hair mercury levels of the control group was 2 .8)
. For the group with MD,
hair levels in 1960 were 39-65 ppm. Results were interpreted as indicative of damage to
somatosensory cortex. This was also suggested as the underlying damage responsible for
somatosensory deficits in the monkey studies (Rice, 1996b) . A similar study of individuals with
Minamata Disease 60-79 years of age assessed ability to detect abrasive papers of various grits
(Takaoka
et al .,
2004). Subjects included individuals with MD, a group from Minamata without
numbness who were not diagnosed with MD, and a control group from another area . The ability
to detect whether pairs of papers were different (difference threshold) was determined . The MD
group had the biggest difference thresholds, and the group from Minamata without MD also had
greater difference thresholds than controls . Many of the MD group also had other signs of MD,
including ataxia and constriction of visual fields . Hair mercury levels were 2.8 ppm in controls
60-79, and 2 .4 ppm in MD individuals. These studies do not definitively document delayed
neurotoxicity, since it is unknown whether these individuals were impaired in the 1960s
.
-
1 9 -

 
Nonetheless, it is clear that exposure to methylmercury four decades before evaluation resulted
in permanent impairment
.
Although
the molecular mechanisms of delayed neurotoxicity remain unknown, there are
a number of relatively obvious ways in
which
toxicity could continue to be expressed or even
exacerbated (and which are not mutually exclusive) : 1) mercury stores in the body, specifically
in the nervous system, continue to exert a toxic influence, 2) damaged neurons or other nervous
system cell types may die prematurely, or 3) normal cells, required to compensate for damaged
or missing cells, may undergo accelerated aging. There are at least limited data relevant to the
first suggestion . Approximately 8 months after cessation of chronic dosing with methylmercury
in the monkey, and months after blood mercury levels decreased below the detection level, brain
contained significant amounts of total mercury (Rice, 1989b) . In a study examining speciation of
mercury after chronic methylmercury exposure in the monkey (Vahter
et al.,
1994, 1995), the
proportion of inorganic mercury increased with duration of exposure, and was
highest
if a period
of several months elapsed between cessation of exposure and autopsy . In fact, inorganic mercury
levels remained relatively constant whereas methylmercury levels decreased drastically . These
data suggest that the half-life of mercury in the brain is longer than in blood after methylmercury
exposure, and that this is at least in part the result of conversion to inorganic mercury in brain
.
Inorganic mercury was concentrated in astrocyte and reactive glia following chronic low-level
methylmercury or inorganic mercury exposure in the monkey (Charleston
et al .,
1994, 1995) .
The authors suggest that these astrocytes and possibly microglia are the primary sources of
demethylation of methylmercury . Astrocyte and/or microglia cell numbers decreased in various
brain areas following methylmercury exposure in the absence of changes in neuronal cell
numbers (Charleston
et al .,
1994, 1995, 1996) . The authors suggest that this may represent the
proximal cause of neurotoxicity,
although
the degree to which these findings would extrapolate
to lower exposures is unknown. The long-term consequences of methylmercury exposure in
adults in Minamata is consistent with results from the monkey studies
.
Mechanisms of toxicity
It is very clear from the episodes of human poisoning that the fetus and infant were more
sensitive to the effects of methylmercury than the adult, and that effects were qualitatively as
well as quantitatively different . In both the adult and developing organisms, methylmercury is
found
throughout
the brain, so that differential distribution probably does not account for the
different pattern of pathology
.
The brain develops by a series of processes that are exquisitely choreographed both
spatially and temporally. Most of these processes are unique to the developing brain ; therefore
toxicants can affect the developing brain in ways not possible in the adult brain . These processes
include neurogenesis and proliferation, migration of neurons from their origin to their final
locations in the brain, differentiation of the immature neurons to their final cell type, the
formation of synapses (connections) between cells and thereby between brain areas, birth and
differentiation of numerous supportive cell types responsible for maintenance of normal brain
development and function, myelination (the wrapping of nerve processes in a protective
sheath
that increases the speed to communication between nerve cells), and apoptosis (the genetically-
programmed death of cells and pruning of connections that is vital to normal brain functioning) .
All of these processes are affected by methylmercury exposure (Rice and Barone, 2000) .
- 20
-

 
The control of brain development is orchestrated by a large assortment of molecules
(signal transducers) that regulate the integration of genetic and epigenetic events . The effects of
methylmercury on many of these systems has been investigated, and the mechanisms of
methylmercury neurotoxicity are well characterized (Aschner and Syversen, 2005) . Some of
these mechanisms are relevant to adults, whereas others are particularly important during
development .
An important mechanism is inhibition of glutamate uptake, and stimulation of its efflux,
resulting in excitotoxic injury . Methylmercury inhibits uptake systems for cystine and cystine
transport, compromising glutathione synthesis . This would result in increased susceptibility to
reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS are known to mediate methylmercury-induced
neurotoxicity in a variety of experimental models . There has also been a substantial amount of
research on the cascade of events leading to glutamate neurotoxicity produced by
methylmercury
.
The ability of methylmercury to interfere with neuronal migration, a salient feature of
developmental methylmercury poisoning, is undoubtedly the result of interference with various
microtubular elements, including N-CAM, astrotaction, and LI (Aschner and Syversen, 2005)
.
Methylmercury also interferes with mitosis (Rodier
et al.,
1984), which would inhibit cell
proliferation. It may be the case that at lower levels of exposure, inhibition of growth cone
outgrowth, leading to decreased axonal and dendritic development, plays an important role in
developmental neurotoxicity. Despite the relatively robust literature on the mechanisms of
methylmercury-induced neurotoxicity, the reasons for differential pattern of neuropathological
damage in the adult and developing brain are not understood
.
Cardiovascular Effects
Studies in adults
There is evidence from several studies that increased methylmercury body burden is
associated-with cardiovascular or coronary disease, including heart attack and stroke . The
potential for methylmercury to produce cardiovascular (CV) and coronary disease was identified
as an important concern (EPA, 2001) that requires further analysis . Studies have identified
effects at hair mercury levels within the range of exposures in the U .S. The relatively sensitivity
of CV versus developmental neurotoxic effects is unknown, since the required dose-effect
modeling has not bee performed for CV effects . The evidence has been recently reviewed (Stern,
2005) .
In a study of 2500 men in Finland, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and fatal coronary
events were followed for an average of 6 years (Salonen
et al .,
1995). Hair samples for mercury
analysis and dietary data were obtained at the beginning of the study. The estimated mean dietary
intake of methylmercury was 7 .6 ug/day, about the same as that corresponding to the EPA
reference dose of 7 .0 ug/day for a 70 kg man . Mean hair mercury concentration was 1 .9 ppm .
Hair concentrations in the upper tertile (2 ppm) were associated with increased myocardial
infarction (MI) (relative risk =
1 .6) . There were non-statistically significant associations between
hair mercury concentration and death from coronary heart or CV disease. Fish intake of 30 g/day
was also associated with these outcomes . A follow-up study (Rissanen
et al .,
2000) examined the
effects of methylmercury and omega-3 fatty acids on these same endpoints, the latter of which is
believed to be protective against coronary disease. An interaction of serum omega-3 fatty acids
(DHA + DPA) and methylmercury in hair was found . Men with hair mercury levels above 2 ppm
- 2 1 -

 
received less benefit from omega-3 fatty acids than those with lower levels, with no reduction in
risk at all across the upper three quintiles of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels . This suggests that
higher body burdens of methylmercury may negate the protective effects of fish oils . A further
follow-up in this cohort was performed in 1871 men 42-60 years of age an average of 13
.9 years
after study initiation (Virtanen
et al.,
2005). Men with the highest tertile of hair mercury levels
were at significantly increased risk for acute coronary event (1 .60-fold; CI, 1 .24-2.06), CV
disease (1 .68-fold; CI, 1 .05-2.44), CHD (1.56-fold ; CI, 0.99-2.40), and any death (1 .38-fold; CI,
1 .15-1 .66) compared with men in the lower two tertiles . As in the previous study, high hair
mercury attenuated the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids .
A study was performed by the same group of investigators on the progression of
atherosclerosis in 1014 men from eastern Finland (Salonen
et al.,
2000). This group was a subset
of those studied by Salonen
et al .
(1995). The relationship between thickness of the carotid
arteries and hair mercury was determined in 1014 men with an average age of 51
.9 years during
initial assessment, with a second measurement made 4 years later . The upper quintile of hair
mercury was 2.8 ppm. The relationship between hair mercury and increase in carotid wall
thickness was highly significant in a multivariate model ; in fact, the mercury effect was second
only to that for systolic blood pressure. There was no apparent effect across the first four
quintiles, with significant thickening in men in the highest quintile, suggesting a threshold for
this effect. In their earlier study, Salonen
et al .
reported an association between hair mercury
concentrations and immune titers to oxidized low-density lipids (LDL), suggesting a mechanism
for the association between mercury levels and atherosclerosis in this study
.
A multicenter case-control study was performed in a total of 1408 men 70 years old or
younger in eight European countries and Israel (Guallar
et al .,
2002). Cases were defined as men
hospitalized with a first MI, and age-matched controls were selected for the same geographical
areas as cases . Mercury exposure was determined from toenail clippings, and DHA was
determined in subcutaneous fat. After covariate adjustment, the mercury concentration in cases
was significantly higher than in controls . After adjustment for center, age, DHA, cardiovascular
risk factors, and antioxidants, the odds ratio (OR) was 2 .16 (CI, 1 .09-4.29) for the upper quintile
compared to the lowest quintile . As in the Rissanen
et al .
(2000) study, the results suggest that
mercury antagonized the protective effect of omega-3 fatty acids . Toenail mercury is a non-
standard marker of exposure. Further, it is unknown to what extent inorganic mercury exposure
may have contributed to toenail mercury levels . However, there was a reasonable
correspondence between mercury and DHA levels (r = .34) ;this suggests that the main source of
mercury was methylmercury from fish, since the main source of DHA would also presumably be
fish .
A nested case-control study of the effects of mercury exposure on coronary heart disease
(CHD) was conducted in U.S. male health professionals who were 40-75 years old at recruitment
(Yoshizawa
et al .,
2002). Each of 470 cases was matched with a control for age, smoking status,
and time of sampling. Toenail mercury was higher than in the Guallar study, with the dentists
having twice the mercury levels of other participants . This was presumably the result of exposure
to mercury vapor in their dental practice . After adjusting for risk factors, mercury levels were not
associated with risk of CHD. When dentists were eliminated from the analysis, a relative risk
(RR) of 1 .27 was found. After further adjustment for DHA and EPA levels, the RR was 1 .70 .
These were not statistically significant, which may be a consequence of reduced statistical
- 22
-

 
power. These results suggest that it is methylmercury that is responsible for CV risk, rather than
total mercury or inorganic mercury .
A small case-control study for first-time myocardial infarction (MI) including both men
and women was performed in Sweden (Hallgren
et
al .,
2001). A total of 78 cases and an equal
number of controls matched for sex, age, and geographical region were recruited over a 10-year
period. Blood samples were presumably collected at recruitment, as much as 10 years before the
MI. Mercury was measured in erythrocytes, and EPA and DHA were measured in blood plasma
.
The omega-3 fatty acid concentrations were associated with decreased risk, whereas there was no
effect of mercury concentration . The lack of effect may have been the result of low power,
although the study was of sufficient size to detect the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids
. It
may also be the result of the inclusion of women, who may respond differently than men . The
OR for the low-fatty-acid - high-mercury group was greater than 1 .0, but consisted of only four
cases .
The relationship between blood pressure and blood mercury concentration was
determined in women 16-49 years of age in the NHANES (Vupputuri
et
al., 2005). There was no
overall relationship between mercury levels and blood pressure . However, when women were
stratified by fish consumption, there was an interaction between fish consumption and mercury
levels on blood pressure. In women who had not eaten fish in the last 30 days, there was an
increase in blood pressure as a function of increasing mercury quintile . For every 1 .3 ug/L
(interquartile range) increase in mercury level, there was a covariate-adjusted 1
.83 mm mercury
increase in systolic blood pressure, and a 0 .61 mm mercury (nonsignificant) increase in diastolic
blood pressure. This relationship did not hold among individuals who had eaten fish in the last
30 days. The authors postulated that omega-3 fatty acids in fish were protective . However, the
results are puzzling since fish was presumably the source of mercury in all women . The authors
did not have fatty acid levels in the women, nor did they try to estimate intake from the fish
species consumed . Perhaps the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids were of shorter duration
than the deleterious effects of methylmercury. The average half-life in blood for methylmercury
is about 50 days, so that blood mercury levels represent fish intake as long as several months
previously
.
Studies in children
The Faroe Island investigators examined the relationship between methylmercury
exposure and blood pressure and heart rate at 7 and 14 years of age . At 7 years, systolic and
diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and heart rate variability were assessed with respect to
in
utero
methylmercury exposure (Sorenson
et
al.,
1999). Cord blood mercury concentration was
significantly associated with increased systolic and diastolic pressure after control for covariates,
whereas maternal hair mercury was a poorer predictor. Blood pressure increased linearly as a
function of log cord blood from I to 10 ug/L, and did not increase thereafter. The effect was
greater in babies with birth weights below the mean (20 .9 and 20.4 mm mercury for systolic and
diastolic blood pressure, respectively, compared to 14 .6 and 13.9 mm for the group as a whole)
.
There was no effect on heart rate
per se,
but cord blood mercury was associated with decrease in
heart rate variability. In boys, there was a 47% decrease in heart rate variability as cord blood
increased from I to 10 ug/L. This was interpreted as indicative of action on the parasympathetic
nervous system producing effects on both blood pressure and heart rate variability
.
- 23 -

 
When the Faroe Islands cohort was reassessed at 14 years of age, associations between
blood pressure and heart rate with cord blood and children's hair mercury concentrations at 7 and
14 years were determined (Grandjean
et al .,
2004). At this later age, there were no associations
between methylmercury exposure and blood pressure . Cord blood mercury concentration was
associated with several parameters of decreased heart rate variability . The child's hair mercury
level at 14 years was associated with one measure of variability at 14 years, which decreased
after control for results at 7 years . The change was greatest at cord blood concentrations between
about I and 10 ug/L . The interpretation of these findings for public health is not entirely clear
.
Decreased heart rate variability in adults following an MI predicts sudden cardiac death
;
however, the applicability of these findings to other adults or children is unknown. On the other
hand, it is indicative of an effect on control of the autonomic nervous system, and therefore
provides additional evidence for an effect of methylmercury on nervous system function in this
cohort .
Animal studies
There are limited experimental data on the effects of methylmercury on CV function
. In a
study in adult rats, doses that did not produce gross toxicity produced increased systolic blood
pressure, which persisted throughout a 9-month post-dosing observation period (Wakita
et al.,
1987). Blood pressure increased as much as 30 mm mercury. Tamashiro
et al.
(1986) exposed
male and female spontaneously hypertensive rats to methylmercury for 26 days beginning at 7
weeks of age, at doses that produced overt toxicity. Blood pressure in females increased by about
20 mm mercury ; all males died soon after cessation of dosing . In an
in vitro
study, inhibition of
thrombin-mediated platelet aggregation by human umbilical vascular endothelial cells was
reversed in a dose-dependent manner by methylmercury Cl (Ohno
et al .,
1995). The authors
suggest that this effect is mediated through inhibition of endothelium-derived relaxing factor,
and suggests a mechanism for the effects of methylmercury on both vascular tension and
atherosclerosis observed in human studies .
Summary
Overall, there is reasonable support for an association between methylmercury exposure
and effects on CV function, including AMI. The study of Yoshizawa
et al. (2002),
which failed
to find an association in primary analyses, was flawed by the inclusion of a large percentage of
men exposed to mercury vapor in the control group . As discussed by Stern (2005), there is
substantial opportunity for exposure misclassification in these studies, since mercury body
burden may have changed substantially between exposure assessment and adverse event
. Since
this would bias results toward the null, the fact that studies identified associations provide
evidence for a reasonably strong effect. The potential for prenatal exposure to methylmercury to
contribute to later CV disease is unknown, but any such contribution could represent an
important societal burden from methylmercury exposure
.
Methylmercury levels in the U.S., and comparison to mercury levels associated with health
effects
The cord blood level corresponding to U.S. EPA reference dose is 5 .8 ug/L. However, the
maternal blood level associated with a cord blood level of 5 .8 ug/L is 3.4 ug/L, based on the fact
that cord blood is 1 .7 times higher than maternal blood, on average . The hair mercury level
associated with 3 .4 ug/L is about 0.65 ppm. Studies on the body burden of mercury in
individuals in the U .S. have used different values as representing elevated exposure, which is
- 24
-

 
reflected in the studies of body burdens of mercury in the U .S. discussed below. In addition, the
prospective study of the effect of methylmercu y on behavior of infants in the U
.S. dichotomized
data as above or below 1 .2 ppm maternal hair mercury in ancillary analyses
.
Blood and urinary mercury levels are analyzed as part of the NHANES (CDC, 2005)
.
Blood levels for 1999-2002 are available for children 1-5, females and males 16 and over, and
females 16-49 years. For children, the median blood mercury level was 0 .3 ug/L, with a 95` h
percentile of 2.3 (1999-2000) or 1 .9 (2001-2002) ug/L. For women of childbearing age, the
median was 1 .02 and 0.83 ug/L for the two time periods, with 95' h percentiles of 7 .10 and 4.60
ug/L. The 95`h percentile would correspond to hair mercury levels of approximately 1 .3 or 0 .9
ppm for the two time periods . Approximately 15 .7% of women of childbearing age had total
blood mercury levels >= 3 .5 ug/L (Mahaffey
et al .,
2004) in 1999-2000. For individuals who eat
fish more than three times a week
, the 95`h percentile hair mercury was 2 .00 ppm for children 1-
5 years old, and 2.75 ppm for women of childbearing age in 1999-2000 (McDowell
et al .,
2004) .
Using the NHANES database, hair mercury levels were examined for various ethnic
groups, including `other" (Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and multiracial) women
of childbearing age (Hightower
et al.,
2006). The percentage of women with blood mercury
levels greater than 5.8 ug/L, as well as above 3 .5 ug/L, were determined. For whites, 11 % were
above 3 .5 ug/L, and 5.8% were above 5.8 ug/L. For `other" races, 27% were above 3 .5 ug/L,
and 16.6% above 5 .8 ug/L. These ethnic groups ate twice as many fish meals as whites or blacks,
and three times as many as Mexican Americans
.
The NHANES survey is designed to be representative of the U .S. population. However,
this survey does not adequately sample high-end fish consumers . In a survey of volunteers from
a random-dial survey of women of childbearing age in 12 states, mean hair mercury levels varied
between states from 0.21 to 1
.23 ppm, with higher levels in coastal states (Knobeloch
et al.,
2005). Fifty percent of women in NJ had hair levels above 1 ppm, as did 41% of women in CT
.
The 95`h percentile for all women who had eaten 20 fish meals in the last month was 2 .29 ppm,
whereas it-was 0.19 ppm for women who had not eaten fish. In a study of pregnant women
recruited through obstetric practices in NJ, about 10% had hair mercury levels above I ppm, with
about 1% above 6 ppm (Stern
et al.,
2001). Increased mercury levels were associated with
increased fish intake .
A recent survey of volunteers recruited through environmental organizations reported
hair mercury levels in 6503 individuals collected in 2004 and 2005, and the association between
hair mercury concentrations and fish intake (Environmental Quality Institute, 2005) . Children
less than 1 year old had median hair mercury levels of 0 .29 (girls) and 0.17 (boys) ppm, with 7 .7
percent of girls having hair mercury levels greater than 1 .0 ppm. For women of childbearing age,
the median was 0 .43 ppm, with 22.6% having hair levels above I ppm . Individuals over 50 also
had a substantial percentage of people with hair mercury levels above 1 ppm (24 and 29% for
females and males, respectively) . Hair mercury levels were associated with higher tuna fish and
total fish consumption, but not with dental amalgams . Since this was a self-selected population,
the distribution of levels presumably is not representative of the U
.S. population as a whole
.
Nonetheless, the study provides further evidence of a strong association between fish
consumption, including canned tuna, and increased methylmercury body burden. The study also
documents that at least for some populations, a substantial percentage of individuals have
methylmercury body burdens greater than that associated with the RfD
.
- 25
-

 
In a study in high-end fish consumers in a private medical practice, blood mercury levels
ranged from 2.0 to 89.5 ug/L for 89 individuals (Hightower and Moore, 2003) . Mercury levels of
7 children were determined in hair or blood, with the highest levels being 14 .8 ug/g in hair for a
7-year-old, above the BMD from the Faroe Islands study for defined effects .
The average exposures in the three large longitudinal studies of neuropsychological
effects in children were similar, based on maternal hair mercury concentrations . The geometric
mean in the Faroe Islands study was 4.3 ppm (interquartile range 2 .6-7.7 ppm), and in the
Seychelles Islands study the median was 5 .9 ppm (interquartile range 6 .0 ppm). In the New
Zealand study, the 'high" exposure group were women with >6 ppm, and these were matched
with three times as many children whose mothers had lower hair levels . The average exposures
in these studies are higher than those observed in the U .S. However, the ranges overlap those of
U .S. women. For example, the cord blood range in the Faroe Islands study was 0 .90-351 ug/L,
which would correspond to a maternal blood mercury level of 0 .52-203 ug/L based on an
average cord:maternal blood ratio of 1 .7. The Faroe Islands population clearly includes women
with higher exposures than those in the U .S ., but the range overlaps that of U .S. women. There
is no evidence for a threshold for adverse effects within the range of exposures in the Faroe
Islands. In the recent MA study that documented adverse effects (Oken
et al .,
2005), the mean
maternal hair mercury was 0 .55 ppm and the 90`h percentile was 1.2 ppm. This would
correspond to approximately maternal blood levels of 2 .7 ug/L and 5.8 ug/L, respectively. The
study by Jedrychowski
et al .
(2006) identified a significantly increased risk for developmental
delay on the Bayley Scales of Infant Development at one-tenth the RID, and at less than the
median of blood mercury levels of women child-bearing age in the U .S. Therefore it appears that
effects of exposure to methylmercury are present within the range of body burdens of U .S
.
women .
The body burdens of men in the studies on CV function and heart disease also overlap
those in the U .S. The mean hair mercury concentration in the Salonen
et al .
(1995), Risanen
et
al .,
(2000)', and Virtanen
et al .
(2005) studies of about 2 ppm is equivalent to about the 95
th
percentile for women in NHANES (corresponding data for men are not available, but mercury
levels are probably higher) . This level was associated with an increased risk of adverse CV
events, including MI . In the Yoshizawa
et al .
(2002) study, mean toenail mercury concentration
in non-dentists was 0.45 ppm, which presumably represents levels in the U .S. The toenail
mercury level associated with the highest quintile of exposure in the Guallar
et al .
(2002) study
was 0.7 ppm, suggesting that exposures in that study, in which increased risk of MI was
observed, is not much, if at all, different than exposures in the U .S .
Estimation of societal costs associated with methylmercury exposure in the U .S .
Of considerable importance is a recent analysis performed by Dr . Louise Ryan for the
U.S. EPA of all three longitudinal studies reporting that, in fact, the results from the three studies
modeled by the NRC are not discordant with respect to effects on IQ (Ryan, 2005
; EPA, 2005)
.
Ryan (2005) modeled results for IQ from the WISC-R at 6 years from the New Zealand study
and the WISC-I11 at 9 years from the Seychelles study. The Faroe Islands study did not assess
full-scale IQ at 7 years, but did measure performance on three subtests of WISC-R : Digit Spans,
Similarities, and Block Design . These measures were combined using structural equations
modeling (Budtz-JOrgensen
et al .,
2002). Bellinger (2005) points out that the correlation between
full-scale IQ and results on Similarities plus Block Design is 0.885. Adding the third subtest,
- 26
-

 
Digit Span, would presumably increase the correlation . This provides reassurance that combining
the scores on these subtests is a valid estimate of full-scale IQ . The relationship between
mercury hair levels and full-scale IQ was estimated for each study individually, and an
integrative analysis was performed combining all three studies. For each I ppm increase in
maternal hair mercury from I to 10 ppm, IQ in the offspring decreased by 0.13, 0.13, and 0.12
point for the New Zealand, Seychelles, and Faroe Islands studies, respectively . The integrative
analysis of all three studies yielded a decrement of 0 .13 IQ point for every 1 ppm increase in
maternal hair mercury . This analysis provides evidence that the three longitudinal studies are in
fact concordant with respect to effects on IQ . The Ryan/EPA analysis also modeled other
functional domains from the three studies in addition to IQ, and found concordance for multiple
domains
.
A quantitative risk-benefit analysis was performed by the Harvard Center for Risk
Analysis of changes in fish consumption in the U .S. population for several hypothetical
scenarios. This exercise, sponsored by the fishing industry, focused on the potential benefits of
omega-3 fatty acids on coronary heart disease (Konig
et al.,
2005), stroke (Bouzen
et al.,
2005),
and cognitive development. The authors of the paper addressing heart disease did not include
potential risks from methylmercury exposure . Four of the five authors of the paper on the
benefits of omega-3 fatty acids (Cohen
et al.,
2005a) also analyzed the risks of methylmercury
exposure in a separate paper (Cohen
et al .,
2005b). For the effects of mercury, the authors relied
on the analyses of the three studies by the NRC. The various domains were weighted in the
analysis, with a value of 1 .0 to tests of general intelligence, 0 .6 to language and
learning/achievement, 0.3 for attention, and 0.2 for motor. In addition, each study was weighted
on the basis of sample size and various considerations of the quality of each study . The weights
were 1 .0, 0.88, and 0.16 for the Faroe Islands, Seychelles, and New Zealand studies,
respectively. All analyses were integrated into an overall risk-benefit analysis (Cohen
et al .,
2005c). Scenarios for changes in fish consumption for women of childbearing age included (1)
elimination of fish with "medium" and "high" mercury levels (defined as >= 0 .14 ppm) and
substitution of an equal amount of "low" mercury fish, (2) a decrease of total fish consumption
by 17%, or (3) an increase of fish consumption by 50% without changing the species consumed
.
Under all scenarios, the loss of IQ associated with methylmercury intake was greater than the
gain conferred by consumption of omega-3 fatty acids. Under the first scenario, the net quality-
adjusted life years (QALYs) for methylmercury increased by 45,000, and for DHA 4,700 . Under
the second scenario, the methylmercury benefit was 17,000 QALYs, and the lost for DHA was -
5,800, for a net gain of 11,000. Under the final scneario, nondiscriminate increase in fish intake,
the methylmercury impact was -49,000, and the DHA benefit was 17,000, for a net loss of -
32,000 QALYs
.
Trasande
et al .
(2005) used data from the Faroe Islands study to estimate the cost
associated with exposure to methylmercury, based on IQ loss in children. They considered a cord
blood level of 5 .8 ug/L to be that associated with no impairment, based on data from the Faroe
Islands. A maternal blood mercury level of 4 .84 ug/L was considered to be associated with this
cord blood level using the cord :maternal blood ratio found in the Faroe Islands . A doubling in
blood mercury concentration above 4 .84 ug/L in maternal blood was considered to be associated
with loss of 0.85 to 2.4 IQ points. A number of factors were varied in a sensitivity analysis . A 1
.
ug/L increase in hair mercury concentration was considered to be associated with a loss of 0.59
to 1 .24 IQ points, and cord:maternal blood ratio was varied from 1 :1 to 1 .7 :1 . The upper bound
- 27
-

 
estimate assumed that children born to women with blood mercury levels of 3
.5-4.84 ug/L suffer
no loss in IQ, and the lower bound estimate assumed that children born to women with mercury
concentrations of 4 .84-5.8 ug/L suffer no loss in IQ. Using data on the association between IQ
and lifetime earnings, the cost of the loss of IQ produced by methylmercury exposure was
estimated to be $8.7 billion annually in 2000 US$ (range $2 .2-$43.8 billion). They estimated that
$1 .3 billion (range $0.1-$6.5 billion) was attributable to mercury emission from U.S. power
plants .
In a subsequent analysis, these authors estimated the cost of the increase in mental
retardation as a result of environmental exposure to methylmercury (Trasande
et al.,
2006). A
downward shift in the IQ of the population would result in an increase in the number of
individuals with mental retardation (MR), clinically defined as an IQ less than 70 . The authors
used the published data from Mahaffey
et al .
(2004) on the percentage of women in the U .S
.
population with blood mercury concentrations of 4.84-5 .8, 5 .8-7.13, 7.13-15, or 7.13-15 .0, and >
15.0 ug/L from NHANES 1999-2000 . As in the previous analysis, they assumed that all women
within each category were at the lowest exposure . In the base-case analysis, a cord :matemal
blood ratio of 1 .7 :1.0 was assumed, although in sensitivity analysis, a range of 1-1 .7 was applied
.
Both linear and logarithmic models were applied, with a doubling in mercury concentration
associated with 0.59-1 .24 or 0.85-2.4 IQ points respectively, for a doubling in mercury
concentration. Sensitivity analyses assumed that children of women with blood mercury
concentrations below 5 .8 or 4.84 ug/L suffered no IQ loss . They estimated that methylmercury
exposure is associated with 1566 (range 376-14,293) excess cases of MR annually, or 3 .2% of
MR cases in the U .S. The cost of MR included direct costs, including medical costs, and
excluded indirect costs such as lost wages . The cost was estimated at $2.0 billion/year (range
$0.5-$17 .9 billion). The fraction attributed to American power plants was $289 million (range
$35 million-$2.6 billion)
.
The costs estimated in the two analyses should be added together to estimate the cost in
lost IQ attributable to methylmercury exposure in the U .S. population. The Trasande
et al .
(2005,
2006) analyses relied on an analysis by Salkever (1995) for the relationship between IQ and
lifetime earnings. This analysis was based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
Youth (NYSY), conducted by the U .S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/nls/). The
initial survey was begun in 1979, and has followed a stratified random sample of 12,656
individuals who were between the ages of 14 and 22 when first interviewed. A number of
variables are included in the yearly longitudinal follow up . This database allows the
determination of the association between IQ at 14-22 years of age and future earnings . As
discussed by Weiss (2000), IQ predicts many other outcomes in addition to earnings . A 3% (3
point) increase in IQ is associated with a 12-28% reduction in children living in poverty in the
first 3 years of life, out of wedlock births, low-weight births, welfare recipiency, children without
parents, high school dropout rate, poverty rate, and males interviewed in jail, depending on the
variable. A number of these effects could be monetized in a relatively straightforward manner
.
Developmental methylmercury exposure produces neuropsychological effects in addition
to decrements in IQ, and which are not directly assessed in IQ tests . In the Faroe Islands study,
two of the most sensitive endpoints were the Boston Naming Test, which assesses word retrieval
(expressive vocabulary), and the California Verbal Learning Test, which assesses processing and
memory of information presented verbally. As discussed by Bellinger (2005), these abilities are
not assessed by the WISC-R or the WISC-III, and yet defiicts on these abilities could put a child
- 28
-

 
at considerable disadvantage in the classroom . Similarly, deficits in attention, identified on the
continuous performance task in the Faroe Islands study, would also make it difficult for a child
to learn. Attention deficits are not associated with IQ . The consideration of only the effects of
IQ, and only related to lost wages and increase in MR, undoubtedly substantially underestimates
the cost of the effects of methylmercury exposure on the developing brain
.
Also not included in the various monetization exercises is quantification of the CV and
coronary effects of exposure to methylmercury in adults . MI, CV disease, and death were
associated with increased hair mercury concentrations in a longitudinal study in Finland (Salonen
et al .,
1995, 2000 ; Rissanen
et al .,
2000; Virtanen
et al.,
2005). An additional study identified an
increased risk of MI and mercury body burden (Guallar
et al.,
2002), as well as a study linking
increased risk of CVD and methylmercury exposure after exclusion of dentists exposed to
mercury vapor (Yoshizawa
et al .,
2002). Exposures were within the range of the U .S. population,
as discussed above. The shape of relationship between adverse outcome and methylmercury
exposure has not been determined ; however, the results from these studies suggest that there may
be significant morbidity associated with methylmercury expsoure within the U
.S. population .
Any health-protective effects of omega-3 fatty acids are included in the analyses in these studies,
since fish are the only source of methylmercury exposure . Any potential effects of
methylmercury on blood pressure could also result in significant cost . On a population basis,
small increases in blood pressure, even within the "normal" range, result in significant increases
in MI and death . For example, in the Framingham study, there was a monotonic increase in MI
and death from MI as diastolic blood pressure increased, starting as low as 70 mm mercury
(EPA, 1985) . In the EPA assessment on the health costs associated with lead exposure, the costs
associated with CV effects were greater than that associated with lost wages as a result of
decreased IQ (EPA, 1985) . Whether this would also be the case for methylmercury is unknown
.
However, these effects could add significantly to the monetary burden produced by
methylmercury exposure
.
Finally, the potential for methylmercury to produce cognitive deficits in adults, or to
accelerate the aging process, remains unaddressed . There is substantial evidence that relatively
high exposure to methylmercury that is nonetheless insufficient to produce a diagnosis of MD
results in sensorimotor impairment many years later, which may result in impairment of an
elderly individual's ability to live independently . The degree to which this may be manifest in
the U.S. population, or sub-population of high fish consumers, has not been studied . Similarly,
cognitive effects have been observed in adults at body burdens that overlap those in the U .S
.
There is also anecdotal evidence that consumers of fish with high mercury levels in the U
.S .
suffer adverse health consequences (Hightower and Moore, 2003) . These effects cannot be
monetized at this time . However, recognition that these effects may be important consequences
of methylmercury exposure underscores the fact that the monetary burden of methylmercury
exposure in analyses performed to date is underestimated, perhaps substantially
.

 
Table I
.
Tests modeled
by
NRC, functions assessed, and potential societal relevance
Abbreviations: WJ = Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement; CBCL = Child Behavior Check List; CPT = Continuous Performance Test; CVLT =
California Verbal Learning Test; TOLD = Test of Language Development; WISC-R:PIQ = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Performance IQ ;
WISC-R:FSIQ = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Full-Scale IQ
.
From EPA, 200 1 , p. 4-51
I
Study
I
Test
I
Domain/Function Assessed
I
Societal Relevance
Seychelles
Bender Copying Errors
Visuospatial
Math performance
McCarthy GCI
Full-scale
10
School performance, intelligence
WJ Applied Problems
Ability to solve problems
Academic skills
CBCL
Social and adaptive behavior
Antisocial behavior, need for therapeutic
Preschool Language Scale
Broad-based language
services
WJ letter/word recognition
Word recognition
Learning, intelligence, school performance
Reading ability, school performance
Faroes
Finger Tapping
Motor performance
Motor speed/neuropathy
CPT Reaction Time
Vigilance, attention, information processing speed
Intelligence, school behavior and performance
Bender Copying Errors
Visuospatial
Math performance
Boston Naming Test
Expressive vocabulary
Reading, school performance
CVLT: Delayed Recall
Memory
Learning ability, school performance
New Zealand
TOLD Language Development
Broad-based language
Literacy skills, learning, school performance
WISC-R: PIQ
Performance IQ, e.g. visuospatial, sustained attention,
Learning, school performance
sequential memory
WISC-R: FSIQ
Full-scale IQ, e .g. PIQ + verbal processing, expressive
Learning, school performance
vocabulary
McCarthy Perceptual Performance
Performance IQ, e.g. visuospatial, audition, memory
Learning, school performance
McCarthy Motor Test
Gross and fine motor skills
Motor system integration

 
Table II. BMDLs, ingested dose, and RfDs for various endpoints from the Faroes
Islands, New Zealand, and the NRC integrative analysis
°BMDLo5 s from NRC (2000), Tables 7-4, 7-5, 7-6 . Total hair mercury was converted to
blood mercury for the New Zealand and Seychelles Islands studies using a 250:1 ratio
and an assumption of equivalent maternal and cord levels
.
bAbbreviations: BNT = Boston Naming Test; CPT = Continuous Performance Test
;
CVLT = California Verbal Learning Test; MCCPP = McCarthy Perceived Performance
;
MCMT = McCarthy Motor Test
.
Calculated using a one-compartment model
.
d Calculated using an OF of 10
.
from U .S. EPA, 2001, p. 4-61
.
Testb
BMDL ppb mercury
cord blood
Ingested dose
pg/kg/day`
RID pg/kg/days
BNT Faroes
Whole cohort
58
1 .081
0 .1
PCB adjusted
71
1 .323
0 .1
Lowest PCB
40
0.745
0.1
CPT Faroes
Whole cohort
46
0 .857
0 .1
PCB adjusted
49
0 .913
0.1
Lowest PCB
28
0 .522
0.05
CVLT Faroes
Whole cohort
103
1 .920
0.2
PCB adjusted
78
1 .454
0.1
Lowest PCB
52
0.969
0.1
Finger Tap Faroes
Whole cohort
79
1 .472
0.1
PCB adjusted
66
1 .230
0.1
Lowest PCB
24
0.447
0.05
Geometric mean Faroes
Whole cohort
68
1 .268
0.1
PCB adjusted
65
1 .212
0.1
Lowest PCB
34
0.634
0.1
Smoothed values
BNT Faroes
48
0.895
0.1
CPT Faroes
48
0.895
0.1
CVLT Faroes
60
1 .118
0.1
Finger Tap Faroes
52
0.969
0.1
MCCPP New Zealand
28
0.522
0.05
MCMT New Zealand
32
0.596
0.1
Median values
Faroes
48
0.895
0.1
New Zealand
24
0.447
0.05
Integrative
All endpoints
32
0.596
0.1

 
Table III. BMD and BMDL estimates from the Faroe Islands study with and without
adjustment for PCBs and in the subset of children in the lowest tertile with respect to
PCB exposure (calculated using the K-power model)
aBMDs are calculated under the assumption that 5% of the responses will be abnormal in
unexposed subjects (Po= 0.05), assuming a doubling of the excess risk (BMR = 0 .05)
.
CPT = Continuous Performance Test; BNT = Boston Naming Test ; CVLT = California
Verbal Learning Test
from NRC, 2000, Table 7-4, p. 289 .
Exposure
Endpoint
Full Cohort
Adjusted for
PCBs
Low-PCB tertile
Maternal
hair
(ppm)
Finger Tapping
20(12)
17(9)
7(4)
CPT Reaction
Time
18(10)
27(11)
13 (5)
BNT
15(10)
24(10)
21 (6)
Cord
Blood
(ppb)
Finger Tapping
140(79)
149(66)
41 (24)
CPT Reaction
Time
72(46)
83(49)
53 (28)
BNT
85 (58)
184(71)
127(40)
CVLT: Delayed
Recall
246 (103)
224(78)
393(52)

 
References
Altmann, I., Sveinsson, K., Kramer, U ., Weishoff-Houben, M., Turfeld, M., Winneke, G ., and
Wiegand, H. Visual functions in 6-year-old children in relation to lead and mercury
levels. Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 20:9-17, 1998
.
Amin-Zaki, L., Elhassani, S ., Majeed, M.A ., Clarkson, T.W., Doherty, R.A., and Greenwood, M .
Intra-uterine methylmercury poisoning in Iraq . Pediatr. 54:587-595, 1974 .
Amorim, M.I.M, Mergler, D ., Bahia,M.O., Dubeau, H., Miranda, D., Lebel, J., Burbano, R.R .,
and Lucotte, M. Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methyl mercury
contamination in the Brazilian Amazon . An. Acad . Bras . Ci. 72:497-506, 2000 .
Aschner, M ., and Syversen, T. Methylmercury - Recent advances in the understanding of its
neurotoxicity. Ther. Drug. Monit. 27:278-283, 2005 .
Axtell, C.D., Cox, C., Myers, G.J ., Davidson, P.W., Choi, A.L ., Cernichiari, E., Sloane-Reeves,
J., Shamlaye,C .F ., and Clarkson, T.W. Association between methylmercury exposure
from fish consumption and child development at five and a half years of age in the
Seychelles Child Development Study : an evaluation of nonlinear relationships. Environ .
Res. 84:71-80, 2000.
Bellinger, D.C. Neurobehvaioral Assessments Conducted in the New Zealand, Faroe Islands, and
Seychelles Islands Studies of Methylmercury Neurotoxicity in Children . Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005
.
Beuter, A., de Geoffroy, A., and Edwards, R. Analysis of rapid alternating movements in Cree
subjects exposed to methylmercury and in subjects with neurological deficits . Environ
.
Res. 80:64-79, 1999 .
Beater, A-:-, and Edwards, R. Tremor in Cree subjects exposed to methylmercury : A preliminary
study. Neurotoxicol. Teratol . 20:581-589, 1998
.
Bornhausen, M., Musch, H.R ., and Greim, H . Operant behavior changes in rats after prenatal
methylmercury exposure. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol . 56:305-310, 1980 .
Bouzan, C., Cohen, J.T ., Connor,W.E., Kris-Etherton, P.M ., Gray,G.M ., Konig, A., Lawrence,
R.S ., Savitz, D.A ., and Teutsch, S.M. A quantiative analysis of fish consumption and
stroke risk. Am. J . Prev. Med . 29: 347-352, 2005
.
Budtz-Jprgensen, E., Keiding, N ., Grandjean, P ., and Weihe P. Estimation of health effects of
prenatal methylmercury exposure using structural equation models . Environ . Health 1
:
2002 . http://www.ehjournal.net/content/l/1/2
Budtz-Jprgensen, E., Grandjean, P., Keiding, N ., White, R .F ., and Weihe P. Benchmark dose
calculations of methylmercury-associated neurobehavioural deficits . Toxicol Lett. 112-
113 :193-199, 2000 .
Budtz-Jprgensen, E., Keiding, N.,Grandjean, P., White, R.F., and Weihe P. Methylmercury
toxicity independent of PCB exposure . Environ. Health Perspect. 107: A236-237, 1999
.
- 34
-

 
Buelke-Sam, J., Kimmel, C.A., Adams, J., Nelson, C .J ., Vohees, C.V ., Wright,D.C ., St Omer,
V., Korol, B.A ., Butcher, R.E ., Geyer,M.A ., Holson, J .F., Kutscher, C.L ., and Wayner,
M .J. Collaborative behavioral teratology study : Results. Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol .
7:591-624, 1985
.
Burbacher, T.M ., Grant,K.S., Mayfield, D.B ., Gilbert, S.G ., and Rice, D.C. Prenatal
methylmercury exposure affects spatial vision in adult monkeys . Toxicol . Appl .
Pharmacol . 208:21-28, 2005
.
Burbacher, T.M ., Grant,K.S ., and Mottet, N.K. Retarded object permanence development in
methylmercury exposed Macaca fascicularis infants. Dev. Psychol . 22:771-776, 1988 .
Burbacher, T.M., Rodier, P.M ., and Weiss, B. Methylmercury developmental neurotoxicity : a
comparison of effects in humans and animals. Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 12:191-202, 1990a
.
Burbacher, T.M ., Sackett, G.P., and Mottet, N.K. Methylmercury effects on the social behavior
ofMacaca fascicularis infants. Neurotoxicol Teratol . 12:65-71, 1990b .
Carta, P., Flore, C., Alinovi, R., Ibba, A., Tocco, M.G ., Aru, G ., Carta, R., Girei, E., Mutti, A .,
Lucchini, R., and Randaccio, F.S. Sub-clinical neurobehavioral abnormalities associated
with low level of mercury exposure through fish consumption. Neurotoxicol. 24:617-623,
2003
.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) . Third National Report on Human Exposure
to Environmental Chemicals. July 2005. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCEH Pub . No. 05-0570
http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/3rd/pdf/thirdreport .pdf
Charleston, J .S., Body, R.L., Bolender, R.P ., Mottet, N.K., Vahter, M.E ., and Burbacher, T.M
.
Changes in the number of astrocytes and microglia in the thalamus of the monkey
Macacafascicularis following long-term subclinical methylmercury exposure
.
Neurotoxicol. 17:127-138, 1996 .
Charleston, J.S ., Body, R.L ., Mottet, N.K., Vahter, M.E ., and Burbacher, T.M .
Autometallographic determination of inorganic mercury distribution in the cortex of the
calcarine sulcus of the monkey Macaca fascicularis following long-term subclinical
exposure to methylmercury and mercuric chloride . Toxicol . Appl. Pharmacol. 132:325-
333, 1995 .
Charleston, J .S., Bolender, R.P ., Mottet, N.K., Body, R.L ., Vahter,M.E., and Burbacher, T.M
.
Increases in the number of reactive glia in the visual cortex of Macaca fascicularis
following subclinical long-term methyl mercury exposure. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol
.
129:196-206, 1994
.
Cohen, J.T ., Bellinger, D.C., Connor,W.E., Kris-Etherton, P.M ., Lawrence, R.S., Savitz, D.A.,
Shaywitz, B.A ., Teutsch, S.M., and Gray, G.M. A quantitative risk-benefit analysis of
changes in population fish consumption . Am. J. Prev. Med. 29:325-334, 2005c
.
Cohen, J.T., Bellinger, D.C ., Connor,W.E ., and Shaywitz, B .A. A quantitative analysis of
prenatal intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cognitive development. Am . J
.
Prev. Med. 29:366-374, 2005a
.
- 35 -

 
Cohen, J .T., Bellinger, D.C., and Shaywitz, B.A. A quantitative analysis of prenatal methyl
mercury exposure and cognitive development. Am . J . Prev. Med. 29:353-365, 2005b
.
Cordier, S ., Garel, M., Mandereau, L., Morcel, H., Demean, P., Gosme-Seguret, S ., Jesse, D .,
White, R., and Amiel-Tison, C . Neurodevelopmental investigations among
methylmercury-exposed children in French Guiana. Environ . Res. 89:1-11, 2002
.
Counter, S.A., Buchanan, L.H ., Laurel], G., and Ortega, F. Blood mercury and auditory neuro-
sensory responses in children and adults in the Nambija gold mining area of Ecuador.
Neurotoxicol . 19:185-196, 1998 .
Cox, C., Clarkson, T.W ., Marsh, D.O ., Amin-Zaki, L., Tikriti, S ., and Myers, G.G. Dose-
response analysis of infants prenatally exposed to methyl mercury : an application of a
single compartment model to single-strand hair analysis . Environ. Res. 49:318-332, 1989
.
Crump, K.S ., Kjellstrom, T., Shipp, A.M., Silvers, A., and Stewart, A. Influence of prenatal
mercury exposure upon scholastic and psychological test performance : benchmark
analysis of a New Zealand cohort . Risk Anal. 18:701-713, 1998
.
Davidson, P.W ., Myers, G.J, Cox, C., Axtell, C., Shamlaye, C ., Sloan-Reeves, J ., Cernichiari, E .,
Needham, L., Choi, A., Wang, Y., Berlin, M., and Clarkson, T.W. Effects of prenatal and
postnatal methylmercury exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment :
outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles child development study. JAMA
280:701-707, 1998 .
Davidson, P.W., Palumbo, D., Myers, G.J., Cox, C., Shamlaye, C .F ., Sloane-Reeves, J .,
Cernichiari, E., Wilding, G.E ., and Clarkson, T.W. Environ. Res. 84:1-11, 2000 .
Dolbec, J ., Mergler, D., Sousa Passos,C.-J ., Sousa de Morais, S., and Lebel, J . Methylmercury
exposure affects motor performance of a riverine population of the Tapajos river,
Brj zilian Amazon . Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 73:195-203, 2000 .
Dore, F.Y ., Goulet, S ., Gallagher, A., Harvey, P.-O., Cantin, J .-F ., D'Aigle, T., and Mirault, M.-
E. Neurobehavioral changes in mice treated with methylmercury at two different stages
of fetal development. Neurotoxicol. Teratol . 23:463-472, 2001
.
Dyer, R.S., Eccles, C.U, and Annau, Z. Evoked potential alterations following prenatal
methylmercury exposure. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 8:135-141, 1978
.
Elsner, J. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology : III. Microanalysis of behavior. Neurobehav
.
Toxicol. Teratol. 8:573-584, 1986 .
Elsner, J. Tactile-kinesthetic system of rats as an animal model for minimal brain dysfunction
.
Arch. Toxicol. 65:465-473, 1991
.
Elsner, J., Hodel, B ., Suter, K.E ., Oelke, D., Ulbrich, B ., Schreiner, G., Cuomo, V., Cagiano, R .,
Rosengren, R .E., Karlsson, J.E ., and Halid, K.G. Detection limits of different approaches
in behavioral teratology, and correlation of effects with neurochemical parameters
.
Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 10:155-167, 1988
.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Costs and Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline
.
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-230-05-85-006, 1985
.
- 36
-

 
yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/
a7a2ee5c6158cedd852563970080ee30/4242532644520FAB8525660400177383
EPA (Environemental Protection Agency) . Integrated Risk Information System . Methylmercury .
http:// www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm , 2001 .
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Clear Air Mercury
Rule. EPA-452/R-05-003. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division
.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/ria_final.pdf, 2005 .
Environmental Quality Institute (Patch, S.C ., Maas,R .P ., and Sergent, K.R.) An investigation of
factors related to levels of mercury in human hair . Technical Report #05-150,
Environmental Quality Institute, University of North Carolina - Asheville, Asheville,
NC, 2005 .
Gilbert, S.G ., Burbacher, T.M ., and Rice, D.C. Effects of in utero methylmercury exposure on a
spatial delayed alternation task in monkeys. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 123, 130-136,
1993
.
Gilbert, S.G., and Grant-Webster, K.S. Neurobehavioral effects of developmental methylmercury
exposure. Environ. Health Perspect. 103:135-142, 1995
.
Gilbert, S.G., Rice, D .C., and Burbacher, T.M. Fixed interval/fixed ratio performance in adult
monkeys exposed in utero to methylmercury. Neurotoxicol. Teratol . 18:539-546, 1996 .
Goldey, E .S ., O'Callaghan, J .P ., Stanton,M.E ., Barone, S., and Krofton, K.M. Developmental
neurotoxicity: Evaluation of testing procedures with methylazoxymethanol and
methylmercury. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 23:447-464, 1994
.
Goulet, S ., Dore, F.Y ., and Mirault, M.-E . Neurobehavioral changes in mice chronically exposed
to-methylmercury during fetal and early postnatal development . Neurotoxicol. Teratol .
25:335-347, 2003
.
Grandjean, P., Budtz-Jorgensen, E., Jorgensen, P., and Weihe, P. Umbilical cord mercury
concentration as biomarker of prenatal exposure to methylmercury . Environ. Health
Perspect . 113:905-908, 2005
.
Grandjean, P., Murata, K., Budtz-Jorgensen, E ., and Weihe, P. Cardiac autonomic activity in
methylmercury neurotoxicity : 14-year follow-up of a Faroese birth cohort . J. Pediatr .
144:169-176, 2004
.
Grandjean, P ., Weihe, P., Burse, V.W., Needham, L.L ., Storr-Hansen, E., Heinzow, B., Debes,
F., Murata, K., Simonsen, H., Ellefsen, P., Budtz-Jorgensen, E., Keiding, N ., and White,
R .F. Neurobehavioral deficits associated with PCB in 7-year-old children prenatally
exposed to seafood neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicol. Teratol . 23:305-317, 2001
.
Grandjean, P., Weihe, P., Jorgensen, P.J., Clarkson, T., Cernichiari, E., and Videro, T. Impact of
maternal seafood diet on fetal exposure to mercury, selenium, and lead . Arch. Environ
.
Health 47 :185-195, 1992 .

 
Grandjean, P., Weihe, P., Needham,L.L ., Burse, V.W ., Patterson, D.G. Jr., Sampson, E.J .,
Jorgensen, P .J ., and Vahter, M. Effect of a seafood diet n mercury, selenium, arsenic, and
PCBs and other organochlorines in human milk. Environ. Res . 71 :29-38, 1995 .
Grandjean, P., Weihe, P., White, R.F ., Debes, F., Araki, S., Yokoyama, K., Murata, K .,
Sorensen, N., Dahl, R., and Jorgensen, P .J. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with
prenatal exposure to methylmercury . Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 19:417-428, 1997 .
Grandjean, P., White, R .F ., Nielsen, A., Cleary, D., and de Oliviera Santos, E .C. Methylmercury
neurotoxicity in Amazonian children downstream from gold mining . Environ. Health
.
Perspect. 107:587-591, 1999
.
Grandjean, P., White, R .F ., Weihe, P., Jorgensen, P .J. Neurotoxic risk caused by stable and
variable exposure to methylmercury from seafood . Ambul. Pediatr. 3:18-23, 2003
.
Guallar, E., Sanz-Gallardo,M.I., van't Veer, P., Bode, P., Aro, A ., Gomez-Aracena, J ., Kark,
J.D., Riemersma, R.A., Martin-Moreno,
J.M ., Kok,F.J ., and the Heavy Metals and
Myocardial Infarction Study Group . Mercury, fish oils, and the risk of myocardial
infarction. N. Engl. J. Med . 347:1747-1754, 2002
.
Gunderson, V.M., Grant-Webster, K.S., Burbacher,T.M., and Mottet, N.K. Visual recognition
memory deficits in methylmercury-exposed Macaca facicularis infants. Neurotoxicol .
Teratol . 10:373-379, 1988 .
Gunderson, V.M., Grant, K.S., Burbacher, T.M., Fagan III, J.F., and Mottet, N.K. The effect of
low-level prenatal methylmercury exposure on visual recognitino memory in infant crab-
eating macaques. Child Dev. 57:1076-1083, 1986 .
Hallgren, C.G ., Hallmans, G ., Jansson, J.H ., Marklund, S.L ., Huhtasaari, G., Schutz, A .,
Stromberg, U., Vessby, B., and Skerfving, S. Markers of high fish intake are associated
with decreased risk of a first myocardial infarction . Br. J. Nutr. 86:397-404, 2001 .
Harada, M. Congenital Minamata Disease : intrauterine methylmercury poisoning. Teratol .
18:285-288, 1978
.
Hightower,
J.M ., and Moore, D. Mercury levels in high-end consumers of fish . Environ. Health
Perspect. 111:604-608, 2003 .
Hightower, J.M, O'Hare, A., and Hernandez, G .T. Blood mercury reporting in NHANES
:
Identifying Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiracial groups . Environ .
Health Perspect. 114:173-175, 2006 .
Huang, L.-S ., Cox, C., Myers, G .J ., Davidson, P.W ., Cernichiari, E., Shamlaye, C.F., Sloane-
Reeves, J ., and Clarkson, T.W. Exploring nonlinear association between prenatal
methylmercury exposure from fish consumption and child development : evaluation of the
Seychelles Child Development Study nine-year data using semiparametric additive
models. Environ. Res . 97:100-108, 2005 .
Igata, A. Epidemiological and clinical features of Minamata disease. Environ. Res. 63:157-169,
1993
.
Jedrychowski, W., Jankowski, J ., Flak, E., Skarupa, A., Mroz, E., Sochacka-Tatara, E .,
Lisowska-Miszczyk, I, Szpanowska-Wohn, A ., Rauh, V., Skolicki, Z., Kaim, I., and
Perera, F. Effects of prenatal exposure to mercury on cognitive and psychomotor function
- 38
-

 
in one-year-old infants: epidemiologic cohort study in Poland . Ann. Epidemiol. In press,
2006 .
Kinjo, Y ., Higashi, H., Nakano, A., Sakamoto, M., and Sakai, R. Profile of subjective complaints
and activities of daily living among current patients with Minamata disease after 3
decades. Environ. Res. 63:241-251, 1993 .
Kjellstrom, T., Kennedy, P., Wallis, S., and Mantell, C . Physical and mental development of
children with prenatal exposure to mercury from fish . State 1 : Preliminary test at age 4
.
National Swedish Environmental Protection Board Report 3080. Solna, Sweden :
National Swedish Environmental Protection Board, 1986
.
Kjellstrom, T., Kennedy, P., Wallis, S ., & Mantell, C. Physical and Mental Development of
Children with Prenatal Exposure to Mercury from Fish. Stage 2: Interviews and
Psychological Tests at Age 6 . National Swedish Environmental Protection Board Report
3642. Solna, Sweden : National Swedish Environmental Protection Board, 1989
.
Konig, A., Bouzan, C ., Cohen, J.T., Connor, W.E ., Kris-Etherton,P.M., Gray, G.M., Lawrence,
R.S ., Savitz, D.A ., and Teutsch, S.M. A quantitative analysis of fish consumption and
coronary heart disease mortality. Am. J. Prev. Med. 29:335-346, 2005
.
Knobeloch, L., Anderson,H.A., Imm, P., Peters, D., and Smith, A. Fish consumption, advisory
awareness, and hair mercury levels among women of childbearing age . Environ. Res
.
97:220-227, 2005 .
Lebel, J., Mergler, D., Branches, F., Lucotte, M., Amorim, M., Larribe, F., and Dolbec, J .
Neurotoxic effects of low-level methylmercury contamination in the Amazonian Basin
.
Environ. Res. 79:20-32, 1998
.
Lebel, J., Roulet, M., Mergler, D., Lucotte, M ., and Larribe, F. Fish diet and mercury exposure in
a riparian Amazonian population . Water Air Soil Poll . 97:31-44, 1997 .
Mahaffey, K.R ., Clickner, R.P ., and Bodurow, C.C. Blood organic mercury and dietary mercury
intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000. Environ .
Health Perspect. 112:562-570, 2004
.
Marsh, D.O ., Clarkson, T.W., Cox, C ., Myers, G .J ., Amin-Zaki, L., and Al-Tikriti, S . Fetal
methylmercury poisoning. Relationship between concentration in single strands of
maternal hair and child effects . Arch. Neurol . 44:1017-1022, 1987
.
McDowall,M.A., Dillon, C.F ., Osterloh, J ., Bolger, P.M ., Pellizzari, E., Fernando, R., Montes de
Oca, R., Schober, S.E ., Sinks, T., Jones, R.L ., and Mahaffey, K.R. Hair mercury levels in
U.S. children and women of childbearing age : reference range data from NHANES 1999-
2000. Environ. Health Perspect. 112:1165-1171, 2004 .
McKeown-Eyssen, G.E ., Ruedy, J ., and Neims, A. Methyl mercury exposure in northern
Quebec. II. Neurologic findings in children . Am. J. Epidemiol . 118:470-279, 1983 .
Murata, K., Weihe, P., Araki, S., Budtz-Jorgensen, E ., and Grandjean, P. Evoked potentials in
Faroese children prenatally exposed to methylmercury . Neurotoxicol. Teratol . 21 :471-
472, 1999a
.
- 39
-

 
Murata, K., Weihe, P., Ronzoni, A., Debes, F., Vasconcelos, R., Zino, F., Araki, S ., Jorgensen,
P.J ., White, R.F ., and Grandjean, P.F. Delayed evoked potentials in children exposed to
methylmercury from seafood. Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 21:343-348, 1999b
.
Murata, K., Weihe, P., Budtz-J¢rgensen, E., Jensen, P.J ., and Grandjean, P. Delayed brainstem
auditory evoked potential latencies in 14-year-old children exposed to methylmercury
. J .
Pediatr. 144:177-183, 2004 .
Musch, H.R ., Bornhausen, M ., Kreigel, H., and Greim, H . Methylmercury chloride induces
learning deficits in prenatally treated rats . Arch. Toxicol. 40:103-108, 1978
.
Myers,G.J., Davidson, P.W ., Cox, C., Shamlaye, D.F ., Palumbo, D., Cernichiari, E., Sloane-
Reeves, J ., Wilding, G.E., Kost, J ., Huang, L.-S., and Clarkson, T.W . Prenatal
methylmercury exposure from ocean fish consumption in the Seychelles child
development study. Lancet 361 :1686-1692, 2003 .
Myers, G.J ., Marsh, D.O ., Cox, C., Davidson, P.W ., Shamlaye, C.F ., Tanner,M.A ., Choi, A .,
Cernichiari, E., Choisy, 0., and Clarkson, T.W. A pilot neurodevelopmental study of
Seychellois children following in utero exposure to methylmercury from a maternal fish
diet. Neurotoxicol. 16:629-638, 1995
.
Newland, M.C., and Paletz, E.M. Animal studies of methylmercury and PCBs : What do they tell
us about expected effects in humans? Neurotoxicol . 21:1003-1028, 2000 .
Newland, M.C ., and Rasmussen, E.B. Aging unmasks adverse effects in gestational exposure to
methylmercury in rats. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 22:819-828, 2000 .
Newland, M.C ., Reile,P.A ., and Langston, J .L. Gestational exposure to methylmercury retards
choice in transition in aging rats. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 26:179-194, 2004 .
Newland, M.C ., Yezhou, S., Logdberg, B ., and Berlin, M . Prolonged behavioral effects of in
utero exposure to lead or methyl mercury: reduced sensitivity to changes in
reinforcement contingencies during behavioral transitions and in steady state . Toxicol .
Appl. Pharmacol. 126:6-15, 1994 .
NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) . Scientific issues relevant to
assessment of health effects from exposure to methylmercu y . Workshop organized by
Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR) Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), The White House, November 18-20, 1999, Raleigh, N .C
.
http://www.eurobc.org/Report%20of%2Othe%2OMethylmercury%2OWorkshop .htm
Ninomiya, T., Imamura, K., Kuwahata, M ., Kindaichi, M ., Susa, M., and Ekino, S . Reappraisal
of somatosensory disorders in methylmercury poisoning . Neurotoxicol . Teratol . 27:643-
653,2005 .
NRC (National Research Council) . Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C ., 2000 .
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071402/html/index.htm l
Ohno, M ., Kishimoto, T., and Tada, M. The effect of methylmercury (CH 3HgC1) on the
production of endothelium-derived relaxing factor (EDRF) by cultured human umbilical
- 40 -

 
vascular endothelial cells based on its anti-aggregatory effect on human platelets . Cell
Biol . Toxicol . 11:303-311, 1995
.
Oken, E., Wright, R.O ., Kleinman, K.P ., Bellinger, D., Amarasiriwardena, C.J ., Hu, H ., Rich-
Edwards, J.W., & Gillman, M.W. Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant
cognition in a U.S . cohort. Environmental Health Perspectives online
doi:10.1289/ehp.8041 (available at http://dx.doi .org), 2005
.
Ramirez, G.B., Pagulayan, 0., Akagi, H ., Francisco Rivera, A ., Lee,L.V ., Berroya, A., Vince
Cruz, C., and Casintahan, D . Tagum study II: follow-up study at two years of age after
prenatal exposure to mercury . Pediatr. 111:e289-e295, 2003
.
http://www.pediatrics .org/cgi/content/full/ I 11/3/e289
Reuhl, K.R., and Chang, L. W. Effects of methylmercury on the development of the nervous
system : A review. Neurotoxicol . 1 :21-55, 1979
.
Rice, D.C. Blood mercury concentrations following methyl mercury exposure in adult and infant
monkeys. Environ. Res. 49:115-126, 1989a
.
Rice, D.C. Brain and tissue levels of mercury after chronic methylmercury exposure in the
monkey. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 27:189-198, 1989b
.
Rice, D.C. Effects of pre- plus postnatal exposure to methylmercury in the monkey on fixed
interval and discrimination reversal . Neurotoxicol. 13: 443-452, 1992 .
Rice, D.C. Sensory and cognitive effects of developmental methylmercury exposure in monkeys,
and a comparison to effects in rodents . Neurotoxicol. 17:139-154, 1996a
.
Rice, D.C. Evidence for delayed neurotoxicity produced by methylmercury. Neurotoxicol
.
17:583-596, 1996b .
Rice, D.C ..Age-related increase in auditory impairment in monkeys exposed in utero plus
postnatally to methylmercury. Toxicol. Sci . 44:191-196, 1998 .
Rice, D.C. and Barone, S. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system
:
Evidence from humans and animal models. Environ. Health Perspect. Supplement 3, 511-
533, 2000 .
Rice, D.C ., and Gilbert, S.G. Early chronic low-level methylmercury poisoning in monkeys
impairs spatial vision . Science 216 :759-761, 1982
Rice, D.C., and Gilbert, S.G. Effects of developmental exposure to methylmercury on spatial and
temporal visual function in monkeys. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 102:151-163, 1990 .
Rice, D.C ., and Gilbert, S.G. Exposure to methyl mercury from birth to adulthood impairs high-
frequency hearing in monkeys . Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol . 115:6-10, 1992 .
Rice, D.C ., and Gilbert, S.G. Effects of developmental methylmercury exposure or lifetime lead
exposure on vibration sensitivity function in monkeys . Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol .
134:161-169, 1995 .
Rice, D.C., and Hayward, S. Comparison of visual function at adulthood and during aging in
monkeys exposed to lead or methylmercury . Neurotoxicol . 20:767-784, 1999
.
- 4 1 -

 
Rice, D.C., Shoney, R., and Mahaffey, K. Methods and rationale for derivation of a reference
dose for methylmercury by the U .S. EPA. Risk Analysis 23:107-115, 2003 .
Rissanen, T., Voutilainen, S., Nyssonen, K., Lakka, T.A., and Salonen, J .T. Fish oil-derived fatty
acids, docosahexaenoic acid and docosapentaenoic acid, and the risk of acute coronary
events. The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Circulation 102 :2677-
2679,2000 .
Rodier, P., Aschner, M., and Sager, P. Mitotic arrest in the developing CNS after prenatal
exposure to methylmercury. Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol . 6:379-385, 1984 .
Ryan, L.M. Effects of Prenatal Mercury Exposure on Childhood IQ : A Synthesis of Three
Studies. Report to the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005
.
Salkever, D .S. Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of children to
environmental lead. Environ. Res. 70:1-6, 1995 .
Salonen, J .T ., Seppanen, K., Lakka, T.A., Salonen, R., and Kaplan, G.A. Mercury accumulation
and accelerated progression of carotid atherosclerosis : a population-based prospective 4-
year follow-up study in men in eastern Finland . Atherosclerosis 148:265-273, 2000 .
Salonen, J.T ., Seppanen, K., Nyyssonen, K., Korpela, H ., Kauhanen, J., Kantola, M .,
Tuomilehto, J., Esterbauer, H., Tatzber, F., and Salonen, R. Intake of mercury from fish,
lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular,
and any death in Eastern Finnish men. Circulation 91:645-655, 1995 .
Schreiner, G., Ulbrich, B., and Bass, R. Testing strategies in behavioral teratology: 11 .
Discrimination learning. Neurobehav. Toxicol . Teratol. 8:567-572,1986 .
Sorensen, N., Murata, K., Budtz-Jorgensen, E., Weihe, P., and Grandjean, P. Prenatal
methylmercury exposure as a cardiovascular risk factor at seven years of age . Epidemiol
.
10
:370-375, 1999
.
Spyker, J.M. Assessing the impact of low level chemicals on development: Behavioral and latent
effects. Fed. Prco. 34:1835-1844, 1975 .
Spyker, J.M ., Sparber, S.B ., and Goldberg, A.M. Subtle consequences of methylmercury
exposure: Behavioral deviations in offspring of treated mothers . Science 177 :621-623,
1972
.
Stern, A.H. A review of the studies of the cardiovascular health effects of methylmercury with
consideration of their suitability for risk assessment . Environ. Res. 98:133-142, 2005
.
Stem, A.H ., Gochfeld, M., Weisel, C., and Burger, J . Mercury and methylmercury exposure in
the New Jersey pregnant population . Arch. Environ. Health 56 :4-10, 2001
.
Stern, A.H ., and Smith, A .E. An assessment of the cord blood:maternal blood methylmercury
ratio : Implications for risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 111:1465-1470, 2003
.
Suter, K.E ., and Schon, H . Testing strategies in behavioral teratology : I. Testing battery
approach. Neurobehav . Toxicol. Teratol. 8:561-566, 1986 .
Takaoka, S ., Fujino, T., Sekikawa, T., and Miyaoka, T. Psychophysical sensory examination in
individuals with a history of methylmercury exposure . Environ. Res . 95:126-132, 2004 .
- 42
-

 
Tamashiro, H., Arakaki, M ., Akagi, H., Hirayama, K., Murao, K., and Smolensky, M.H. Sex
differential of methylmercury toxicity in spontaneous hypertensive rats (SHR)
. Bull .
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 37:916-924, 1986
.
Trasande, L., Landrigan, P.J ., and Schechter, C . Public health and economic consequences of
methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain . Environ. Health Perspect. 113:590-596,
2005
.
Trasande, L., Schechter, C.B ., Haynes, K.A ., and Landrigan, P .J. Mental retardation and prenatal
methylmercury toxicity. Am . J. Indust. Med. 49:153-158, 2006 .
Tsubaki, T., and Irukayama, K. Eds. Minamata Disease, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1977
Vahter,M.E., Motet, N.K ., Friberg, L., Lind, B., Shen, D.D . , and Burbacher, T. Speciation of
mercury in the primate blood and brain following long-term exposure to methylmercury
.
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol . 124: 221-229, 1994
.
Vahter, M.E ., Mottet, N.K ., Friberg, L.T., Lind, B ., Charleston, J .S., and Burbacher, T.M .
Demethylation of methyl mercury in different brain sites
of Macaca fascicularis
monkeys during long-term subclinical methyl mercury exposure. Toxicol. Appl .
Pharmacol . 134:273-284, 1995
.
Virtanen, J .K, Voutilainen, S., Rissanen, T.H ., Mursu, J., Tuomainen, T.-P., Korhonen, M.J .,
Valkonen, V.-P ., Seppanen, K., Laukkanen, J.A., and Salonen, J.T. Aerterioscler
.
Thromb. Vasc . Biol. 25:228-233, 2005 .
Vortices, C. Behavioral effects of prenatal methylmercury in rats : A parallel trial to the
collaborative behavioral teratology study. Neurobehav . Toxicol. Teratol. 7:717-724,
1985 .
Vupputuri, S., Longnecker,M.P., Daniels, J.L ., Guo, X ., and Sandler, D.P. Blood mercury level
and blood pressure among U.S. women: results form the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey 1999-2000. Environ. Res. 97:195-2000, 2005 .
Wakita, Y. Hypertension induced by methyl mercury in rats . Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 89:144-
147, 1987 .
Weil, M ., Bressler, J., Parsons, P., Bolla, K., Glass, T., and Schwartz, B . Blood mercury levels
and neurobehavioral function . J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 293:1875-1882, 2005 .
Weiss, B. Vulnerability of children and the developing brain to neurotoxic hazards . Environ .
Health Perspect. 108 Suppl 3:375-381, 2000
.
Weiss, B ., Stern, S., Cox, C ., and Balys, M . Perinatal and lifetime exposure to methylmercury in
the mouse: behavioral effects. Neurotoxicol . 26:675-690, 2005 .
WHO (World Health Organization). Methylmercury. Environmental Health Criteria 101
.
Geneva: World Health Organization, 1990. Available online at
http://www . inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/eh c l 0l .htm
Widholm, J .J, Villareal, S ., Seegal, R.F ., and Schantz, S .L. Spatial alternation deficits following
developmental exposure to Aroclor and/or methylmercury in rats . Toxicol . Sci. 82:577-
589,2004 .
- 43 -

 
Yokoo, E.M ., Valente, J.G., Grattan, L., Schmidt, S .L ., Platt, I., and Silbergeld, E.K. Low level
methylmercury exposure affects neuropsychological function in adults . Environ. Health
2:8, 2003 (http://www.ehjoumal.net/content/2/1/8) .
Yoshizawa, K., Rimm, E.B., Morris, J.S ., Spate, V .I., Hsieh, C., Spiegelman, D., Stampfer,M .J.,
and Willett, W.C. Mercury and the risk of coronary heart disease in men . N . Engl. J
.
Med. 347:1755-1760, 2002
.
Zenick, H . Evoked potential alterations in methylmercury chloride toxicity . Pharmacol
.
Biochem . Behav. 5:253-255, 1976
.

 
Exhibit
B

 
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF MERCURY
Gerald J. Keeler, Ph.D
.
University of Michigan, School of Public Health
Department of Environmental Health Sciences
Ann Arbor, MI
March 2006
INTRODUCTION
Mercury continues to be targeted as a pollutant of concern for source identification, reduction
and/or elimination through a variety of state, federal and international efforts . Recently, the
Council of Great Lakes Governors, a non-partisan partnership of the Governors of the eight
Great Lakes States - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin, identified reducing the input of toxic substances to the lakes and reducing human
health impacts as major priorities for restoration efforts in the Great Lakes . The atmosphere has
been determined to be the most significant source of mercury (Hg) to Michigan's inland lakes
and for some of the Great Lakes (Fitzgerald et al ., 1991 ; Landis et al., 2002a). In 2003, the Great
Lakes Commission, identified mercury monitoring as one of the most urgent priorities among the
air toxic programs in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Commission is a binational agency that
promotes development, use and conservation of the water and related natural resources of the
Great Lakes basin and St. Lawrence River. Its members include the eight Great Lakes states and
the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
On a global basis, it is estimated that between 50 to 75% of total atmospheric mercury
emissions are of anthropogenic origin (Pirrone et al., 1996). Natural emissions are typically
assumed to be elemental gaseous mercury (Hg°) (Pacyna and Pacyna, 2002), however, a lack of
measurement data make this assumption highly uncertain . Anthropogenic emissions are
primarily Hg°, divalent reactive gaseous mercury (RGM), and particulate mercury (Hg(p)) . The
dominant form of mercury in the atmosphere is Hg°. Because it is relatively insoluble and
deposits very inefficiently, the mean residence time for Hg° in the atmosphere is estimated to be
approximately one year (Schroeder and Munthe, 1998) allowing for global redistribution . This
lifetime was recently challenged, however, due to new insights on the atmospheric chemistry of
mercury, and these studies suggest the lifetime of mercury will likely be much shorter. RGM
directly emitted to the atmosphere is expected to deposit efficiently on a local or regional scale
near major sources largely because of its solubility, as is the case for Hg(p). Atmospheric
deposition at any particular location can, therefore, be a complex combination of local, regional,
and global emissions and transport/ transformation processes (EPMAP, 1994) .
Major anthropogenic mercury sources in the Great Lakes region and preliminary estimates of
their annual emissions into the atmosphere have been described by Pirrone et al ., (1996), and
USEPA (1994). Sources include fossil fuel utility boilers, municipal and hospital waste
incinerators, iron and steel production, coke production, lime production, hazardous waste
recycling facilities, and secondary copper, petroleum refining, and mobile sources . The sources
of mercury are numerous and many are not well characterized . An accurate emissions inventory
that includes speciated anthropogenic as well as natural mercury sources is still not available
.
Early mercury studies focused on the relative importance of urban/source areas, e .g. Detroit,
Chicago/Gary on loadings to the Great Lakes. These regional-scale monitoring studies included
the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMBS) and the Atmospheric Exchange Over Lakes
I

 
2
and Oceans Study (AEOLOS) . These developed methods for the measurement and analysis of
samples collected in multi-site networks . The Great Lakes Atmospheric Mercury Assessment
Project (GLAMAP) provided the first comprehensive regional atmospheric mercury
measurements in the Great Lakes Region . This international study showed the importance of a
regional approach to understanding mercury sources and transport. The LMMBS clearly
identified the need for methods for the measurement of speciated gaseous mercury and for the
accurate determination of mercury associated with size-segregated particulate matter.
This document provides a brief summary of several of the key studies performed in the Great
Lakes region over the past 15+ years together with insights on the sources, transport, chemistry,
and deposition of atmospheric mercury and discusses the implications of these studies. This is
not an exhaustive review of the literature but a selection of findings that reflect our current state-
of-the-art knowledge of atmospheric mercury levels and deposition in the Great Lakes Region
.
Only wet deposition data collected on an event-basis is discussed, as the focus of the research
presented is related to source apportionment and meteorological analysis
.

 
MERCURY LEVELS IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION
Ambient Mercury Measurements
The Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study (LMUATS) performed in 1991 provided new
insight on the levels and behavior of atmospheric mercury and other hazardous air pollutants
in
the southern Lake Michigan Basin (Keeler, 1994; Holsen et al., 1992; Pirrone and Keeler, 1993;
Pirrone et al., 1995). Total mercury measurements were performed simultaneously at three sites
as part of the month-long intensive study designed to observe the behavior of many different
classes of compounds as they were advected from the urban/industrial source regions across
Lake Michigan.
Ambient mercury concentrations, both vapor and particulate phase, were
significantly elevated in the Chicago urban/industrial
area relative to the levels measured
concurrently in surrounding areas. The levels of atmospheric mercury varied greatly from day to
day at the urban Chicago location, and much less so at the more rural sites . In addition, the total
Loot Ic
Figure 1. Great Lakes Atmospheric Mercury Monitoring Sites
.
vapor phase mercury concentrations varied diurnally with the highest concentrations observed
during the daytime
.
The levels of particulate mercury during the LMUATS were significantly greater than
those
observed previously at rural sites in the Great Lakes Region,
as much as 50 times greater.
Particulate mercury was measured on coarse particles >2 .5 µm in size as well as on fine particles
3

 
4
<2.5 µm. Furthermore, coarse particle mercury was measured in both urban and rural locations,
and the chemical form and reactivity of the particulate mercury varied depending upon the
source and meteorological conditions. Over-water measurements on Lake Michigan of mercury
performed in the southern Lake Michigan Basin found particulate mercury concentrations >1
ng/m3 (Keeler et al ., 1994), and confirmed that particulate mercury was associated with both fine
and coarse particulate matter. These findings suggested that dry deposition estimates for mercury
had likely underestimated the mass loading of this toxic compound to both terrestrial and aquatic
systems .
Some of the first multi-year atmospheric mercury data in the region included daily total vapor
and particulate phase mercury samples and event wet deposition (discussed later) at three rural
sites in Michigan (Pellston, South Haven and Dexter) over a two-year period (Hoyer et al
.,
1995) .
Regional and local-scale spatial gradients were identified for both the atmospheric
concentrations and wet deposition of mercury. Meteorological analysis indicated that the
elevated levels of mercury observed in the atmosphere were associated with transport from the
urban/industrial area in Detroit as well as with transport from the Chicago/Gary corridor (Hoyer,
1995; Keeler and Hoyer, 1997) . These findings revealed that source-receptor relationships for
atmospheric mercury could be determined, and that short-duration (<_daily) ambient sampling
and event-precipitation sampling were critical for this determination
.
The Great Lakes Atmospheric Mercury Assessment Project (GLAMAP) extended the
mercury measurements performed in Michigan to a region-wide network of rural ambient sites in
the Great Lakes Region aimed to determine the influence of the large anthropogenic source areas
on mercury levels . The GLAMAP (1994-1996) provided a unique database for investigating
source-receptor relationships for atmospheric mercury and included measurements of gas- and
particle-phase mercury, as well as particulate trace elements, from 11 rural monitoring locations
across the region (Burke, 1998). More than 1,300 sets of 24-hour measurements were collected
from the 11 sites over the two-year period. Atmospheric mercury concentrations measured
during GLAMAP were typical of rural locations, with daily mean concentrations ranging from
1 .0 to 3.5 ng m-3 for gas-phase mercury and from 1 to 100 pg M-3 for particle-phase mercury .
Statistically significant spatial and seasonal differences were observed for both gas- and
particle-phase mercury measured across the Great Lakes region . Sub-regions were identified
(shown in Figure 2) within the region where the GLAMAP sites had similar trends in
atmospheric mercury levels. These observations are discussed here in terms of their spatial and
temporal trends.
Spatial and Temporal Trends for Atmospheric Mercury
Atmospheric mercury concentrations measured during GLAMAP were statistically different
across the Great Lakes Region with average gas-phase mercury concentrations that differed by as
much as 25% between sites (1 .63
- 2.03 ng m" ), while average particle-phase mercury levels
differed by nearly a factor of three (8 .7 - 24.5 pg m-3) . These differences were greater than
previously reported spatial gradients for atmospheric mercury across smaller geographic scales
(Keeler and Hoyer, 1997 ; Olmez et al ., 1996; Keeler et al., 1995 ; Iverfeldt and Lindquist, 1986)
.
Concentrations of both gas- and particle-phase mercury were consistently higher at the sites in
the
east
and
south
sub-regions compared to the sites in the
north
and
west
sub-regions (see
Figure 3 and 4) . It was concluded that the spatial trends reflected the proximity of the sites to
anthropogenic source areas for atmospheric mercury in the region . The concentrations of

 
particulate mercury measured at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) site as part of the
LMMBS are also shown in Figure 4 . On average, the concentrations at this site were more than
3x higher than those measured concurrently at the more rural sites . Measurements performed
during the AEOLOS at Washington High School in Indiana revealed even higher particulate
mercury concentrations than those measured at IIT
.
Figure 2. Location of GLAMAP Network Sites 1994-1996.
Although concentrations for both gas- and particle-phase mercury were not statistically
different between the two sampling years at any of the GLAMAP sites, seasonal differences
were statistically significant and the seasonal trends were different for the two forms of
atmospheric mercury. Seasonally averaged gas-phase mercury concentrations were typically
highest for the spring seasons and lowest for the autumn seasons during the study . This seasonal
trend was consistent across most of the GLAMAP sites, indicating that regional-scale (or larger
scale) processes were important for gas-phase mercury . In addition, the magnitude of the
seasonal differences was significantly greater at the sites in the east and south parts of the Great
Lakes region. Seasonally averaged particle-phase mercury concentrations were significantly
higher for the winter season during GLAMAP, but only at the sites in the east and south
.
Particle-phase mercury concentrations were not statistically different between other seasons at
these sites, or between all seasons at the sites to the north and west in the region .
5

 
Figure 3. Average concentration of vapor-phase mercury measured from December 1994
to December 1996 .
Meteorological factors were found to play a significant role in the seasonal trends for both
gas- and particle-phase mercury.
Specific synoptic-scale meteorological conditions were
consistently associated with both above and below average concentrations of particle-phase
mercury at the sites in the eastern and southern portions of the Great Lakes region. Periods with
elevated atmospheric pressure across the region during the winter and autumn months with lower
mixed-layer heights were associated with above average particle-phase mercury concentrations
(30-50 pg
M-3) .
The highest particle-phase mercury concentrations were observed during
wintertime high-pressure conditions with air mass transport from known anthropogenic source
areas. Spatial differences in the seasonal behavior of mercury indicated that anthropogenic
source influences also contributed to these trends . Distance from the major source areas for the
region likely influenced the lower range of concentrations at the sites in the north sub-region
compared to the other GLAMAP sites
.
6

 
Figure 4. Average concentration of particle-bound mercury measured from 12/1994 to
12/1996 .
Synoptic-scale meteorological features also influenced gas-phase mercury levels in the region
but the significance of these relationships was not
as strong as observed for particle-phase
mercury. Periods with lower atmospheric pressure during the spring and summer seasons were
associated with above average gas-phase mercury concentrations (>_ 2.0 ng m-3) at the sites in the
east and south sub-regions (shown in red in Figure 3) . Precipitation ahead of a frontal boundary
typically associated with low-pressure systems also occurred with above average mercury
concentrations at these sites. Below average gas-phase mercury concentrations (1 .4-1.6 ng m-3)
occurred during the autumn season with strong pressure gradients between high and low pressure
systems, and fast transport across the region (daily mean wind speeds >6 msec') . The highest
concentrations of gas-phase mercury were observed with low-pressure conditions and air mass
transport from known source areas . Thus, it was shown that source-receptor relationships for
ambient mercury were strongly influenced by the distance from anthropogenic source regions
and atmospheric transport that was controlled by synoptic-scale meteorology
.
Figure 5 shows the average concentrations of sulfur (S) and slenium (Se) together with the
measured mercury on PM samples collected over the two-year GLAMAP . The Se concentration
was multiplied by 10, and the S concentration was divided by 100, both in units of ng/m3 so that
they could be simply plotted on the same scale with the particulate mercury in units of pg/m 3 .
The sites with the highest S and Se concentrations tended to also have the highest mercury
concentrations across the network. Bondville, Illinois, Dexter, Michigan, Salt Fork Lake, Ohio,
and Sturgeon Point, Ontario, all had relatively higher Se than S and higher particulate mercury as
well. The sites farther to the north such as Eagle Harbor, Michigan, and Underhill, Vermont had
relatively low and similar mercury, S, and Se concentrations over the two-years of measurement .
Since both coal-fired utility boilers and municipal and medical waster incinerations were the
dominant source categories at this time, the finding that particulate mercury was related to S and
Se, as well as copper
(Cu), zinc (Zn), and lead
(Pb), indicated that these sources were
contributing to the ambient mercury levels .
7

 
Figure 5. Average concentration of aerosol trace elements measured from December 1994
to December 1996 as part of the GLAMAP. Units for Hg (pg/m3, and S, Se ng/m3) .
Wet Deposition
Event precipitation was collected from 1992 to 1994 at three Michigan sites: Dexter, South
Haven, and Pellston (see Figure 1) . This two-year data record clearly indicated a strong gradient
in the wet deposition of mercury from the elevated levels in the south to the lower levels
observed at the Pellston site (Hoyer et al ; 1995). This study also found that air mass transport
from source regions in summer often led to highly elevated mercury concentrations in
precipitation, whereas in winter, a similar air mass trajectory resulted in extremely low levels of
mercury in precipitation (-1 .5 ng L-) if the precipitation fell as snow. The cloud microphysical
processes, together with the atmospheric mercury speciation, were thought to be responsible for
the strong seasonal variations that were observed in the event mercury concentrations and
deposition.
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study (LMMBS) performed from July 1994 through
October 1995 at five sites (Bondville, IL, Chicago, IL, Kenosha, WI, South Haven, MI, and
Sleeping Bear Dunes, MI), found elevated concentrations of mercury in precipitation at the sites
in the southern basin when compared to the northern site at Sleeping Bear Dunes (Landis et al
.
2002a). The observed gradients in mercury wet deposition were similar to the gradients observed
in ambient (gas and particle phase) mercury from the GLAMAP project, which were largely the
result of anthropogenic point source emissions in the southern Great Lakes region (Landis and
Keeler, 2002a). The annual wet deposition of mercury to Lake Michigan averaged over the entire
8
∎ Hg
S/700 ∎ Sell
0I
30
25
C
`
o
20
e
e
~
15
t4
10
0
-
Cedar
Wildcat
Sondvllle
Eagle
Sleeping
Burnt
Dexter
Salt Fo
Sturgeon
Point Underhlll
Creek
Mtn .
Harbor
Bear
Island
Lake
Point
Petre

 
lake was 10.6 µg m' 2, or 895 kg to the lake (Figure 6). There was significant spatial and temporal
variability in the mercury wet deposition flux over Lake Michigan . The summertime flux of
mercury was much larger than the wintertime flux, due to the higher concentrations of mercury
in rain than in snow and the greater precipitation amounts observed in the summer
.
30.0
27.5
25.0
22.5
20.0
173
15.0
123
10.0
Figure 6. Estimated over-water wet Hg deposition flux (7/1/94-10/31/95) .
The Atmospheric Exchange Over Lakes and Oceans Study (AEOLOS), conducted
concurrently to the LMMBS, added an over-water measurement component using the USEPA
research vessel Lake Guardian to the LMMBS network of land-based sites (Landis and Keeler,
2002). The AEOLOS conducted a meteorological cluster analysis (see Figure 7), which found
the Chicago/Gary urban area had a significant impact on atmospheric mercury concentrations
across the entire Lake Michigan Basin, and estimated that the urban/source area contributed
almost 20% of the total deposition to Lake Michigan, and 14% to the wet deposition . In addition
to the local source cluster contributing to the deposition to the lake, air mass transport to the
south with regional sources in Illinois and Missouri also contributed to the elevated mercury
concentrations and deposition measured
.
The total deposition due to the sources in the
urban/industrial area would have been even greater had RGM deposition been considered in that
analysis but, due to the lack of a reliable method, these measurements were not performed. The
major sources contributing to the wet and dry deposition of mercury to the lake were iron-steel
production, coal-fired utilities, and incineration (Landis, 1998)
.
The AEOLOS also investigated the importance of urban sources on deposition of mercury in
Detroit, Michigan in 1996. Mercury event precipitation was collected as part of a study to
9

 
investigate the atmospheric contributions of mercury in urban runoff (Gildemeister et al ., 2004) .
Mercury wet deposition measured in Detroit over the nine-month period was three
times that
measured at the Eagle Harbor site for the same period
.
At the conclusion of this study it was
unclear how representative these findings were and whether this trend
would continue after
changes in mercury emissions .
More recent data continue to show that levels in southern
Michigan are 2-3 times those measured at the northern site at Eagle Harbor, but the investigation
of the changes into the source contributions has not been performed at this time
.
Figure 7. Trajectory clusters and associated volume-weighted mean Hg concentrations for
event precipitation samples collected for the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study
(After Landis, 1998) .
15.3 ng L - '
10

 
E3
eo
7
a
0
.y
d
A
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
YEAR
Figure 8. The annual wet deposition of mercury measured at three Michigan sites from
1994 to 2003 .
Recognizing that long-term precipitation records are essential for establishing trends and
understanding the impacts of changes in mercury emissions, a decade of event precipitation
sampling has been conducted at three sites in Michigan (Dexter, Pellston, and Eagle Harbor, see
site locations in Figure 1)
.
The annual mercury wet deposition measured at the three sites for the period 1994-2003 is
shown in Figure 8. Over the 10-year deposition record, a clear decreasing gradient from south to
north was observed. While the year-to-year variability in the deposition was on average 18% at
each site, the 10-year total wet deposition sum at Dexter was 1 .6 times the deposition collected at
Pellston and 2.1 times that measured at the Eagle Harbor site . With the exception of the 2002
mercury deposition for Pellston (the maximum annual deposition over the 10 year record) the
south to north decreasing gradient in deposition was observed each year. Futhermore, there was
not an obvious trend, either increasing or decreasing, in the deposition rates at the three sites over
the decade of measurements. This data illustrate the consistent long-term impact that
anthropogenic sources in the southern part of the Great Lakes region have had on mercury
deposition across the Great Lakes Basin
.
To date, only a limited number of studies have been performed simultaneously in urban areas
and in downwind areas impacted by the sources . Studies in both Chicago and south Florida have
found as much as 2/3 of the mercury wet deposition to be of local anthropogenic origin (Landis
and Keeler, 2002a; Dvonch et al., 1999). In light of this, a new urban mercury wet deposition
network was recently established that added three urban sites, Detroit, Grand Rapids and Flint, to
the long-term data collection at the three rural sites in Dexter, Pellston, and Eagle Harbor. These
new sites will be used to assess the long-term influence of urban sources relative to background
regional sources through the central region of the Great Lakes. In addition, a comprehensive
monitoring site was established in Stuebenville, Ohio to specifically assess the impacts of coal-
combustion emissions in the southern Great Lakes Region relative to other regional sources
contributing to the mercury wet deposition at this site . A quantitative source apportionment of
the mercury wet deposition measured in Stuebenville is presented later in this document .
1 1

 
12
Dry Deposition
During periods without precipitation, mercury can be removed from the atmosphere by
particle deposition and by gas exchange between the air, water, and earth's surface. The
importance of dry deposition as a source of mercury to the Great Lakes and inland aquatic
environments was the focus of studies that pointed to the importance of mercury speciation on
the deposition to both urban and remote areas of the region (Pirrone et al ., 1993, 1995a,b; Rea et
al., 2001, 2002; Landis et al., 2002a; Vette et al., 2002 ; Gildmeister et al., 2004) .
Mercury dry deposition flux measurements were performed using surrogate surfaces
techniques in Chicago, as part of the AEOLOS and LMMBS. The daily dry deposition fluxes
measured in July 1994 are shown in Figure 9, with 52% of the dry deposition measured due to
particulate mercury deposition and the remainder due to RGM deposition . In 1996, wet and dry
deposition samples were collected at three sites in Detroit to investigate the atmospheric
contributions of mercury to urban runoff (Gildemeister, 2001 ; Gildemeister et al ., 2004). The
monthly dry particulate mercury deposition flux for the April-October period was similar to the
monthly wet mercury deposition flux (10 .2 µg m-2 vs 14.8 µg m-2 , respectively) at the Livemois
site in Detroit. It is anticipated that the total dry deposition flux due to both particulate and
gaseous mercury would have been greater than the wet deposition flux, based upon the earlier
findings in Chicago which suggested that about half of the dry deposition was due to particulate
mercury .
The elevated levels of RGM and particulate mercury continue to be elevated in the
urban areas and substantial dry deposition fluxes continue to be measured (Liu et al . 2006) .
As part of a whole-ecosystem mercury cycling study, Rea et al . (2002) measured mercury in
the foliage of deciduous trees in Pellston, Michigan over the course of the growing season and
found that total foliar mercury accumulation was substantially less than vapor phase Hg °
deposition estimated following Lindberg et al . (1992). Rea et al. (2001) determined that Hg(p)
and RGM dry deposition were rapidly washed off foliar surfaces, and therefore foliar
accumulation of mercury most likely represents vapor phase Hg° assimilation. In controlled pot
and chamber studies with aspen, Ericksen et al . (2003) determined that all foliar accumulation of
mercury was due to vapor uptake, regardless of soil mercury concentration
.

 
200
180
160
o
120
100
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
Date In 1994
7/29
ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND SPECIATION
Mercury has been measured in the atmosphere in both gas and
article phases. Greater than
95% of global gaseous mercury may be in the elemental state (Hg
) .
It is the divalent gaseous
form of mercury (Hg2+), as well as particulate mercury, however, that are the critical components
in understanding mercury removal processes and deposition rates from the atmosphere because
7/30
7/31
13
Figure 9. Total mercury dry deposition flux measured in Chicago using the UM
aerodynamic mercury water surface sampler in 1994 .
The rate of mercury accumulation in foliage was linear with no significant difference
between accumulation rates measured by Rea et al
.
(2002) in two different forests, with
significantly different meteorological conditions
and modeled vapor phase Hg°
deposition
velocities at each site. Miller et al . (2004) suggested
that the lack of difference in foliar
accumulation rates for the two sites indicated that foliar mercury accumulation was limited by
biological processes mediating sequestration of the mercury . Since the annual transfer of
mercury from foliage to forest floor via leaf fall represented the net vapor phase Hg
° deposition
(Rea et al., 2002 ; Ericksen et al., 2003), Miller et al . (2004) developed an empirical method to
estimate the accumulation of mercury in foliage of the study area, with the mercury content of
deciduous foliage found to be a linear function of growing
season length. To date, Hg°
deposition and accumulation have not been
adequately treated in mercury transport
and
deposition models and represent significant sources of uncertainty in our impact
assessments .
The elevated levels of Hg° observed in the southern and eastern portion of the Great Lakes
region represent the contributions of the major anthropogenic sources in this region and therefore
are likely the major contributor to the vapor phase Hg ° deposition and accumulation in the
foliage .
While it was evident that urban sources were impacting mercury deposition to
downwind
lakes and ecosystems, studies performed to date were limited by the lack of RGM measurements,
which are essential for estimating the dry deposition of mercury and for identifying the source or
sources of the mercury deposited
.

 
1 4
these species are highly water soluble (Fitzgerald et al ., 1991). That the gaseous forms of
mercury interact in a complex way with particulate matter suggests that gas-particle partitioning
of mercury also controls the deposition from the atmosphere . A large percentage (as much as
95%) of the mercury emitted by various source types was in a water soluble, reactive gaseous
form (Prestbo and Bloom 1995 ; Dvonch et al., 1999; Lindberg and Stratton, 1998) . While
progress has been made in identifying and quantifying mercury emission sources, few field-
based studies have attempted to identify the mechanisms and processes critical to enable
predictive modeling of mercury transport, transformation, and deposition. These processes
include the characterization of speciated mercury in emissions, ambient air, and ultimately
deposition
.
Local Source Impacts in Urban Areas
Measurements of speciated gaseous mercury were made in Detroit during each summer from
2000-2002. The sampling site was located in close proximity (within 4 km) to a large heavy
industrial source complex (Dvonch et al., 2005), which included coal combustion, oil refineries,
coke ovens, iron/steel mills, and sewage sludge incineration . Significant local source impacts
were observed at the site with maximum hourly RGM values that reached 208 pg/m 3 and the Hg°
values that exceeded 14 ng/m 3 on July 17, 2001 . An analysis of the surface meteorological data
collected on-site indicated that winds were from the southwest during this period, the direction of
the nearby industrial source complex. These results provide evidence that RGM may remain in a
divalent form downwind from the source. The maximum values observed in 2001 were quite
similar to those measured in Detroit in 2000 and 2002 (Lynam and Keeler, 2002; Lynam and
Keeler, 2004). The maximum RGM values in Detroit during these measurements were also
similar to those previously measured in Baltimore in 1998, when levels reached 211 pg/m 3 after
plume impaction at the measurement site by a nearby municipal waste incinerator (Dvonch et al
.,
2005). Elevated RGM may be expected immediately downwind of waste incinerators since
previous in-stack measurements have shown that 75-95% of the mercury is emitted
as RGM
(Dvonch et al., 1999) .
Production of RGM in Ambient Air
Speciated measurements of gaseous mercury were performed in Ann Arbor, Michigan, during
the summer of 1999 (Dvonch et al ., 2004). A clear diurnal pattern was observed in the RGM
concentrations similar to that observed in Detroit, and this pattern was particularly pronounced
on certain days, such as those shown in June and July 1999 . The highest levels of RGM occurred
during the daytime, after solar noon, as seen in Figure 10 . A clear positive relationship between
RGM and ozone (0 3) was also observed on these summer days, as RGM maximums exceeded
140 pg m-3 on both June 22 and June 23, 1999. Overall for the 16-week sampling period at Ann
Arbor, Dvonch et al. (2004) determined the diurnal patterns observed in RGM were found to
significantly co-vary with ambient
03
(r = 0.50, n = 916, a = 0.01) .
Since 03
is a
photochemically produced secondary pollutant that serves as an indicator of increased
photochemistry and increased oxidant production, the positive relationship observed between
with RGM points to the real-time production of RGM as a result of photochemical oxidants
.

 
An
analysis
of concurrent Hg°
concentrations provided additional evidence for the
photochemical production of RGM. Overall for the 16-week sampling period at Ann Arbor, a
significant negative correlation was found between Hg ° and 03 (r = -0.18, n = 526, (x = 0.01)
(Dvonch et al ., 2004) .
160
- 120
-RGM
1
140
- - -ozone
- 100
-- 80
100
•
I'
a
n
80
. - 60
•
1
.
.
u
•
0
.
.
40
8nr87~"d"1~'8,~3 „Snr'3'28g1~gn~8n.y ~~88 8nr8nN'8'7 8 8 84H8$ 8 SSR
6/2299 1
&13199
my
W24199
7111199
7112199
I
7113199
Date and Time (EDT)
Figure 10. Reactive Gaseous Mercury andOzone Measured at Ann Arbor,MI (June-
July, 1999) .
I~~
~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
I
I I
I I 1 I
I I
F
I
I
F
P ~ ~ ~ ~ I
.
I
I
11
' 1 11
1
1
1
1 11
1
1
1+
1
•
1 1
.
0
This relationship was particularly pronounced during periods of enhanced 03 ,
such as
September 1-5, 1999 (r = -0.77, n = 58, (x = 0.01). A significant negative correlation between
Hg° and RGM was also found during this period (r = -0 .35, n = 66, (x = 0.01), as illustrated in
Figure 5 by the sharp decrease in Hg ° together with the increase in afternoon RGM and
03 .
The strong diurnal patterns observed provide additional evidence to suggest that RGM is
produced via photochemical reactions . As part of the analysis, daily air mass back-trajectories
from the site were calculated, which suggested that the diurnal RGM maximums observed at
Ann Arbor were not due to local source impacts, but instead were a result of RGM production
during transport of the air mass. It was also noted that while the increases in RGM represented
roughly only 10% of the decreases in Hg° during periods of elevated
03,
a mass balance of the
two species should not be expected given the high solubility of RGM relative to Hg ° and the
expected deposition during air mass transport
.
15

 
-RGM
- - - Hg(0)
8/31/99
0
III
IllIII11111
IIIIII
FF~~i~~~~~~~~~'IllIllIII
1111
II~~II
11111
FF11
111
0
9/01/99
9/02/99
9/03/99
Date and Time (EDT)
9/04/99
9/05/99
6
5
4
E
w
3 S
O
I
X
2
1
Figure 11. Speciated Gaseous Mercury Measured at Ann Arbor, MI
(August-September, 1999) .
While a small amount of field-based data have been published to date to assess atmospheric
mercury oxidation in northern temperate climates, recent measurements along the west coast of
Washington State identified that large and frequent Hg° losses occurred during summertime
periods with increased 03 (Weiss-Penzias et al., 2003), and measurements along the west coast
of Ireland suggest BrO- as responsible for Hg° oxidation (Munthe et al ., 2003). The loss of Hg°
and production of RGM on days with increased photochemistry observed in Michigan differ
from the above investigations in that these measurements are far removed from influences of the
marine environment. Because of this, reactive halogen species, which evolved from sea salt,
would not be expected to be responsible for the observed Hg ° oxidation. Species, such as the
hydroxyl radical, are more likely to be important in temperate climates that are far removed from
marine influences, and require further study in future investigations
.
Long-Term Speciated Ambient Mercury Levels in Detroit
The intensive speciated mercury data collected in urban areas during 1998-2002 made clear
the need for long-term measurements. In September 2002, a long-term speciated ambient
mercury monitoring site in Detroit was established for the measurements of Hg °, RGM, and
particulate mercury utilizing the Tekran 2537A11130/1135 Mercury Speciation System . Data are
presented here for the first full year of data collection (thru September 2003) . Mean levels (±
standard deviation) of Hg°, RGM, and particulate mercury were 2 .4 f
1 .4 ng M-3, 16.5 ± 28.9 pg
M-3
,
and 22 ± 30 pg m -3 ,
respectively. The University of Michigan Air Quality Laboratory
(UMAQL) has established long-term speciated ambient mercury monitoring sites at a rural site
in Dexter, Michigan, as well as at a regionally impacted site in Stuebenville, Ohio, to quantify
16

 
the source impacts and levels of speciated ambient mercury across the Great Lakes region
.
Maximum hourly concentrations of RGM and particulate mercury at the urban Detroit and
source-impacted Ohio site reach near I ng/m 3 and are 5-10 fold higher than maximum levels
observed at rural measurement sites
.
SOURCES OF ATMOSPHERIC MERCURY DEPOSITION
Currently, emissions of mercury from coal burning utilities are the largest source category
within the U.S., and new rules have been issued by the Federal Government to control these
emissions (USEPA, 2005). Understanding all of the major sources of mercury is required to
manage the risk to humans and vulnerable ecosystems. One approach to defining the sources of
atmospheric mercury is the development of source receptor relationships that can be used to
assess contributions from various sources based on observations made at sampling or receptor
sites. Therefore, speciated mercury emissions rates from all the major sources that are likely to
impact the receptor site are not required. Source receptor relationships have been developed for
mercury in precipitation (Dvonch et al, 1999) and for particulate phase mercury (Ames et al,
1998; Gildemeister, 2001 ; Graney et al. 2004). These studies reveal that mercury in precipitation
and in the particulate phase exhibit well defined source receptor relationships
.
Recently, Lynam and Keeler (2006) reported the results from a field measurement program
performed in Detroit. In this study, measurements of other criteria pollutants including ozone,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide nitrogen oxides, as well as meteorological parameters were
made, in addition to measurements of speciated mercury. The combined short-duration
measurement data were analyzed to develop source receptor relationships . The relationships
between elemental mercury, RGM, and particulate phase mercury, chemical and meteorological
variables were defined to apportion the sources of mercury observed at the Detroit monitoring
site. They concluded that regional sources of RGM in photochemically active air masses as well
source contributions from local coal combustion and motor vehicle emission sources were
important in Detroit. This finding is applicable to other urban areas in the Great Lakes region
that have a similar density of industrial and mobile sources contributing to the elevated levels
measured in these areas .
Impact of Coal-fired Utilities
In a 1998 Report to Congress, the USEPA identified coal-fired utility boilers as the largest
source of domestic anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere and provided evidence
of a causal link between such releases and the presence of methylmercury in fish tissue. At that
time, USEPA recognized that the Ohio River Valley contained a high density of coal-fired utility
boilers and that no monitoring of atmospheric mercury deposition was being conducted in the
area.
In 2002, USEPA initiated a mercury monitoring and source apportionment study to
investigate the impact of local and regional coal combustion sources on atmospheric mercury
deposition in the Ohio River Valley .
The relative importance of domestic coal combustion sources to atmospheric mercury
deposition in the U.S., and the efficacy of the USEPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) cap
and trade approach to decrease mercury in fish, are topics in an ongoing debate in the scientific
community. At the center of this debate is the question of the relative importance of mercury
emissions from domestic coal-fired utility boilers to atmospheric deposition into sensitive
1 7

 
18
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems . As part of the CAMR development process, USEPA used the
Community Multi-scale Air Quality model (CMAQ), an Eulerian dispersion model, to estimate
the impact of domestic mercury sources on atmospheric deposition for CY2001 . While
extremely useful, all contemporary deterministic models
(e.g., CMAQ) are limited by the
currently large uncertainties in emission inventories, atmospheric mercury chemistry, and wet
and dry deposition parameterizations . Receptor models differ from deterministic models in that
they are statistical methods for which implementation relies only upon observations of deposition
at a location or receptor. Deterministic and receptor modeling source apportionment approaches
are independent and complementary .
Multivariate statistical receptor models, such as principal component analysis (PCA), have
been successfully used to apportion the sources of mercury deposited in southern Florida
(Dvonch et al. 1999) and the sources of other chemical compounds elsewhere (Anderson et al
.
2002). More recently, statistical techniques such as Unmix (Lewis et al . 2003) and positive
matrix factorization (PMF) have been developed to improve upon the earlier techniques using
uncertainties in the data matrix (Paaterro et al . 1994; Anttila et al. 1995) as well as through
constraining the solutions to non-negative solutions . Both techniques have the advantage of not
requiring prior measurements of source profiles or emission inventories . PMF and Unmix were
applied to the precipitation chemistry data collected at Steubenville, Ohio, to determine the
sources contributing to mercury in wet deposition
.
Six source factors were identified with similar composition and mercury contributions, with
the factor identified as coal combustion (S, As, Se, and NOs) clearly dominant in terms of
explaining the mercury deposition (--70%) .
Atmospheric Se is often associated with the burning
of fossil fuels such as coal (Biegalski et al . 1998) and Se in the absence of significant Ni and V
was determined to be an appropriate tracer of coal combustion in Steubenville (Grahme and
Hidy, 2004). There are several large steel manufacturing facilities in the Steubenville-Wheeling,
West Virginia area as well as plants to the east in Pittsburgh, but iron-steel production (Fe, V,
and Cr) was not a significant contributor to mercury deposition (< 1%) . An unidentified
phosphorous source (P, Mg, Mn, Fe, and Sr) and an oil combustion/incineration source (Pb, Cl,
V, Zn) were found to be minor contributors to mercury deposition (2 and 6% respectively) . The
elements Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cl have been used to identify municipal waste incinerator emissions
(Greenberg et al . 1978), and the elements Ni and V are commonly used tracers to identify oil
combustion (Kitto, 1993). A meteorological analysis corroborates that a substantial amount of
the mercury deposition found at the Steubenville site is due to local and regional sources (Keeler
et al . 2006) .
The large temporal variability and range of concentrations among the event samples in
Steubenville (4.0 to 78.9 ng L-1 ) also indicates a strong local and/or regional source influence
.
Only 9.5% of the variability in concentration could be accounted for by precipitation amount
alone. In addition, a large range was found in mercury concentrations among samples with a
similar precipitation depth: 4.3 to 78.9 ng L -1 for low precipitation depth samples (< 1 cm) and
4.2 to 22.1 ng L - ' for high precipitation depth samples (>5 cm). Previous studies have shown
that a large range in concentration for similar rainfall amounts can be attributed to variability in
impacts by local sources and to the variation in distance between the sources and the receptor site
(Dvonch et al. 2005). Because the multivariate statistical analysis points to -70% of the mercury
in the wet deposition as originating from a coal combustion source, all analysis indicate the
major contribution from local and regional coal-burning sources
.

 
19
The importance of coal combustion on the levels of particulate mercury was also quantified as
part of the GLAMAP (Burke, 1998) . The major sources contributing to the ambient mercury
were located in the large urban/industrial areas and along the Ohio River Valley. This is
consistent with the findings from the study of the sources of wet deposition in Steubenville
discussed above .
SUMMARY
Our understanding of the environmental cycle of mercury has drastically improved over the
past two decades. The importance of urban/industrial areas on the levels and deposition of
mercury in these areas has been documented, and dry deposition in urban areas likely exceeds
wet deposition due to the importance of mercury bound to large particles, and the direct
emissions of reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) and its role in the total loading of this
contaminant. Deposition of Hg° and its subsequent accumulation in plant materials results in
significant fluxes of mercury to vegetated ecosystems. Elevated RGM was observed during
periods of enhanced photochemical activity with high ozone, warm temperatures, and high solar
insolation, which indicated that RGM was produced in the atmosphere during atmospheric
transport. Changes in the form of both vapor and particulate phase mercury in response to
regional changes in atmospheric chemistry suggest that more research is needed to understand
the chemical reactions controlling the deposition of this persistent bioaccumulative pollutant .
Some of the highest concentrations of mercury in precipitation, and in the ambient air in
vapor and particulate forms, have been observed in the Midwest . This is consistent with our
understanding of the emissions density in the major urban/source areas in the region. Significant
south to north gradients in the levels and deposition of mercury have been observed, and air mass
transport from known source areas could explain the majority of the variability in the mercury
deposition recorded. Local air mass stagnation and synoptic-scale meteorological transport
strongly influenced the day-to-day variability in the mercury levels and deposition
.
Source-receptor studies indicate that coal-fired utilities contributed -70% of the mercury wet
deposition measured at a site in eastern Ohio. This finding is not unexpected as the Steubenville
site was selected due to its close proximity to a number of large coal-fired power plants. The
deposition of mercury at this site was heavily influenced by several large precipitation events
that contributing significantly (-10%) to the annual deposition, and these events were associated
with emissions from local/regional sources . The ambient levels of RGM and particulate mercury
are elevated above the levels observed at the more rural sites in Michigan and also reflect the
local impact of sources in the vicinity of the site similarly to the levels observed in Detroit . This
would suggest that the levels of dry deposition at this site are comparable to those in Detroit and
would be similar in magnitude to the wet deposition . Thus, reductions in emissions from coal
combustion sources in the region would have a significant impact on the amount of mercury
deposited via both wet and dry deposition .

 
REFERENCES
Burke, J. An Investigation of source-receptor relationships for atmospheric mercury in the Great Lakes Region using receptor
modeling techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1998 .
Burke, J ., Hoyer, M., Keeler, G., Scherbatskoy, T. Wet deposition of mercury and ambient mercury concentrations at a site in
the Lake Champlain basin
. Water, Air Soil Pollut., 80, 353-362,1995 .
Dvonch, 1.T ., Graney, 1.R., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G .J ., Stevens, R.K. Use of elemental tracers to source apportion mercury in
south Florida precipitation
. Env. Sci. Technol., 33, 4522-4527, 1999.
Dvonch, l.T ., Keeler,G.J ., Lynam,M.M ., Marsik, F.J ., Barres, J.A. The production of reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) in
ambient air and its removal by precipitation
.J. Environ. Monit. (submitted) 2005
.
Ericksen, J., Gustin, M.S ., Schorran, D., Johnson, D., Lindberg, S., Coleman J. Accumulation of atmospheric mercury in
forest foliage . Atmos. Envir., 37, 1613-1622, 2003
.
Expert Panel on Mercury Atmospheric Processes (EPMAP). Mercury Atmospheric Processes: A Synthesis Report. EPRI/TR-
104214, 1994.
Fitzgerald, W., Gill G. Sub-nanogram determination of mercury by two-stage gold amalgamation and vapor phase detection
applied to atmospheric analysis
. Anal. Chem . 15, 1714, 1979.
Fitzgerald, W.F ., Mason, R.P ., Vandal, G.M. Atmospheric cycling and air-water exchange of mercury over mid-continental
lacustrine regions
. Water, Air Soil Pollut., 56, 745, 1991
.
Gildemeister, A.E Urban Atmospheric Mercury : The Impact of Local Sources on Deposition and Ambient Concentration in
Detroit, Michigan. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 2001
.
Gildemeister, A.E, Keeler, G.J.and Graney, J.R. Source proximity reflected in spatial and temporal variability in particle and
vapor phase Hg concentrations in Detroit, MI .Atmos. Environ., 39, 353-358, 2005
.
Graney, J. R, Dvonch, J.T. and Keeler, G .J. Use of elemental tracers to source apportion mercury in south Florida aerosols
.
Almos. Environ. 38,1715-1726. 2004
.
Holsen, T.M ., Noll,K.E ., Fang, G.C ., Lee,W .1 ., Lin, J.M. and Keeler, G .J. Dry Deposition and particle size distributions
measured during Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics study
. Env. Sci. Technol.,27,1141-1150, 1992 .
Hoyer,M.E ., Burke, J.B ., Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric sources, transport and deposition of mercury in Michigan : two years of
event precipitation. Water, Air Soil Pollut ., 80, 199-208, 1995
.
Iverfeldt,
A., Lindqvist, O. Atmospheric oxidation of elemental mercury by ozone in the aqueous phase.Almos. Environ., 20,
1567-1573, 1986 ; .
Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric Monitoring for the Lake Michigan Mass Balance and the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
Loading Studies: Quality Assurance Project Plan, submitted to the U .S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office,
Chicago, IL: 1994.
Keeler, G., Glinsom, G ., Pirrone, N. Particulate mercury in the atmosphere : its significance, transport, transformation and sources
.
Water Air Soil Pollut ., 80,159-168, 1995
.
Keeler,
G. J., Hoyer, M. "Recent measurements of atmospheric mercury in the Great Lakes region ." In Atmospheric
Deposition of Contaminants to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters . J.E. Baker, ed. Pensacola, FL: SETAC Press, 1997 .
Keeler, G.J ., Hoyer, M. E., Lamborg, C. H. Measurements of atmospheric mercury in the Great Lakes basin. Mercury
Pollution: Integration and Synthesis. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 231-241, 1994.
Keeler,G.J., Christainson, E.M ., Dvonch, J.T., Landis, M. Norris, G. Source of mercury wet deposition in Eastern Ohio,
USA. Submitted to Environ . Sci. Technol., 2005 .
Keeler, G.J., Gratz, L. and AI-Wali, K. Influences on the Long-term Atmospheric Mercury Wet Deposition at Underhill,
Vermont .
Ecotoxicology, 14, 71-83. 2005 .
Keel", G.J. and Dvonch, 1 .T. Atmospheric Mercury: A Decade of Observations in the Great Lakes . In: Dynamics of
Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales: Atmospheric Processes and Human Exposures around the World
.
N. Pirrone and K. Mahaffey Eds. Kluwer Ltd. 2005 .
Landis, M.S. Keeler, G .J. Critical evaluation of a modified automatic wet-only precipitation collector for mercury and trace
element determinations . Env. Sci.
Technol,
29, 2123-2132, 1997.
Landis, M.S ., Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric mercury deposition to Lake Michigan during the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Study. Env. Sci.
Technol .,
36, 4518-4524, 2002 .
Landis, M.S .,
Stevens, R.K .,
Schaedlich, F., Prestbo, E. Development and characterization of an annular denuder
methodology for the measurement of divalent inorganic reactive gaseous mercury in ambient air
. Env. Sci.
Technol.,
36, 3000-3009, 2002.
Landis, M.S ., Vette, A., Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric mercury in the Lake Michigan Basin : influence of the Chicago/Gary urban
area. Env. Sct.
Technol.,
36, 4508-4517, 2002 .
Landis,M.S., Keeler, G.J., Al-Wali, K.I ., Stevens, R.K. Divalent inorganic reactive gaseous mercury emissions from a
mercury cell chlor-alkali plant and its impact on near-field atmospheric dry deposition
.Atmos. Environ ., 38, 613-622,
2004.
Lindberg, S.E .,Meyers,T.P ., Taylor, G.E ., Turner, R.R., Schroeder, W.H. Atmosphere-surface exchange of mercury in a
forest: Results of modeling and gradient approaches . J .
Geophys. Res .,
97, 2519-2528, 1992.
Lindberg, S.E., Stratton, W.J. Atmospheric mercury speciation: concentrations and behavior of reactive gaseous mercury in
ambient air. Env. Sci .
Technol.,
32, 49-57,1998 .
20

 
21
Lynam,M.M., Keeler, G .J. Comparison of methods for particulate phase mercury : sampling and analysis .
Anal.
Bioanal.
Chem .,
374,1009-1014, 2002 .
Lynam, M.M. and Keeler, G .1. Automated speciated mercury measurements in Michigan,
Environ. Sci. TechnoL 39,3289-
3299,2005 .
Lynam, M.M . and Keeler, G .J. Source-receptor relationships for elemental and reactive gaseous mercury in Detroit,
Michigan. In Press,
Environ. Sci. Technol.,
2006 .
Mierle, G. Aqueous inputs of mercury to Precambrian shield lakes in Ontario
.
Environ. Tax. and Chem .,
9, 843-851, 1990 .
Miller, E.K., Van Arsdale A., Keeler, G.J ., Chalmers, A., Poissant, L. Kammer, N . Estimation and Mapping of Wet and Dry
Mercury Deposition Across Northeastern North America
.
Ecotoxicology,
(in Press) 2004 .
Munthe, J., Wangberg, I., Iverfeldt, A., Lindqvist, 0., Stromberg, D., Sommar, J., Gardfeldt, K., Petersen, G., Ebinghaus, R.,
Prestbo, E., Laijava, K., Siemens, V. Distribution of atmospheric mercury species in Northern Europe : final results
from the MOE project .
Atmos.
Environ .,
37 (S1), 9-20, 2003 .
Olmez, I. M.R. Ames, G. Gullu, J. Che, J.K. Gone. Upstate New York trace metals program Vol . 1. "Mercury" MIT Report
No. MITNRL-064, 1996 .
Pacyna, E.G ., Pacyna, J.M. Global emission of mercury from anthropogenic sources in 1995 .
Water Air Soil Pollut.,
137,
149-165, 2002 .
Pirrone, N., Keeler, G .1. Deposition of trace metals in urban and rural areas in the Lake Michigan Basin
.
Water
Sci. &
TechnoL,
28, 261-271, 1993
.
Pirrone, N., Keeler, G.J ., Holsen, T.M. Dry Deposition of semivolatile organic compounds to Lake Michigan
.
Env. Sci.
Technol.,29,2123-2132,1995
.
Pirrone, N ., Keeler, G .1. and Holsen, T.M. Dry Deposition of trace elements over Lake Michigan : A hybrid-receptor
deposition modeling approach
.
Env. Sci. TechnoL,
29, 2112-2122,1995 .
Pirrone, N., Keeler, G.1 ., Nriagu, J.O. Regional differences in worldwide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere . Atmos.
Environ.,
30, 2981-2987,1996 .
Prestbo, E.M ., Bloom, N.S. Mercury speciation adsorption method (MESA) method for combustion flue gas : methodology,
artifacts, intercomparison, and atmospheric implications
.
Water, Air Soil Pollut.,
80, 145-158, 1995
.
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S.E ., Keeler, G.J. Assessment of dry deposition and foliar leaching of mercury and selected trace
elements based on washed foliar and surrogate surfaces .
Env. Sci. TechnoL,
34, 2418-2425, 2000 .
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S.E., Keeler, G.J. Dry deposition and foliar leaching of mercury and selected trace elements in
deciduous forest throughfall. Atmos.
Environ .,
35, 3453-3462, 2001
.
Rea, A. W., Lindberg, S.E., Scherbatskoy, T. Keeler, G.1. Mercury accumulation over time in two northern mixed-hardwood
forests .
Water, Air
Soil
Pollut.,
133, 49-67, 2002.
Schroeder, W. H., Munthe. J. Atmospheric Mercury
- An Overview
.
Atmos.
Environ.,
32:809-822,1998 .
Sofuoglu, S.C ., Paode, R.D ., Sivadechathep, J., Noll K.E ., Holsen,T.M ., Keeler, G .1. Dry Deposition Fluxes and
Atmospheric Size Distributions of Mass, Al, and Mg Measured in Southern Lake Michigan during AEOLOS
.
Aerosol
Sci. TechnoL,
29,4,281-293, 1998 .
U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Deposition of Air of Pollutants to the Great Waters. First Report to
Congress. Research Triangle Park, NC: GEPA-453/R-93-055, 1994
.
U.S. EPA, Compendium of Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Compounds in Ambient Air, 10-5, Sampling and
Analysis for Vapor and Particle Phase Mercury Utilizing Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry . U.S. EPA
National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH: EPA-625/R-96-010a, 1999 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
.
Mercury
Study
Report to
Congress ;
EPA-452/R-97-005 Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Office of Research and Development : Washington, DC, 1997
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005, Clean Air Mercury Rule, www,eDa.gov/mercurvrule/
Vette, A.F ., Landis,M.S ., Keeler, G.J. Deposition and emission of gaseous mercury to and from Lake Michigan during the
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Env. Sci. Technol.,
36, 4525-4532, 2002 .
Weiss-Penzias, P., Jaffe, D.A ., McClintick, A., Prestbo, E.M ., Landis, M.S. Gaseous elemental mercury in the marine
boundary layer: evidence for rapid removal in anthropogenic pollution
.
Env. Sci. Technol.,
37, 3755-3763, 2003
.
Yee, Lin Wu, Davidson, Cliff I ., Lindberg, S., Armistead, E. Russell, G. Resuspension of particulate chemical species at
forested sites
.
Env. Set. Technol., 26,
2428-2435, 1992 .
Yi,S.M ., Holsen, T.M ., Noll, K.E. Development of a novel water surface sampler for dry deposition
.
Env. Sci. Technol.,
36,
2815-2821, 2002.

 
Exhibit C

 
ICF
CONSULTING
powered by perspective
Analysis of the Proposed
Illinois Mercury Rule
Prepared for :
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Quality
Prepared by :
ICF Resources, LLC
Under contract to :
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
March 10, 2006

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule

 
Table of Contents
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
Scenarios Examined and Modeling Platform
I
The Illinois Mercury Rule
1
Results
3
Conclusions
11
List of Exhibits
Table 1 1-I Emissions (thousand Tons or Lbs)
3
Table 1-2 Generation (GWh)
4
Table 1-3 Total Production Costs (1999 million dollars) Impacts of the Illinois Rule 5
Table 1-4 Total Costs (Millions of $) and Average Production Costs (1999 $/MWh) 6
Table 1-5 Wholesale Firm Electricity Price (1999 $/MWh)
6
Tables 1-6 Estimated Impacts on Retail Electricity Prices in Illinois
7
Tables 1-7 Total Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars) 8
Table 1-8 Impacts on Monthly Expenditures for Electricity by Sector
8
Table 1-9 Control Technology Retrofits (Cumulative MW)
9
Table 1-10 Coal Consumption (TBtu)
10
Table 1-I1 Cumulative Coal Plant Retirements (MW)
11
Appendices
Appendix A : Detailed Summary Results
Appendix B: Overview of Modeling Framework
Appendix C: Summary of Data Changes

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule

 
(i)
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
This report is prepared for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and analyzes the cost
impacts of the proposed Illinois Mercury Rule' using ICF's Integrated Planning Model (IPM ®') . This
study focuses on the impacts of the mercury rule in teens of costs to the power sector and costs to
electricity consumers . National level and state level results are presented . In addition, the study highlights
the effects on generation, coal consumption, control equipment, and emissions
.
Scenarios Examined
ICF examined three cases (or scenarios) using IPM as requested by IEPA
:
A Base Case with no additional Federal air regulations in place beyond existing
regulations including the Title IV SO 2 program, the NO, SIP Call requirements, and
other state regulations in place (the Base Case)
(ii)
A Case based upon the run above, but also including the Final Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) as put forth by the U .S. EPA
(the "CAIR/CAMR" case)
(iii)
A case with the Clean Air Interstate Rule in place, the Clean Air Mercury Rule in
place for all states but Illinois, and the proposed Illinois Mercury Rule (described
below) for Illinois' affected sources. The CAMR mercury emission limit is adjusted
downward by the level of the Illinois budget under CAMR
.
The difference between a base case and any air regulatory policy case represents the impact of that policy
.
In this study, differences between the second and first case represents the cost of the CAIR/CAMR rule
based on the assumptions underlying this study. The difference between the third and the first run
represents the cost of the Illinois Mercury rule, based on those same assumptions . A comparison of these
two cost impact estimates reflects the incremental cost of Illinois' mercury policy over the CAIR/CAMR
case. Note that, mathematically, this impact is the same as the difference between the third and second
run. This report focuses on that difference (iii vs . ii) . Appendix A summarizes the full results for all three
cases and provides comparison of case ii vs. case i, and case iii vs. case i .
The Illinois Mercury Rule
This study uses the IPM model to determine the impacts of the Illinois mercury rule on coal plants in
Illinois. The Illinois rule is summarized as follows :
Phase 1 of the rule begins in July 2009. It requires
:
•
The plant-wide average emissions of coal units : 75-percent reduction of input
mercury or 0.020 lbs Hg/GWh .
•
The system-wide average emissions of coal units : 90-percent reduction of input
mercury or 0.0080 lbs Hg/GWh .
'
See Title 35: Environmental Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I : Pollution Control
Board, Subchapter C: Emission
Standards And Limitations For Stationary Sources,
Part 225, Control Of Emissions From Large Combustion Sources, Draft
03/03/06, as provided by J. Ross, IEPA .
Page 1 of 13

 
Phase 2 of the rule begins January 1, 2013 :
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
•
Plant-wide average emissions of all coal units : 90-percent reduction of input mercury
or 0.0080 lbs/GWh .
Given the short time frame for the modeling exercise, ICF was not able to model the rule exactly as it is
summarized in the referenced document. Based on discussions with IEPA, and given the available time
for this analysis, we structured the analysis as follows
:
•
First, it is assumed that Phase I of the rule is initiated at the start of 2009
.
•
Second, rather than model unit level emission rate limits for existing units, ICF
simulated unit level emission rate limits based on unit level emissions caps
calculated by IEPA. For subbituminous units, this cap was based on a 90 reduction
in emissions from historic levels. For bituminous plants, the cap reflects the rate limit
and a fixed generation level . IPM model plant level emissions caps are the sum of
the individual unit caps. Note that using caps to simulate a rate limit is a more
restrictive policy. Under a rate limit policy, a unit would be able to increase
generation and emissions so long as it remained under the rate . Under a cap,
emissions do not increase over time
.
•
The rate limits that are specified above
(i.e., 0.020 or 0.0080) were implemented for
all potential coal and potential IGCC units in IPM's MANO region (Illinois capacity
consists of 88 percent of MANO region's capacity)
.
•
In addition to the plant level caps implemented across the two phases, a system level
emissions limit was imposed that reflected the 90 percent reduction requirements of
Phase I. This was calculated based on the 0.008 Ibs/GWh emission rate limit. This
system cap was applied to all Illinois affected units, which is a less restrictive
requirement than the proposed rule
.
These scenarios were examined using IPM under the assumptions developed and described in this report
.
IPM is a capacity planning and dispatch model that simulates the operation of the electric power system
based upon engineering and economic fundamentals . It is supported by a detailed set of data and
assumptions that characterize the current generation and transmission system; fuel markets; demand;
environmental requirements; and system constraints
.
Additional inputs include new technology
(including pollution control equipment) costs, current environmental laws and regulations, and any
potential future policies being modeled. More information on IPM is provided in Appendix B
.
The results that come from the model are dependent on these input assumptions . The starting point for
modeling assumptions the Illinois mercury rule for this study is the EPA IPM Base Case 2004
(v.2.1 .9)
used for analysis of the Clean Air Rules along with modifications made during previous work for the
VISTAS, CENRAP, and LADCO Regional Planning Organizations (RPO) . Subsequent to this RPO
work, ICF was directed to make additional changes by IEPA, including unit level changes for the Illinois
units and modifications to mercury control costs. These changes are described further in Appendix C .
The results described herein reflect these assumptions
.
oIj : .,
Page 2 of 13

 
Results
This section summarizes the results of the analysis focusing on the incremental impacts of the Illinois
rule, as represented by the differences between cases (iii) the Illinois rule described above and (ii) the
CAIR/CAMR rules. Additional tables and information are provided in the remainder of this report. Full
summaries of all cases are presented in Appendix A
.
Table 1-1 shows the changes in emissions for mercury, SO and NO x for Illinois and at the national level
.
Due to the more stringent nature of the mercury rule in Illinois relative to Illinois' allocations under
CAMR, emissions of mercury in Illinois are lower by 4,726 lbs in 2009 . This is an 85 percent reduction in
Illinois mercury emissions relative to the Base and CAMR Cases
.
Emissions levels decrease in Illinois over time under the Illinois mercury rule reflecting increased
stringency of the emissions constraints and reduced flexibility in compliance . Emissions in Illinois from
all units total 883 lbs in 2009 falling to 799 lbs in 2018 . This represents a reduction of 4,726 pounds and
1127 pounds in 2009 and 2018, respectively. Note that under the CAIR/CAMR case, Illinois is a net
purchaser of mercury emission allowances in 2018 given that its state budget under CAMR is 1,258
pounds of mercury
.
The SO 2 and NO, emissions in Illinois are also lower under the Illinois rule relative to CAIR/CAMR
.
This results from reductions in coal-fired generation and an increase in scrubber installations in 2009 as a
result of the Illinois rule. The mercury emissions are also lower nation-wide, reflecting the reductions
from Illinois units .
Table 1-1
Emissions (thousand Tons or Lbs)
Analysis
of
the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
Hg
t
SO 2 (Title IV)
NOx SIP Call
Hg'
SO2 (Title IV)
NOx SIP Call
883
232
63
(4
789
212
62
tt fra
799
206
61
5,609
309
67
2,463
268
68
1,926
266
68
(4726)
(77)
4
(1 674)
(56)
6
(
27)
(60)
7
iii Polic Case with
IL
Rule
Pollutant
2009
2015
2018
ii Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
1 . Mercu
emissions are re.orted in .ounds; all other
•o
llutants are re .orted in short tons.
Table 1-2 shows the changes in generation in Illinois and nationally . The total generation in Illinois is
lower by 2 percent in 2009 relative to the CAIR/CAMR case . By 2015 and 2018, total generation has
decreased by 7 and 5 percent, respectively, relative to the CAMR case .
Page.3 of l3
81,822
59,828
56,676
86,201
61,552
57,914
(4379)
(1724)
(1 238)
6,725
5,204
4,795
6,765
5,195
4,815
(40)
9
(20)
2,514
2,366
2,272
2,516
2,365
2,268
2
1
4

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
This reduction is driven by reductions in coal-fired generation in Illinois . Illinois is a net exporter of
energy - that is, it generates more than is required to meet its internal demand. Under the CAMR rule,
Illinois coal fired generation is reduced somewhat - by 2 percent in 2009, and 6 percent in 2018
.
However, under the Illinois mercury rule, the impact is more pronounced with reductions in coal-fired
generation in 2009, 2015, and 2018 of 4 percent, 15 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, relative to the
CAMR rule. With more stringent regulations in place in Illinois, the Illinois coal plants are less
competitive, and thus, have fewer opportunities to export coal-fired generation
.
The projected decrease in coal generation is slightly compensated by an increase in generation for the oil
and natural gas-fired units in Illinois. However, the bulk of the displaced Illinois generation is made up in
the rest of MANO and in neighboring regions . Illinois remains a net exporter, but to a lesser degree
.
Thus, decreases in generation from Illinois units result in a net decline in exports of energy from the
MANO region. Total generation decreases overall at the national level, reflecting marginal changes in
losses, pumped storage activity and transmission .
Table 1-2
Generation (GWh)
iii Polic Case with IL Rule
109,523
92
96,575
7,908
166
1,097
215,361
Delta iii
-
ii
(4,813)
326
4,487
(15,958)
1,713
14,245
(11,148)
739
10,408
Generation
2009
2015
2018
ii Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Tables 1-3 shows the impact on total production costs due to the Illinois rule as compared to the CAMR
.
Production costs shown are the total going forward costs for meeting electricity demand, including fuel,
VOM costs, FOM costs, and annualized capital costs (including costs for new capacity and retrofits) . As
can be seen, the total costs at the national level are higher under the Illinois rule by $147 to $267 million
per year over the time frame analyzed. These are very small impacts relative to total national costs (about
two-tenths of a percent)
.
Page 4 of 13
Coal
2,187,043
2,448,517
2,650,066
2,189,406
2,448,364
2,640,484
(2,362)
153
9,582
Hydro
287,113
290,063
288,249
287,218
290,205
289,165
(104)
(142)
(916)
Nuclear
796,715
810,065
807,698
796,715
810.065
807,698
Oil/Natural Gas
889,675
1,023,427
1,063,795
887,468
1,023,775
1,073,736
2,207
(348)
(9,940)
Other
44,066
51,731
49,497
44,066
51,731
49,497
Renewables
81,947
101,232
108,330
81,947
101,178
108,361
54
(31)
Grand Total
4,286,560
4,725,036
4,967,636
4,286,820
4725,318
4,968,941
260
283
1,305
Coal
102,514
93,733
98,375
107,327
109,692
Hydro
92
92
92
92
92
Nuclear
95,092
95,259
96,575
95,092
95,259
Oil/Natural Gas
3,693
7,528
8,648
3,367
5,815
Other
166
166
166
166
166
Renewables
589
1,097
1,097
589
1,097
Grand Total
-
202,146
197,875
204,953
206 633
212,120

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
In Illinois, production costs are higher in 2009, by about half the national level ($68 million). This
reflects a mix of increased capital costs and variable O&M due to additional controls required, partially
offset by displaced fuel consumption from lost generation
.
In later years under Phase II of the Illinois rule, production costs are lower in all years (by $188 and $53
million, in 2015 and 2018, respectively) . This reduction in costs reflects the lower level of generation that
occurs in Illinois due to the rule (which is down by between 5-7 percent in these years), offset by
increased cost of retrofit decisions. Capital costs are up in these years; however, these costs are offset by
the reduced fuel and net decreases in VOM costs
.
Note that these costs are production costs and do not reflect the opportunity costs (i .e., lost revenues and
associated profits) of the lost exports . Generation in Illinois is sufficient to meet internal load and export
power to neighboring regions (this assumes that Illinois generators share proportionally in the exports)
.
Under the Illinois mercury rule, this remains true; however, the level of exports declines, with attendant
loss of revenues from these sales . We have not quantified these lost revenues
.
Table 1-3
Total Production Costs (1999 million dollars) Impacts of the Illinois Rule
Delta
iii -
ii
iii Polic Case with IL Rule
2009
2015
2018
ii Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
2015
2018
(27)
16
(140)
97
38
44
(194)
360
248
Table 1-4 shows the changes in total costs, generation, and average production costs in Illinois and
nationally under the two policy cases. Despite lower overall production costs in Illinois (due to lower
generation levels), average production costs increase because of the mercury rule . They increase by $0.80
per MWh in 2009, $0.64 per MWh in 2015, and $0.92 per MWh in 2018. Thus, average production costs
in Illinois increase by 4 percent, 3 percent, and 4 percent in 2009, 2015 and 2018, respectively. The
increase at the national level is minimal (less than two-tenths of a percent) in all years
.
The decrease in total costs in Illinois is a result of the decrease in generation levels from Illinois units
offset by increased costs for compliance . In these years, these reductions outweigh the increase in
production costs due to the mercury rule . Though the decrease in generation leads to a decrease in the
exports of energy, the MANO region is still a net exporter of energy . However, the region must import
capacity in order to meet summer peak reserve requirements,
Page 5 of 13
Variable
O&M
Fixed
O&M
Fuel Total
Ca ital
357
2,030
1,931
84
340
2,137
1,908
105
355
2,316
1 .963
295
306
2,003
1,995
32
372
2,134
2,069
101
382
2,300
2,102
198
51
28
(63)
53
(32)
3
(162)
3
Total Cost
4,403
4,488
4,929
4,335
4,676
4,982
88
Variable-0&M
7835
9495
10549
7780
9496
10511
56
(2)
Fixed
O&M
28926
31772
33432
28910
31749
33388
16
23
Fuel
Total
61818
65527
68945
61759
65480
69139
59
47
Capital
2574
13256
19167
2558
13057
18807
16
199
Total Cost
101,153
120,049
132,094
101007
119782
131846
147
267

 
Plant T e
Total Costs (MM$)
Total Generation
(GWh)
Average Costs
$/M W h
Total Costs (MM$)
Total Generation
(GWh)
Average Costs
($/MWh)
Table 1-5 shows the changes in firm wholesale electricity prices . The firm price is made of two
components: marginal energy and marginal capacity prices . Firm prices in Illinois increase by
$0.50/MWh in 2009, by $1 .46/MWh in 2015, and $1 .00/MWh in 2018. Marginal energy prices reflect the
production costs of the marginal plant - the last plant to be dispatched in each hour . The mercury rule
causes an increase in production costs and increases the costs of the marginal unit, and thus increases the
marginal
energy
prices over CAMR levels. This in turn leads to higher firm prices for all the years . The
rule has a negligible impact on firm electricity prices nation-wide -- $0.07-0.15/M Wh across the study
horizon .
Table 1-5
Wholesale Firm Electricity Price (1999 $/MWh)
IPM is a wholesale power market model. As such, its outputs include estimates of increased generation
system costs (and hence average cost increases) and impacts on marginal energy and capacity costs . It
does not provide projections of retail rates or retail price impacts . Therefore, it is necessary to estimate
retail rate impacts based on the available outputs of the model
.
r;_rt
'h t
Table 1-4
Total Costs (Millions of $) and Average Production Costs (1999 $/MWh
Analysis
of
the Proposed
Illinois
Mercury Rule
Page 6 of 13
Region
IL (MANO)
National
(iii) Polic
Case with IL Rule
2009
Iy
2015
1
2018
27.40
41 .08
50.29
37.73
39.33
45.45
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
1
2015
1
2018
26.90
39.62
49.29
37.66
39.23
45.31
Delta (iii
- ii)
2009 12015 12018
0.50
1 .46
1 .00
0.07
0.10
0.14
"
The fine wholesale
energy weighted
" Wholesale marginal
wholesale prices
price represents the sum of marginal
segmental prices .
energy and capacity prices in IPM are
for MANO are presented as representative
energy
forecast
of
costs and marginal capacity price, spread
at the IPM model region level for each run-year,
Illinois .
across all generation. The prices are
season, and segment. The
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii
- ii)
2009
2015
2018
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
4,403
4,488
4,929
4,676
4,982
68
(188)
(53)
202,146
197,875
204,953
212,120
215,361
(4,487)
(14,245)
(10,408)
21 .78
22.68
24.05
22.04
23.13
0.80
0 .64
0.92
NA .Mr-
132,094
101 007
119,782
131,846
147
267
248
101,153
120,049
4,286,560
4,725,036
4,967,636
4,286,820
4,725,318
4,968,941
(260)
(283)
(1,305)
23.60
25.41
26.59
23.56
25.35
26.53
0.04
0.06
0.06

 
Final retail rates depend on the nature of the market in each state (deregulated or not) and the ratemaking
process, including how cost increases are allocated among sectors, what returns are ultimately allowed,
among a host of other factors . In Illinois, an auction process was recently established that allows for the
procurement of electricity at wholesale by Ameren and ComEd for delivery to Illinois retail consumers
requiring supply service from their local distribution utility beginning in 2007
.
The estimate of retail rate impacts estimated here reflects an assumption that retail rates over the study
horizon would increase by the increase in wholesale energy prices . Given the competitive nature of
wholesale markets in Illinois, this is not an unreasonable assumption
.
A number of other inputs and assumptions are required to calculate the retail rate impact . It is assumed
that the increase is applied equally across all sectors - that is, all sectors bear the same incremental per
kWh wholesale cost increases . Second, a forecast of baseline retail rates is required to which to add this
increase. For this purpose, we obtained from the DOE's Energy Information Agency's (EIA) Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) 2006 a forecast of sectoral retail electricity rates over the study horizon for the
MAIN (Mid-America Interconnected Network) region . The underlying assumption is that forecast retail
rates for MAIN are applicable to the state of Illinois . The AEO 2006 scenario from which this rate is
taken is comparable to the CAIR/CAMR rule in that those two rules are assumed to be in place in the
AEO analysis. However, it is important to note that the two cases may differ on other aspects
.
Table 1-6 shows the changes in retail electricity prices by sector . We calculated the retail electricity prices
by applying the IPM projected increase in firm wholesale electricity prices resulting from the Illinois rule
to the retail sectoral rates obtained from AEO 2006 (adjusted to be consistent year dollars)
. The policy
causes an increase in the production costs and thus energy prices . This in turn leads to higher retail prices
for all the sectors
.
Price increases range from 0.05 cents per kWh to 0.15 cents per kWh over the study horizon. These
represent increases of one to two percent in the residential and industrial sectors and one to 3.5 percent in
the commercial sector. Under this methodology, increases in the commercial and industrial sectors are
proportionately higher given the lower starting base rates .
Tables 1-6
Estimated Impacts on Retail Electricity Prices in Illinois
(1999 cents per kWh)*
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
Iii Polic Case with IL Rule
2009
4.58
2015
4.32
2018
ii Base Case with CAIR/CAM
Delta iii-ii
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
'Retail prices are estimated by adding the incremental increase in Firm Wholesale Electricity Prices (shown in Table 1-5)
between the cases to the retail prices by sector. Retail prices by sector were obtained from EIA's AEO 2006 data, Refer to
Table 62: Electric Power Projections by EMM region". Data for the "MAIN" region was used to estimate prices for the Illinois
state
.
Page 7 of 13
7.75
7.38
7.52
7.65
0 05
6.65
6.44
6.35
6.55
0 05
4.45
4.53
4.17
4.35
0 05

 
„Cs;
FL S
R
'on
2009
4,109
2015
4
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
4,038
2,488
4,482
2,449
(ii) Base Case with
CAIR/CAMR
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
Tables 1-7 and
1-8
show the changes in total expenditures for each sector on an annual and monthly basis .
In
2009,
residential customer expenditures increase by
$28
million; industrial expenditures for electricity
increase by
$31
million while commercial expenditures increase by
$27
million. In
2015,
increased
expenditures total
$87, $101,
and
$83
million for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors,
respectively. On a monthly basis; the average household will pay
$0.49, $1 .50
and $1.06 more in
2009,
2015
and
2018,
respectively, as a result
of
incremental impact
of
the Illinois mercury rule. These
numbers are the increase in monthly expenditures in the residential sector in Table
1-8
divided by the
number
of
households in Illinois. The number
of
households in Illinois was estimated based on forecasts
of
total population and an estimate
of
current persons per households, based on Census data .
Tables 1-7
Total Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars)
Total bill payments for each sector are calculated as follows . First, an estimate of sales to each sector in Illinois is made based the
AEO 2006 projections of each sectors share of total retail sales (for the MAIN region) . For example, if AEO projects that in 2010
residential customers
will
account for x percent of total retail electricity sales, we assume the same share . We estimate Illinois sales
based on the assumption that Illinois sales as a proportion of total Illinois generation are the same as that of the MANO region
.
Finally, the retail prices estimated in Table 1-6 are multiplied by generation to derive total annual expenditures for electricity by
sector .
Table 1-8
Impacts on Monthly Expenditures for Electricity by Sector
(1999 million dollars)
Re ion
340
334
205
374
365
197
394
398
209
Delta iii
-
ii
399
404
214
These costs are calculated b dividin the annual a ments in 1-7 b 12
.
iii Polic Case with IL Rule
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
2009
342
336
207
2015
381
374
204
2018
ii Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
2015
2018
2
3
2
7
8
7
5
6
5
Page 8 of 13

 
Analysis of theProposedIllinoisMercuryRule
Table 1-9 shows the changes in control technology retrofits between the two policy cases . The proposed
mercury rule in Illinois requires an additional 11 GW of ACI controls and 2 GW of FOD controls by
2009. The incremental level of retrofits required by the Illinois rule shrinks by 2018 as the difference
between the stringency of the Illinois and CAMR rule shrinks . By 2018, the level of scrubber retrofits
required is lower than that predicted under CAIR/CAMR, and the least-cost response to the Illinois rule is
to add some scrubbers earlier. Similarly, for ACI, the least-cost response is to add about 8 GW of ACI
earlier than would be the case under CAIR/CAMR. By 2018, the incremental level of ACI retrofits in
Illinois is 2 GW. Note that incremental ACI retrofits occur in the rest of the nation (an additional 1 .5 GW
by 2015). This is due to the increased level of generation in the rest of the nation that makes up for lost
exports from Illinois
.
Table 1-9
Control Technology Retrofits (Cumulative MW)
Technology
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
2009
2015
2018
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2009
387
1,799
2015
2,836
2,121
7,185
2018
Delta (iii
-
ii)
2015
2018
Table 1-10 summarizes the changes in coal consumption between the two cases . It also provides a full
comparison of the Illinois rule vs. a Base Case without CAIR/CAMR (second section of the table), and
the CAIR /CAMR vs. a case with neither rule in place (third section)
.
Under CAIR/CAMR, bituminous coal consumption falls by about 18 to 68 TBtu (or about 8 to 24 percent
over the study horizon). Under the Illinois Rule, bituminous fuel consumption rises by 48 TBtu in 2009 . It
falls slightly in 2018 (18 TBtu or 10 percent) under the Illinois rule, but by a much lesser amount than
under CAIR. Hence, relative to CAMR, the proposed mercury rule in Illinois leads to an increase in use
of bituminous coal and a decrease in the use of subbituminous coal in Illinois units. This reflects the
incremental use of scrubbers in early years . These decreases in subbituminous coal consumption are
substantially offset by increases in the rest of the nation. Coal prices are not affected by the Illinois rule .
Page 9 of 13
FGD
2,556
2,762
2,762
SCR
1,748
1,826
1,826
SNCR
AC I
10,590
10,727
11,023
FGD
38,578
72,100
!
.. .i
.
.
85,019
SCR
34,362
51,042
64,747
SNCR
2,039
2,575
2,925
ACI
18,493
63,788
72,423
2,836
2 168
(74)
(74)
2,121
(51)
(295)
(295)
8,498
0 590
3,542
2 525
36,948
73,530
85,543
1,630
(1,431)
(525)
34,223
51,213
65,181
139
(171)
(434)
2,041
2,578
3,106
(3)
(3)
(181)
7,934
58,723
67,672
10,559
5,065
4 751

 
Table 1-10
Coal Consumption (TBtu
Comparisonof Two PolicyCases
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
(ill) Policy Case with IL
Rule
2018
262
751
1,013
15,153
10,680
774
26,607
ImS
Bituminous
268
254
Subbituminous
808
728
Lignite
Total
1,077
982
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
Total
(III) Policy Case
Rule
12,940
8,990
774
22,704
14,114
9,995
774
24,882
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
Total
(it) Base Case
CAIR/CAM
214
942
1,156
Bituminous
12,945
14,070
Subbituminous
8,990
10.053
Lignite
792
792
Total
22,727
24,915
with IL
262
751
1,013
15 153
10 680
774
26 607
ImpactofCAIR/CAMR
-
with
R
212
942
1 154
15068
10 701
792
26560
(ii) Base Case with
CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii -
ii)
2009
2015
2018
12,945
14,070
15,068
8,990
10,053
10,701
792
792
792
22,727
24,915
26,560
act of the Illinois Rule
67
40
50
(116)
(214)
(191)
49
174
141
(18)
(23)
86
(21)
(18)
47
(I) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
13,117 13,570 14,418
8,989
10,813 11,683
801 801 801
22,908
25,184
26,902
(177)
1
(27)
(203)
Delta III - I
11
(18)
(211)
(185)
200
202
544
735
(818)
(1,003)
(27)
(27)
(302) (295)
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
13,117 13,570 14,418
8,989
10,813
11,683
801
801 801
22,908
25,184
26,902
Delta if -I
(18)
(29)
(68)
4
3
6
14
26
62
(172)
500
650
1 (760) (981)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(180) (269) (341)
Page
10 of 13
Coal T
e
2009
2015
Bituminous
268
254
Subbituminous
808
728
Lignite
Total
1,077
982
Bituminous
12,940
14,114
Subbituminous
8,990
9,995
Lignite
774
774
Total
22,704
24,882

 
* Retirement figures are cumulative.
Conclusions
The principal findings of this study are
:
The mercury rule reduces coal-fired generation in Illinois by
15
percent in
2015 (7
percent
reduction in total generation). This generation lowers exports to neighboring regions
.
Total production cost in the region increase by about
2
percent in the first year of the
policy. However, in subsequent years, costs fall as exports fall and associated production
costs offset compliance costs increases . This also implies that revenues from exports fall
.
Average production costs in Illinois increase by
2
to 3 percent as a result of the rule
.
Marginal prices increase by
2
to 4 percent across the study period
.
Mercury emissions drop to 883 pounds of mercury by
2009,
84 percent below levels under
the CAMR. By 2018, they fall to
799
pounds, 58 percent below CAMR levels .
The retail electricity prices and expenditures across all sectors (residential, industrial and
commercial) are higher as a result of the rule relative to the CAMR, but by only a small
percentage - I to 3 .5 percent over the study horizon . On an average bill basis, residential
customers pay less than $1 .50 per month more under the Illinois rule relative to CAMR
across the study horizon
.
Table 1-11
Cumulative Coal Plant Retirements (MW)
iii
Polic
Case with
IL
Rule
Analysis
of
the Proposed
Illinois
Mercury Rule
Table 1-11 summarized coal plant retirements resulting from the rule . IPM retires units when it is
uneconomic
for
them to continue operation, in comparison to the alternatives of running existing units
harder, building new units, and when considering whether their continued operation is required for
reserve margin purposes . This decision reflects the situation over the entire study horizon. Relative to the
CAIR/CAMR, the proposed rule causes a small amount of coal-fired capacity to be uneconomic and thus
retire
(252
MW). These plants are Hutsonville Units
5
and 6 (partial) and Meredosia Units 1-4. These
units are currently
50
years old or older. In practice, units that become uneconomic when the rule takes
effect may be "mothballed" until fuel prices or other conditions change, they may retire, or kept in service
for grid reliability purposes .
Coal
Coal
2009
597
2085
2015
597
2,788
2018
597
2,788
2009
1,880
2015
2,585
2018
2,585
203
203
Page 1 I of 13

 
ICF
CONSULTING
by perspective
Analysis of the Proposed
Illinois Mercury Rule
Appendix A: Summary Results Tables
Prepared for :
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Quality
Prepared by :
ICF Resources, LLC
Under contract to :
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
March 10, 2006

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A.1 Comparison of Emissions (thousand Tons)
1
Exhibit A.2 Generation (GWh)
2
Exhibit A.2 (continued) Generation (GWh)
3
Exhibit A.3 Comparison of Wholesale Firm Electricity Prices (1999 Mills/kWh) 4
Exhibit A.4 Retail Electricity Prices (1999 mills/kWh)
5
Exhibit A.5 Annual Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars) 6
Exhibit A.6 Monthly Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars) 7
Exhibit A.7 Total Production Costs (1999 million dollars)
8
Exhibit A.8 Average Production Costs (1999 mills/kWh)
9
Exhibit A.9 Comparison of Retrofits (Cumulative MWs)
10
Exhibit A.10 Comparison of Mine Mouth Coal Prices (1999 $/MMBtu) 11
Exhibit A.11 Comparison of Coal Usage (TBtu)
12
Exhibit A.12 Comparisons of Coal Power Plant Retirements (MW) 13

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule -Appendix A

 
+1S
I
W
.
10
r
Pollutant
2009
Hg
SO2 (Title IV)
NOx SIP Cal
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
883
232
63
2015
789
212
62
2018
799
206
61
(i) Base Case without CAIR/CAMR
2009
5,803
344
135
2015
5,638
342
141
2018
2009
2015
2018
5,648
346
142
(4,920)
(4,849)
(111)
(131)
72
79
(4,848)
(140)
81
Hg'
81,822
S0 2 (Title IV)
6,725
NOx (SIP Call)
2,514
59,828
5,204
2,366
Exhibit A .1
Comparison of Emissions (thousand Tons)
56,676
4,795
2,272
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
I
others are short tons
Page
1 of 13
(iii) Polic Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii - ii
Pollutant
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Hg'
883
789
799
5,609
2,463
1,926
(4,726)
(1,674)
1,127)
S02 (Title IV)
232
212
206
309
268
266
(77)
(56)
(60)
NOx SIP Call
63
62
61
67
68
68
4'
6
7
Hg'
81,822
59,828
56,676
86,201
61,552
57,914
(4,379)
(1,724)
(1,238)
S02 (Title IV)
6,725
5,204
4,795
6,765
5,195
4,815
(40)
9
(20)
NOx (SIP Call)
2,514
2,366
2,272
2,516
2,365
2,268
(2)
1
4
107,563
(25,741)
10,119
(3,393)
3,732
(1,219)
(48,470)
(54,728)
(3,897)
(4,081)
(1,379)
(1,515)
(i) Base Case without CAIR/CAMR
Delta (ii
- i
2009
2015
2018
(194)
(3,722)
(35)
(80)
68
74
21,362)
(46,746)
(53,490)
10,119
9,101
(3,353)
(3,906)
(4,061)
3,732
3,744
(1,217)
(1,379)
(1,520)
Pollutant
2009
2015
2018
Hg'
5,609
2,463
1,926
S0 2 (TiUeIV)
309
268
266
NOx SIP Call
67
68
68
Hg'
86,201
61,552
57,914
S02(Title IV)
6,765
5,195
4,815
NOx (SIP Call)
2,516
2,365
2,268
1. Mercury emissions are reported in pounds ; a

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.2
Generation (GWh)
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule (ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
r
2009
2015
2018
93,733 98,375
92 92
95,259
96,575
7,528
8,648
166 166
1,097
1,097
2015
2018
109,692
109,523
92
92
95,259
96,575
5,815
7,908
166
166
1,097
1,097
215,361
2,640,484
289,165
807,698
1,073,736
49,497
108,361
4,968,941
Delta (iii
-
it
2009
(4,813)
326
4,487
(2,362)
(104)
2,207
(260)
2015
2018
(15,958)
(11,148)
1,713
739
14,245
10,408
153
9,582
(142)
(916)
(348)
(9,940)
54
(31)
(283)
(1,305)
108,482
92
95,092
3,152
166
583
207,567
111,883
92
95,259
5,982
166 -
589
213,971
115,910
92
96,575
6,725
166
1,097
220,565
4
(5,968)
541
7
5,421
(18,150)
1,546
507
16,097
(17,535)
1,923
15,612
Coal
Hydro
Nuclear
Oil/Natural Gas
Other
Renewables
Grand Total
102,514
92
95,092
3,693
166
589
202,146
93,733
92
95,259
7,528
166
1,097
197,875
98,375
92
96,575
8,648
166
1,097
204,953
2009
2018
2009
(21,558) (29,150)
(30,478)
(1,381)
(1,721)
(3,844)
20,273
27,394
28,006
2018
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
Coal
2,187,043
2,448,517
2,650,066
Hydro 287,113
290,063 288,249
Nuclear
796,715
810,065 807,698
Oil/Natural Gas 889,675 1,023,427 1,063,795
Other
44,066
51,731
49,497
Renewables
81,947
101,232
108,330
Grand Total
4,286,560 4,725,036 4,967,636
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
2,208,601
2,477,667
2,680,544
288,494
291,785
292,094
796,715
810,065
807,698
869,402
996,033
1,035,789
44,066
51,731
49,497
81,652
100,739
107,949
4,288,930
4,728,021
4,973,57
295
492
381
(2,370) (2,985) (5,935)
Page 2 of 13
197,875
204,953
212,120
1-1
2,448,517
2,650,066
2,189,406
2,448,364
290,063
288,249
287,218
290,205
810,065
807,698
796,715
810,065
1,023,427
1,063,795
887,468
1,023,775
51,731
49,497
44,066
51,731
101,232
108,330
81,947
101,178
4,725,036
4,967,636
4,286,820
4,725,318
Coal
2,187,043
Hydro
287,113
Nuclear
796,715
Oil/Natural Gas
889,675
Other
44,066
Renewables
81,947
Grand Total
4,286,560
Coal
102,514
Hydro
92
Nuclear
95,092
Oil/Natural Gas
3,693
Other
166
Renewables
589
Grand Total
202,146

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.2 (continued)
Generation (GWh)
933
(2,192)
0
(167)
0
507
(1,851)
s
(6,387)
0
0
1,184
0
0
5,204
Coal
Hydro
Nuclear
Oil/Natural Gas
Other
Renewables
.
Grand Total
107,327
92
95,092
3,367
166
589
206,633
109,692
92
95,259
5,815
166
1,097
212,120
109,523
92
96,575
7,908
166
1,097
215,361
108,482
92
95,092
3,152
166
583
207,567
111,883
92
95,259
5,982
166
589
213,971
115,910
92
96,575
6,725
166
1097
220,565
2448364
2,640 84
2009
2018
2009
2018
(i) Base Case without
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR CAIR/CAMR Delta (ii•i
Coal
2,189,406
Hydro 287,218
290205 289,165
Nuclear
796,715 810065
807,698
Oil/Natural Gas
887,468 1023775
1,073,736
Other
44,066
51731
49,497
Renewables 81,947
101178
108,361
Grand Total 4,286,820
4725318
4,968,941
2,208,601
2,477,667
2,680,544
288,494 291,785
292,094
796,715
810,065 807,698
869,402
996,033
1,035,789
44,066 51,731
49,497
81,652
100,739
107,949
4,288,930
4,728,021
4,973,571
(19,196)
(29,304)
(40,061)
(1,277)
(1,579)
(2,929)
•
0 0
18,066
27,742
37,946
•
0 0
295
438
412
(2,111) (2,702) (4,630)
•
0
Page 3 of 13

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.3
Comparison of Wholesale Firm Electricity Prices (1999 Mills/kWh)
1 . Representative of IPM's MANO regional prices
Page
4 of 13
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
Delta (iii -ii)
Region
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
12015 12018
IL
27.40
41 .08
50.29
26.90
39.62
49.29
0.50
1 .46
1 .00
National
37.73
39.33
45.45
37.66
39.23
45.31
0.07
0.10
0.14
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(i) Base Case without CAIRICAMR
Delta (iii -i)
Region
2009
I
2015
1
2018
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
1
2015
1
2018
IL
27.40
41 .08
50.29
25.55
38.82
47.09
1 .85
2.26
3.20
National
37.73
39.33
45.45
36.73
38.86
44.90
1 .00
0.47
0.55
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
(i) Base Case without CAIRICAMR
Delta (ii -i
Region
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009 12015
2018
IL'
26.90
39.62
49.29
25.55
38.82
47.09
1 .36
0.80
2.20
National
37.66
39.23
45.31
36.73
38.86
44.90
0.93
0.37
0.41

 
Residential
75.76
73.69
74.02
Industrial
69.07 65.85
66.41
Commercial
49.14
45.49
46.17
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
75 69
73.59
69.01
65.75 66.27
49.07
45.39
46.04
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.4
Retail Electricity Prices (1999 mills/kWh)
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
74.32
64.95
45.75
76.70
64.98
43.16
77.47
66.55
44.47
73.81
64.45
45.25
75.25
63.52
41 .70
76.47
65.55
43.47
0 50
0 50
0 50
1 .46
1 .46
1 .46
1 00
1 00
1 00
Re
ion
2009
75.76
73.69
65.85
45.49
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
74.02
66.41
46.17
75.69
69.01
49.07
66 .27
46 .04
2018
73 88
0.07
0. 0 0 4
0.07 0.10
0.14
0.07
0.10
0.14
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule (ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR Delta (iii -it
Re ion
2009
2015
2018
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
75.25
63.52
41 .70
e
Re ion
2009
2015
2018
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
73.81
64.45
4525
73 .88
2009
2015
2009
7
.76
(I)
Base Case with out
CAIRICAMR
(i) Base Case with out
CAIRICAMR
2015
2018
2018
2009
2009
1.35
1.35
1 35
73 22
73.47
0.93
Delta (iii
- t°
2015
2.26
2.26
2.26
2015
0 80
0.80
0 80
2018
3 20
3.20
3.20
2018
2.20
2.20
2.20
73.22 73.47
1 .00
65.38
65.86
1 .00
45.02
45.62
1 .00
65.38
65.86
0.93
0.37
45.02
45.62
0.93
0.37
Note: *Retail price are estimated by adding the incremental increase in Firm Wholesale Electricity
Prices between the cases to the retail prices by sector . Retail prices by sector were obtained from
EIA's AEO 2006 data. Refer to Table 62: Electric Power Projections by EMM region". Data for the
"MAIN" region was used to estimate prices for the Illinois state . See main report
.
Page 5 of 13

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.5
Annual Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars)
Note: Total bill payments for each sector are calculated as follows . First, an estimate of sales to each sector
in Illinois is made based the AEO 2006 projections of each sector's share of total retail sales (for the MAIN
region). For example, if AEO projects that in 2010 residential customers will account for x percent of total
retail electricity sales, we assume the same share. We estimate Illinois sales based on the assumption that
Illinois sales as a proportion of total Illinois generation are the same as that of the MANO region . Finally, the
retail prices estimated are multiplied by generation to derive total annual expenditures for electricity by
sector. See main report
Page 6 of 13
-- (ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
(i) Base Case with out
CAIRICAMR
Delta (iii -ii
Re
•
ion
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
,
~
'
~~2009
2015
2018
tz
Residential
4,081
4,482
4,724
4,007
4,588
75
48
136
Industrial
4,007
4,382
4,775
3,923
4,615
84
55
160
Commercial
2,461
2,366
2,512
2,387
;t~a'Liti11::
. .
2,385
73
45
127
t
>
,=~?
RN
AA
Residential
119,111
127,502
134,022
117,645
126,857
133,274
1,466
645
748
Industrial
105,686
115,062
123,961
104,259
114,411
123,190
1,427
652
772
Commercial
56,582
55,029
57,686
55,507
54,578
57,169
1,074
451
517
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(i) Base Case with out
CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii
- 1
R
ion
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
'1
Ili, .$ta'e1tt;
Residential
4,109
4,569
4,786
4,007
4,435
4,588
102
135
198
Industrial
4,038
4,482
4,848
3,923
4,326
4,615
115
156
233
Commercial
2.488
2,449
2,570
2,387
2,321
2,385
101
128
185
1 461
':
Residential
19,218
127,672
134,274
117,645
126,857
133,274
1,573
816
1,000
Industrial
105,790
115,234
124,221
104,259
114,411
123,190
1,531
824
1,031
Commercial
56,660
55,149
57,860
55,507
54,578
57,169
1,153
571
691
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii
-
ii'
Re-ion
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Y RA
,
4,109
4,569
4,786
4,081
4,482
4,724
28
87
62
Industrial
4,038
4,482
4,848
4,007
4,382
4,775
31
101
73
Commercial
2,488
2,449
2,570
70
2,461
2,366
2,512
27
83
58
t
1
t
~'}
R-
et y
'k
. F t
^;
.,
;
'
•C
;^'s
"mw
it
, gy
'P
*ct
Residential
119,218
127,672
134,274
119,111
127,502
134,022
107
171
252
Industrial
105,790
115,234
124,221
105,686
115,062
123,961
104
172
260
Commercial
56,660
55,149
57,860
56,582
55,029
57,686
79
119
174

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.6
Monthly Expenditures for Electricity by Sector (1999 million dollars)
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
340
334
Re ion
2009
2015
342
336
207
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
381
374
204
Residential
9,935
10,639
Industrial
8,816
9,603
Commercial
4,722
4,596
2018
399
404
214
11,189
10,352
4,822
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
2015
374
365
197
10,625
9,589
4,586
2018
2009
394
398
209
11,169
10,330
4,807
2
3
9
9
7
Delta (iii -ii
7
8
14
14
10
2018
5
6
5
21
22
15
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Delta (ill
-
ii
11,106
8,688 9,534 10,266
4,626
4,548
4,764
9,935
8,816
4,722
10,639
9,603
4,596
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
(1) Base Case with out
CAIRICAMR
Re ion
I
9,804
8,688
4,626
2015
370
361
193
10,571
9,534
4,548
2018
Page 7 of 13
382
385
199
6
7
6
4
5
11
13
11
11,106
122
54
62
10,266
119
54
64
4,764
90
38
43
2009
2015
2018
9
11
16
10
13
19
8
11
15
131
68
83
128
69
86
96
48
58
Delta (iii - ii'
2009
2015
2018
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
q
340
334
205
374
365
97
394
398
209
Residential
a
9,926
10,625
11,169
Industrial
8,807
9,589
10,330
Commercial
4,715
4,586
4,807
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(1) Base Case with out
CAIR/CAMR
Re ion
2009
2015
Residential
342
381
Industrial
336
374
Commercial
207
204

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
ExhibitA.7
Total Production Costs (1999 million dollars)
Variable O&M
Fixed O&M
Fuel Total
Capital
Total Cost
306
2,003
1,995
32
4,335
372
2,134
2,069
101
4,676
I
MNEW
382
2,300
2,102
198
4,982
286
2,009
1,986
28
4,308
F
324
2,121
2,098
72
4,615
P
343
2,303
2,130
271
5,047
2009
9,496
10,511
31,749 33,388
65,480
69,139
13,057
18,807
119,782
131,846
2009
2018
2009
702
,222
2018
Variable O&M
7,780
Fixed O&M
28,910
Fuel Total
61,759
Capital
2,558
Total Cost
101,007
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
(i) Base Case without
CAIRICAMR
7,078 8,274
9,106
28,739 31,163
32,710
171
60,877
65,309
69,069
882
1,885 11,059
16,564
672
98,579 115,806 127,449 2,428
1,405
586
679
170
70
1,998
2,243
3,976
4,397
Page 8 of 13
(m) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
Delta (iii
- ii)
Plant
e
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Variable O&M
(32)
(27)
Fixed O&M
3
16
Fuel Total
(162)
(140)
Capital
3
97
Total Cost
8
53
Variable O&M
7835
9495
10549
7780
9496
10511
56
(2)
38
Fixed O&M
28926
31772
33432
28910
31749
33388
16
23
44
Fuel Total
61818
65527
68945
61759
65480
69139
59
47
(194)
Capital
2574
13256
19167
2558
13057
18807
16
199
360
Total Cost
101,153
120,049
132,094
101007
119782
131846
147
267
248
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(i) Base Case without
CAIRICAMR
Delta (iii
- i
Plant T e
2009
2015
-
2018
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Variable O&M
357
340
355
324
343
71
15
13
Fixed O&M
2,030
2,137
2,316
2,121
2,303
22
16
13
Fuel Total
1,931
1,908
1,963
2,098
2,130
(54)
(190)
(167)
Capital
84
105
295
72
271
57
32
24
Total Cost
4,403
4,488
4,929
4,615
5,047
95
126
118
Variable O&M
7835
9495
10549
7,078
8,274
9,106
757
1,221
1,443
Fixed O&M
28926
31772
33432
28,739
31,163
32,710
187
608
722
Fuel Total
61818
65527
68945
60,877
65,309
69,069
941
217
(124)
Capital
2574
13256
19167
1,885
11,059
16,564
689
2,197
2,603
Total Cost
101,153
120,049
132,094
98,579
115,806
127,449
2,574
4,243
4,645

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - Appendix A
Exhibit A.8
Average Production Costs (1999 mills/kWh)
(iii) Polic Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii
-
ii
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
Plant T
e
2009
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
4,308
207,567
20.76
101,007
r
2009
2015
2018
4,615
213,971
21 57
119,782
5,047
220,564
22.88
131,846
4,288,930
4,728,021
4,973,571
26.51
2015
4,488
197,875
22.68
120,049
4,725,036
25.41
(5,421)
1 .03
2,574
(2,370)
0.05
(16,097)
1 .12
4,243
(2,985)
0.07
(5,935)
0.08
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
Delta (ii
- i
220,564
127,449
4,973,571
25.63
2009
27
(933)
0.22
2,428
(2,111)
0.58
2015
2018
61
(65)
(1,851) (5,203)
0.48
0.25
3,976
(2,702)
0.86
4,397
(4,630)
0.91
Page
9 of 13
2009
2015
2018
68
(188)
(53)
(4,487)
(14,245)
(10,408)
0.80
0.64
0.92
147
267
248
(260)
(283)
(1,305)
0.04
0.06
0.06
Delta (iii
- i
2009
2015
2018
95
(126)
(118)
Plant T
e
2009
2015
2018
2015
2018
Total Costs (MM$)
Total Generation
(GWh)
Average Costs
mills/kWh
4,403
202,146
21 .78
4,488
197,875
22.68
4,929
204,953
24.05
4 335
206,633
2098
4,676
212,120
22.04
4,982
215,361
23.13
Total Costs (MM$)
101,153
120,049
132,094
101,007
119,782
131,846
Total Generation
(GWh)
4,286,560
4,725,036
4,967,636
4,725,318
4,968,941
Average Costs
(mills/kWh)
23.60
25.41
26.59
23.56
25.35
26.53
Plant T
e
2009
Total Costs (MM$)
4,335
4,676
4 982
Total Generation
(GWh)
206,633
212,120
215,361
207,567
213,971
Average Costs
(mills/kWh)
20.98
22.04
23.13
Total Costs (MM$)
101 .007
119,782
131,846
98,579
115,806
Total Generation
(GWh)
4.286,820
4,725,318
4,968,941
4,288,930
4,728,021
Average Costs
(mills/kWh)
23.56
25.35
26.53
22.98
24.49
Total Costs (MM$)
4,403
Total Generation
(GWh)
202,146
Average Costs
mills/kWh
21 .78
Total Costs (MM$)
101,153
Total Generation
(GWh)
4,286,560
Average Costs
(mills/kWh)
23.60

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.9
Comparison of Retrofits (Cumulative MWs)
2,762
1,826
11,023
391
1,500
2,530
1,762
416
2,530
1,762
416
2 164
248
10 590
231
64
(416)
10,727
231
64
(416)
11,023
2009
2009
85 019
10,040
15,446
2009
2018
28 538 56,653
68 122
12,806 23,385
36,456
(5,442) (7,509)
(10,664)
9,597
54,892
63,526
(iii) Polic
Case with IL Rule
2015
2018
38,578 72,100
34,362
51,042
64,747
2,039
2,575
2,925
18,493
63,788
72,423
(i) Base Case without
CAIRICAMR
2015
2018
16,897
21,556 27,657 28,291
7.481
10,085
13,590
8,896
8,896
8,896
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
(i) Base Case without CAIR/CAMR
Delta (ii - i)
2015
305
359
(426)
7,185
58,084
23,556
(7,507)
49,827
2018
305
359
(426)
8,498
68,647
36,890
(10,484)
58,776
Page
1 0 of 13
(iii) Polic Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii
-
ii
Technolo
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
FGD
2,556
2,762
2,762
2,836
2,836
2,168
(74)
(74)
SCR
1,748
1,826
1,826
2,121
2,121
(51)
(295)
(295)
SNCR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ACI
10,590
10,727
11,023
7,185
8,498
10,590
3,542
2,525
FGD
38,578
72,100
85,019
36948
73,530
85,543
1,630
(1,431)
(525)
SCR
34,362
51,042
64,747
34,223
51,213
65,181
139
(171)
(434)
SNCR
2,039
2,575
2,925
2,041
2,578
3,106
(3)
(3)
181)
ACI
18,493
63,788
72,423
7,934
58,723
67,672
10,559
5,065
4,751
Technolo
2009
2015
2018
2015
2018
2009
FGD
387
2,836
2,836
2,530
2,530
(4)
SCR
1,799
2,121
2,121
1,762
1,762
299
SNCR
416
416
ACI
7,185
8,498
FGD
36,948
73,530
85,543
15,446
16,897
26,909
SCR
34,223
51,213
65,181
27,657
28,291
12,667
SNCR
2,041
2,578
3,106
10,085
13,590
(5,439)
ACI
7,934
58,723
67,672
8,896
8,896
(962)
FGD
2,556
2,762
SCR
1,748
1,826
SNCR
ACI
10,590
10,727

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.10
Comparison of Mine Mouth Coal Prices (1999 $/MMBtu)
Page I 1 of 13
(ii) Base Case with
(U
Case
Base
R
C
Coal Region
2009
R
I
1
12015
2018
2009
2015ut
iAIW
2018
2009
Delta
'~
2018
Appalachia
1 .07
1 .07
1.07
1 .09
1 .09
1.11
(0 .02)
(0.02)
(0.04)
Interior
1 .04
1 .05
1.05
1 .06
1 .02
1 .02
(0 .01)
0.03
0.03
West
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.48
0.51
0.52
0 .04
0.00
(0.01)
National
. .
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.78
0.77
0.78
(0.01)
0.01
-
(0.00)
Coal Region
Appalachia
Interior
West
National
2009
Policy
C202015
with
L
2Rule
018
1 .07
1 .07
1 .08
1 .04
1 .05
1 .05
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.77
(')2009 Case
Base
2015ut
iAIW
2018 R
1 .09
1 .09
1 .11
1 .06
1 .02
1 .02
0.48
0.51
0 .52
0.78
0.77
0 .78
2009
I
e1
201 15
II 2018
(0.02)
(0.02)
(0.04)
(0.01)
0.03
0.03
0.03
(0.00)
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with CAIRICAMR
Delta (ili
-
ii)
Coal Region
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
I
2015
I
2018
2009
12015 12018
Appalachia
1 .07
1 .07
1 .08
1 .07
1 .07
1 .07
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
Interior
1 .04
1.05
1 .05
1 .04
1 .05
1 .05
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
West
0.51
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
(0.01)
(0.01)
0.00
National
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.77
(0 .00)
(0.00)
0.00

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.11
Comparison of Coal Usage (TBtu)
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Coal T
e
as
Subbituminous
Lignite
Total
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
Total
220
920
2009
201
924
1,126
12,945
8,990
792
22,727
2015
2018
212
942
214
942
1,156
1,154
14,070
15,068
10,053
10,701
792
792
24,915
26,560
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
Delta (ii-i ;
2015
243
938
1,181
13,570
10,813
801
25,184
2018
280
936
1,215
14,418
11,683
801
26,902
2009
2015
2018
(18)
(29)
4
3
14
26
(172)
500
1
(760)
(10) (10)
(180) (269)
(68)
6
62
650
(981)
(10)
(341)
Page
12 of 13
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(i) Base Case without
CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii -i
CoalT
.e
IOP'
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Bituminous
268
254
262
220
280
48
11
(18)
Subbituminous
808
728
751
920
936
(112)
(211)
(185)
Lignite
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total
1,077
982
1,013
140
'a1,215
63
200
202
.
1
~tti,
Bituminous
12,940
14,114
15,153
13,117
13,570
14,418
(177)
544
735
Subbituminous
8,990
9,995
10,680
8,989
10,813
11,683
1
(818)
(1,003)
Lignite
-~
774
774
774
801
801
801
(27)
(27)
(27)
Total
22,704
24,882
26,607
22,908
25,184
26,902
(203)
(302)
(295)
(iii) Policy Case with IL Rule
(ii) Base Case with.CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii -ii)
CoalT
a
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
2009
2015
2018
Bituminous
268
254
262
201
214
212
t
67
40
50
Subbituminous
808
728
751
924
942
942
(116)
(214)
(191)
Lignite
-
-
-
-
-
Total
1,077
~~
982
1,013
1 26
1,156
1,154
49S
174
141
,"
Bituminous
12,940
14,114
15,153
12,945
14,070
15,068
(5)
44
86
Subbituminous
8,990
9,995
10,680
8,990
10,053
10,701
-
(58)
(21)
Lignite
774
774
774
792
792
792
(18)
(18)
(18)
Total
22,704
24,882
26,607
22,727
24,915
26,560
(23)
(32)
47

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule-Appendix A
Exhibit A.12
Comparisons of Coal Power Plant Retirements (MW)
(iii) Polic
Case with IL Rule
Plant T e
Coal
Coal
2015 2018
597 597 597
2,085
2009
2,788
2,788
(ii) Base Case with CAIR/CAMR
Delta (iii -ii
2009
2015
2018
ry
252
252
205
203
252
203
(iii) Polic
Case with IL Rule
2009
2015
597
597
2,085
2,788
(i) Base Case without CAIR/CAMR
2018
2009
148
449
551
1,755
Delta (iii -i)
2015
2018
t
449
449
2,237 2,237
(ii) Base Case with
CAIR/CAMR
V
345
345
6
M
WwMas
a
Plant Type
Coal
Coal
2009
2015
2018
345
1,880 2,585 2,585
(i) Base Case without CAIR/CAMR
2015
148
551
2018
148
551
Delta (ii -
I'
2009
2015
197
197
1,550
2,034
2018
197
2,034
Note: Retirement figures are cumulative
Page
1 3 of 13

 
CONSULTING
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
Appendix B: Overview of Modeling Framework
Prepared for :
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Quality
Prepared by :
ICF Resources, LLC
Under contract to
:
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
March 10, 2006
by perspective

 
Analysis ofthe Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Table of Contents
IPM Overview
1
Model Structure and Formulation
1
Model Outputs
4
NEEDS Database and Other Unit Data
5
Model Run Years
6
New Unplanned Units
6
Retrofit, Repowering and Retirement Options
6
Environmental Assumptions
7
Parsed Files and Outputs
7
Overview of Key Modeling Assumptions
8
Fuel Assumptions
8
Demand
9
Control Costs and Retrofit Assumptions
9
Financial Assumptions
10

 
Analysis ofthe Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
- APPENDIX B

 
Overview of IPM and Core Modeling Assumptions
The analysis underlying this report was performed using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM ®) -- a
sophisticated energy modeling system that simulates the deregulated wholesale market for electricity
.
This appendix provides an overview of IPM as well as the underlying assumptions and inputs . As noted
in the report, the underlying basis of this analysis is developed by EPA for its Base Case (v
. 2 .1 .9) . This
appendix describes the core model with reference to the EPA 2 .1 .9 Base Case assumptions. This
document is not meant to be an exhaustive description of that case as it is extensively documented by
EPA on its website. See
Standalone Documentation for EPA Base Case 2004 (V 2 .1.9) Using the
Integrated Planning Model, September 2005, at
htip ://www.epa.gov/airmaikets/epa-iPin !
.
Subsequent to the EPA 2 .1.9 base case being made available, several data and modeling parameter
changes were implemented by the VISTAS Regional Planning Organization (RPO) during a two-phase
modeling effort during 2004 and 2005 (of which LADCO and Illinois EPA were participants) . For this
study, Illinois EPA made additional changes. A separate appendix describes subsequent changes made
relative to the EPA 2 .1.9 case and implemented in this case
.
IPM Overview
ICF's IPM®model has been applied over the past 30 years for a wide range of clients . IPM is used by the
U .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as other government and industry entities for the
analysis of wholesale power markets, environmental policies and compliance decisions, based on
fundamentals relating to supply and demand . IPM models all major facets of energy markets such as fuel
prices, emission markets, environmental compliance costs and operating constraints
.
EPA has used IPM in the analysis of the U .S. EPA's recent Clean Air Rules (including the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the Clean Air Visibility Rule) and the NOx SIP Call
.
Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs)
-- including WRAP, VISTAS, LADCO, and CENRAP -- have
used the IPM for analyses in support of their state implementation plans (SIPs) development process
. The
model has bebn used by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) working group to analyze
proposed carbon policies in the northeast. IPM has also been used extensively on behalf of utilities, the
financial community and developers of generation assets to evaluate environmental compliance strategies
for electricity, as well as to generate forward price curves and value power plant assets . Finally, the model
has also been used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to assess the potential
emission impact of open access transmission policies and to develop an Environmental Assessment of the
Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Proposed Rulemaking
.
Model Structure and Formulation
IPM is a capacity planning and dispatch model for the electric power sector based upon engineering and
economic fundamentals. IPM simulates the operations of every generator in the continental U .S. with
regional detail. The model determines the least-cost method of meeting national level energy and peak
demand requirements for a specific period of time . In its solution, the model takes into consideration
several operating regulatory, market and engineering constraints, suchh as emission limits, transmission
capabilities, fuel market constraints, regional reserve margin constraints and system operating constraints
.
The model is a national implementation with regional details . Given a specified set of inputs and
constraints, IPM develops an optimal capacity expansion plan, dispatch order, and air emissions
compliance plan for the power generation system based on factors such as fuel prices, capital costs and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of power generation, among others
.
Analysis
ofthe Proposed
Illinois
Mercury Rule -
APPENDIX
B
Page
1 of 14

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
The IPM is an optimization model that has as its objective function to minimize the total, discounted
net
present value of the costs of meeting electricity demand, recognizing power system constraints, and
environmental requirements over the entire planning horizon. The objective function represents the
summation of all the going-forward costs incurred by the electricity sector in meeting future demand
.
It
does not include embedded (or sunk) costs such as carrying charges associated with existing units, fixed
transmission system costs, or general and administrative costs
.
The total resulting cost is expressed as the net present value of all the component costs . These costs
include the cost of new plant and pollution control construction, fixed and variable operating and
maintenance costs (O&M) for existing plants, and fuel costs . The applicable discount rates are applied to
derive the net present value for the entire planning horizon from the costs obtained for all years
in the
planning horizon .
IPM is a multi-region model . The model regions representing the U.S. power market in the EPA Base
Case (and in this study) correspond broadly to regions and sub-regions that constitute the North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions . Figure BI shows the IPM modeling regions for this study .
In this study, Illinois lies within what is called the "MANO" region in IPM and corresponds to the
southern region of the Mid America Interconnected Network (MAIN) . Illinois makes up the majority of
Figure B2 IPM and Model Regions
the MANO region. In terms of capacity, the share of the MANO region's total capacity that lies in Illinois
is 88 percent .
Given the objective of minimizing overall system wide costs, IPM solves for certain decision variables .
These decision variables are the model's "outputs" and they characterize the optimal or least-cost solution
for meeting the given set of constraints. Some of the key decision variables represented in IPM are :
generation dispatch (in GWh), capacity (in MW), new capacity additions, retrofit decisions, transmission
Page 2 of 14

 
flows (in TWh), emissions, emission allowance prices (in $/Ton for capped pollutants), and fuel prices
and consumption
.
The model finds this optimal solution recognizing certain constraints such as
:
Reserve Margin Constraints : This constraint represents system reliability
requirements. Each IPM model region must have a minimum level of reserve margin
capacity (in terms of MW) . If in a given year, total capacity (existing as well as
planned) is less than the requirement, the model will add additional capacity .
Demand Constraints
: Each region's annual electricity energy and peak demand
levels are specified as inputs to the model . These energy demands are further defined
by load shapes represented as winter and summer seasonal load duration curves . The
LDC is the minimum amount of generation required to meet the region's electrical
demand for a specific season .
Equivalent Availability Constraints : This constraint specifies the maximum amount
of electricity that a plant can generate, given its net dependable capacity available,
forced outage rates, and seasonal maintenance requirements
.
Turndown/area protection constraints
: This constraint represents the operating
characteristics of peaking, cycling and base load units
.
Emission constraints
: IPM has the capability of modeling a variety of emission
constraints for each of the pollutants such as SO2,NOR , mercury and CO2 . These
constraints are implemented at the unit level, regional level or system-wide and are
defined either in terms of a total tonnage cap (e .g ., tons of NO, SO2per year or
season) or a maximum emission rate (e.g ., lbs/MMBtu of NOx). The emission
constraints can be customized as per user specification and thus vary from analysis to
analysis .
Transmission constraints
: IPM models several power regions simultaneously and
each model region is linked with another through transmission lines . The constraints
define either a maximum capacity on each link or a maximum level of transmission
on two or more (i.e., joint limits) links to different regions
.
Fuel Supply constraints : In IPM, each model plant is designed to obtain a certain
type of fuel from a specific supply region .
Figure B2 below shows the various IPM components and data structure
.
Analysis
of
the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX
B
Page 3 of 14

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Figure B2
Modeling and Data Structure of IPM
Two other characteristics of IPM are those regarding perfect competition and perfect foresight . The
former implies that IPM models all activity in the wholesale electric markets as perfectly competitive and
any market imperfections such as market power, transaction costs or informational asymmetry are not
explicitly treated in the model. However, market imperfections can be estimated by doing sensitivity
analyses or redefining model inputs. There are no assumptions on retail deregulation in IPM since it is a
wholesale market model .
Perfect foresight implies that in IPM all economic agents know precisely the nature and timing of the
constraints that will be imposed in the future as well as future fuel supply availability and pricing
. For
example, under IPM there is complete foreknowledge of the levels, timings and regulatory design of
emission limits that will be imposed throughout the modeling time horizon
.
It is important to note that IPM simulates the electric power markets through an engineering economic
framework that is completely flexible with respect to the core data and underlying inputs, assumptions,
policy inputs and other system and unit constraints. Therefore, the results are influenced by the user-
specified inputs
.
Model Outputs
IPM produces a variety of reports ranging from very detailed reports that show results
for
each model
plant and run year to the broader summary reports which present data on a state, regional and national
level . Key outputs of the model include
:
Page
4 of 14

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Generation
-the
total amount of electric energy produced by a generating unit in
GWh. Generation is forecast by the model based on the economics of the units, given
all constraints and other inputs
.
Capacity Mix - the model forecast total capacity (in terms of MW) by plant type
such as combined cycle, combustion turbine, Oil/gas steam, scrubbed coal, hydro,
pumped storage, IGCC, nuclear, cogen, biomass and geothermal . In addition to the
existing capacity mix for a given region, the output shows the amount and type of
new capacity that is added in each run year as well as capacity that is retired,
repowered, or retrofitted with emission controls equipment .
Capacity prices - Capacity price is one of the two components of the firm electricity
price and is expressed in terms of $/KW. The capacity price is determined by several
factors such as the reserve margins in different regions, cost of building new
capacity, fixed costs of existing units and transmission
.
•
Firm Wholesale electricity prices - The firm electricity price is the sum of the
electrical energy price and capacity price. It is expressed in terms of $/MWh . In each
hour, the electric energy price is determined by the short-run marginal cost of
production of the most expensive unit in that hour. Marginal energy prices for each
region and model run year are reported at the seasonal and segmental level
.
•
Production Costs - All production costs derived in IPM represent wholesale
production costs. The model costs represent the "going-forward" costs and do not
consider embedded (or sunk) costs such as carrying charges of existing units,
transmission and distribution charges, and general and administrative costs . For each
region and each run year, the model projects the total production costs such as
variable O&M, fixed O&M costs, fuel costs and capital costs
.
Fuel consumption and prices - The model projects total fuel consumption by region
and price. Prices for fuels such as coal and natural gas are endogenously determined
by the model via supply curves - a set of price-quantity relationships that reflect the
underlying fundamentals of the market. The model determines the optimal level of
supply .
Emissions (NOx, S02, Col and
Hg) -
the model forecasts the level of emissions for
NO, (in terms of thousands of Tons), SO 2 (in terms of thousands of tons), CO 2 (in
terms of millions of tons) and Mercury (in terms of tons)
.
Allowance prices - For each emission constraint that is defined the model determines
allowance prices (can be thought of as the shadow price of the pollutant constraint)
for pollutants such as NOx, S0 2and mercury. The allowance prices are expressed
either terms of $/Ton or $/lb .
Retrofits - All existing units are given the option to retrofit with several pollution
control technologies such as scrubbers, SCR, SNCR and ACI controls based on the
applicability of the technology and the unit characteristics . Two states of retrofit are
possible (e.g. Scrubber followed by SCR in a later year) . Combinations of options are
allowed in each year.
NEEDS Database and Other Unit Data
The core set of data for IPM describes the characteristics and specific operating parameters of all existing
and planned generating units . For EPA Base Case 2004(V .2.1.9), the data used is EPA's National
Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS) database . This source contains unit-level information on each
steam boiler and generator including its location, net dependable capacity, plant type, pollution control
equipment for S02, NOx and particulate matter, boiler configurations, and the emission rates or emission
Page 5 of 14

 
rate limits. NEEDS is developed from large number of data sources including EIA and NERC data, DOE
data, EPA Emission Tracking System Data among other sources . This database, the rules for populating
the data, and key summary statistics are described in EPA's documentation
:
Standalone Documentation
for EPA Base Case 2004 (V. 2.1.9) Using the Integrated Planning Model, September 2005,
at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/
.
The NEEDS database represents every generating unit in the country . It is possible, but impractical to run
IPM at this level of disaggregation. Run times would be very long and model size would be an issue
.
Therefore, "model plants" are constructed from the NEEDs data set to represent the power system . For
existing units, model plants represent aggregations of existing generating units . Logical aggregation
algorithms are developed to group units with similar characteristics into model plants. These model plans
have characteristics that reflect these combinations, for example, capacity is the sum of all units'
capacities while heat rate is a weighted-average value. Note that coal plants are highly disaggregated in
the model, with approximately only 2-3 boilers aggregated into a typical model plant. Key aggregation
criteria are boiler rate, unit size, heat rate, environmental controls, allowed fuel types, among many
others .
Model Run Years
IPM uses model run years to represent the span of the planning horizon being modeled . Each year of the
planning horizon is mapped into a representative model run year. This run year mapping also prevents the
model size from becoming too large . Although, IPM reports results only for the model run years, costs for
all years of the planning horizon are taken into consideration in the algorithm . To avoid boundary
distortions or "end-year effect" characteristic of optimization models, IPM includes a final model run year
that is not reported in the results . This technique reduces the likelihood that later year results will be
skewed due to the modeling artifact of having to specify an end point
in
the planning horizon, whereas, in
reality, economic decisions are likely to persist beyond that end point
.
In this study, (i.e., for the 3 cases: Base Case without CAIR/CAMR rule, base case with CAIR/CAMR
and the
policy
run with CAIR, IL mercury rule for Illinois plants and CAMR for non-Illinois plants), the
IPM model was run for seven run years .
New Unplanned Units
IPM also allows new generation capacity to be built during a model run. All the model plants that can be
potentially built are pre-defined at set-up, differentiated by type of technology, regional location, and the
on-line date when the plants can become available. IPM makes the decision to "build" new capacity in a
given region based on the economics and costs of the new technology options as well as regional
variations in capital costs over time . All the potential units represent new capacity and are pre-defined at
set-up to differentiate by type of technology, regional location, and years available
.
Retrofit, Repowering and Retirement Options
IPM also explicitly represents the retrofit, repowering, and retirement options that are available to existing
units. For example, plants can retrofit with pollution control equipment, repower, or retire early . The
options available to each model plant are defined during model set-up (as per client specifications) . In the
EPA Base Case 2004 as well as this study, every existing model plant is given the option to retrofit with a
pollution control, repower or retire early. Every plant is allowed a maximum of two stages of retrofit
options. For example, an existing model plant may be retrofit with a scrubber in one model run year
(stage 1) and with an SCR in the same or subsequent run year (stage 2)
.
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
- APPENDIX B
Page 6 of 14

 
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule -APPENDIX 8
Environmental Assumptions
IPM is designed to take into consideration the complex nature of emission regulations involving banking,
trading and progressive flow control of emission allowances as well as command-and-control emission
policies. This study incorporates existing SO2, NOx, mercury and CO 2 environmental regulations as per
Federal and state regulations. The regulations are implemented in IPM via system-wide and unit-level
emission constraints .
Title IV SO2 Regulations: The broadest system-wide environmental regulation modeled is the
SO2 allowance trading program established under Title IV of the CAAA. The program became
operational in year 2000 and affects all SO 2 emitting electric generating units greater than 25
MW .
NOx Regulations: NOx regulations are modeled through a combination of state and unit-level
NOx limits. The following NOx regulations are modeled in this case : NOx SIP Call trading
program, Title IV unit specific rate limits and Clean Air Act Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements for controlling NOx emissions from electric generating units
in ozone non-attainment areas or in the Ozone Transport Regions' (OTR). The NOx SIP Call
program is also implemented in this case
.
State Specific Environmental Regulations : This study incorporates state laws and regulations
that affect the electricity sector emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon
dioxide. For example, it represents environmental regulations for 12 states, including
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New York and Oregon
.
Parsed Files and Outputs
IPM produces output at the model plant level . In order to do air quality modeling and understand impacts
at the state, county or plant level, it is necessary to relate model plants into units . This is done by
"parsing" the outputs in order to get unit level results
.
In the context of IPM, "parsing" refers to the methodology used to allocate IPM model plant projections
of fuel use and emissions to individual electricity generating units (EGUs) or other individual entities
(such as cogenerators) that constitute the model plants in IPM
.
The IPM model aggregates individual entities into model plants of similar characteristics, and assigns
each aggregated model plant a weighted average heat rate, a weighted average emission rate, and
appropriate cost parameters based on that model plant's underlying units characteristics . As a result, IPM
projections such as fuel consumption and air emissions are for aggregated model plants. To determine the
fuel use and the air emissions of individual EGUs and other entities that constitute "a model plant," the
total fuel consumed by, and the air emissions from, each model plant are allocated (or parsed) to each
constituent EGU, industrial boiler, or other entity, by applying a series of algorithms
.
A parsed file includes much of the unit level input data given to IPM as well as outputs of IPM allocated
to the unit level
.
' The OTR consists of the following states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia and northern Virginia
.
Page 7 of 14

 
Overview of Key Modeling Assumptions
The section below provides a brief summary of the input assumptions used in IPM for the EPA 2
.1 .9 Base
Case. Changes to these assumptions for the current work are described separately . This is provided to help
the reader understand how these key inputs influence IPM
Fuel Assumptions
IPM includes fuels such as coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear fuel, and biomass for electric generation . Coal,
natural gas and biomass price assumptions are represented via supply curves, whereas oil and nuclear fuel
prices are exogenously determined and entered in the model during model set-up as a constant price point
that is applicable at all levels of supply .
IPM is capable of modeling the full range of fuels used for electric power generation including the price,
supply and even the quality of fuels included, such as the average mercury or sulfur content of coal mined
from a specific region. Based on grades of fuel used IPM determines-the emissions resulting from the
combustion of that fuel .
Coal is modeled endogenously . There is a distinct coal supply curve for each IPM coal supply region and
coal type within that region. The supply curve shows the relationship between coal supply and the mine-
mouth price of coal and depicts changes in prices associated with a change in quantity . The market price
of coal is determined endogenously in IPM and is the price at which the supply of a certain coal type from
a specific coal supply region satisfies demand in a given model run year. Hence all plants purchasing the
same coal type from a supply region get the same mine-mouth clearing price (an equilibrium price)
.
The equilibrium mine-mouth price excludes the transportation costs of moving coal from the supply
region to the demand region. There is however, a transportation link between a coal demand region and
supply region that is based on the distance and transport mode for that link .
As in the case of coal, natural gas prices are determined endogenously in IPM, using supply and demand
curves. The gas supply curves are determined using ICF's North American Natural Gas Analysis System
(NANGAS) model. This is a detailed natural gas market optimization model . The supply curves are
generated through a series of NANGAS model runs wherein natural gas supply, demand and
transportation are equilibrated under varying electricity growth rate assumptions . Supply and demand
curves are created for each run year to find market clearing price and quantity of natural gas
. There is
however only one regional price and quantity calculated and that is at the Henry Hub . From this vantage
point transportation differentials are included to the cost of natural gas prices at Henry Hub to find what
individual plants will be subject to in their region. For this study, gas supply curves that were intended to
represent EIA/AEO forecasts were used.
Consistent with the endogenous price determination of coal and natural gas, biomass fuels are also
determined by supply and demand curves created for each region and run year. Unlike coal and natural
gas, biomass does not allow for inter-regional trading, but does account for transportation costs within a
region .
For nuclear and fuel oil, prices are derived exogenously . The oil price assumptions are derived from crude
oil prices in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2004. The nuclear fuel price used in the EPA Base
Case 2004 is from AEO 2004 .
Analysis ofthe Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Page 8 of 14

 
Demand
Net energy for load and net internal demand are exogenous inputs to IPM and together represent the total
grid wide demand for electricity. The former is the projected annual electric grid-demand before
accounting for transmission and distribution losses and the latter is the maximum hourly demand in a
given year net of interruptible load . The regional net energy for load is derived from the national net
energy for load based on the regional demand distribution from the NERC ES&D (North American
Electric Reliability Council : Electric Demand and Supply) forecasts. Net internal demand for the various
IPM model regions is based on regional load shapes (obtained by summing up the load for control areas
within a given region). The average annual growth rate assumptions for energy and peak demand are
based on U.S. ETA's (Energy Information Agency) "Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to
2025" (AEO 2004) .
As opposed to chronological load curves
(i .e., 8,760 hours of the year), IPM uses load duration curves
(LDCs) for dispatching units . The LDCs are created by rearranging the chronological load curve from the
highest to lowest (MW) value. The EPA Base Case 2004 uses two LDCs - one for the winter season
(October - April) and one for the summer season (May - September). These load shapes are created using
chronological hourly data for normal weather years. The chronological hourly data in turn are derived by
aggregating individual utility load curves as reported
by
the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission)
.
Within IPM, LDCs are represented by discrete load segments, or generation blocks . The load segment
depicts time in terms of hours (on the x-axis) and the capacity produced in terms of MW (on the y-axis)
.
The EPA Base Case 2004 uses five load segments, with segment one representing all hours when load is
at peak demand levels. Segments 2 through 5 represent hourly loads at progressively lower levels of
demand. All plants in the model are dispatched to meet load in the five segments based on their operating
costs. Plants with the lowest operating costs will run for the maximum hours of the LDC and are referred
to as the baseload units (such as nuclear and coal units)
.
Control Costs and Retrorit Assumptions
IPM can model specific SO 2 , NOx , and mercury (Hg) emission control technology options for meeting
existing and potential federal, regional and state SO
2
,NOx and Hg emission limits. Each control has
VOM, FOM and capital costs associated with operation and an emission reduction factor for having this
technology enabled. There can be multiple options for each broad technology
(e.g ., for sulfur dioxide,
Limestone Forced Oxidation (LFO), Magnesium Enhanced Lime (MEL) and Lime Spray Dryer (LSD)) .
There are specific characteristics that a plant must have to adopt one of these options, but each option
gives a reduction in SO 2 , along with appropriate heat rate penalties and costs
.
Emission control technologies can have co-benefits . For example, in the EPA Base Case 2004, units that
install SO 2 and NOx controls reduce mercury emissions as a byproduct of these SO 2 and NOx retrofits. A
plant can also specifically target mercury by using Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) . The efficiency of
Hg removal is subject to the coal type and how much mercury needs to be contained . The IPM system
will decide which controls are the most cost effective in meeting governmental emission constraints
keeping in mind the cost of controls and fuels made available by these controls .
Capital costs for building a new unit are specified including adjustments for regional differences in labor,
material and construction costs and derive regional capital costs. Costs include overnight capital, interest
during construction, FOM, and VOM
.
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Page 9 of 14

 
Financial Assumptions
The discount rate and the capital charge rate are the key variables in IPM's financial decision-making
process for investment options. The discount rate is necessary for calculation of net present value (NPV) .
This enables accurate cost comparisons across the whole time horizon and accounts for the time value of
money. Annualized capital payments for retrofit or potential investments are computed using the capital
charge rate, which takes into account the cost of debt, return on equity, taxes and depreciation
.
The EPA Base Case 2004 includes different technologies that have varying methods of operation,
financing, revenue streams, depreciation schedules and risk profiles. These differences will categorize the
unit into a risk profile of low, medium or high risk . For example, baseload units such as combined cycles
and coal plants have a low risk compared to peaking units such as combustion turbines that are more
risky .
Analysis of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule - APPENDIX B
Page
10 of 14

 
CONSULTING
aniier d by
Analysis of the Proposed
Illinois Mercury Rule
Appendix C: Data Changes and Updates
Prepared for
:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Quality
Prepared by:
ICF Resources, LLC
Under contract to :
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
March 10, 2006

 
Table of Contents
OVERVIEW
1
Summary of Changes to EPA Base Case by Vistas
1
VISTAS Changes to EPA 2 .1 .9 - Detailed Tables
2
_Phase I Changes
2
Existing Unit Level NOx Control Technology Assumptions 2
Unit Level NOx Emission Rate Changes
3
Existing Unit Level S02 Control Technology Assumptions 6
Existing Unit Level Emission Rate Assumptions
6
Existing Unit Level PM Control Assumptions
8
Existing Unit Characteristics - Summer Net Dependable 8
Existing Unit Heat Rate Data
9
Existing Unit Unit ID
9
Committed Units - Control Decisions
9
_Phase II Changes
11
Potential Units Characteristics - Cost and Heat Rate
11
Existing Unit Characteristics - Capacity
12
Cogeneration Flag
20
Existing Unit Emissions Controls
21
Existing Unit Characteristics - Location Codes
22
Existing Unit Characteristics - Firing Type
23
Existing Units Heat Rate
26
Existing Units NOx Emission Rates by Mode
31
Existing Unit Additions
48
Existing Unit Additions
48
Existing Unit Online changes
51
Control Technologies
53
Control Technology Changes
54
xisting Unit Change - Retirement Year
55
Existing Units Scrubber Controls
59
Existing Unit changes - Sulfur Dioxide
61
Unit ID Changes
65
Summary Of Changes Made By Ladco / Illinois Epa
67
Fuel Assignment
67
Changes in Mercury Control Costs
69
Existing Unit Specific Plant Changes
70

 
OVERVIEW
The EPA Base Case (known as the EPA Base Case 2004, v.2.1.9) was developed by ICF under the
direction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It serves as the starting point for the
analysis presented in this report. Subsequent to its release the VISTAS Regional Planning Organization
initiated a two-phase study using IPM . Starting as the EPA 2.1.9 as a base, VISTAS, along with study
participants from CENRAP and LADCO RPOs, made several changes to the underlying datasets and
modeling assumptions . The starting point for this study was work from the VISTAS study . Subsequent to
this RPO work, ICF was directed to make additional changes by IEPA, including unit level changes for
the Illinois units and modifications to mercury control costs . These changes are described in detail below .
Summary of Changes to EPA Base Case by Vistas
VISTAS and its workgroup initiated a review of NEEDs and recommended a large number of changes to
the data. This occurred in two phases. The tables that follow this section documents those changes
.
Changes made by IEPA are described at the end of the section
.
In addition to unit level changes, VISTAS and its workgroup made a number of global changes that re
reflected in this case. These are briefly described below :
Demand forecast were changed to reflect unadjusted EIA AEO 2005 national electricity
and peak demand values
The natural gas supply curve and pricing forecasts were scaled in such a manner that IPM
would solve for AEO 2005 gas prices when the power sector gas demand in IPM is
consistent with AEO 2005 power sector gas demand projections . In instances where the
power sector gas demand in IPM is lower than that of AEO 2005 projections, IPM would
project gas prices that are lower than that in AEO 2005 and vice versa
.
Coal supply curves also involved scaling due to the fact that the coal grades and supply
regions between AEO 2005 and the EPA 2.1.9 are not directly comparable . This initiated
an approximate approach that was performed in an iterative fashion but did not involve
updating the coal transportation matrix with EIA assumptions due to significant differences
between the EPA 2 .1.9 and EIA AEO 2005 coal supply and coal demand regions. The
overall effect is IPM coal prices that reflect EIA AEO 2005 prices
.
EIA AEO 2005 oil price forecasts were also applied under VISTAS .
•
AEO 2005 data was used for all assumptions regarding new builds or potential units. The
cost and performance assumptions for these units were as per the AEO 2005
documentation, while assumptions for renewable capacity were the same as those used in
the EPA Base Case 2004 v.2.1 .9 .
•
Preserved the EPA Base Case 2004 v .2.1.9 assumptions regarding pollution control cost
and performance for retrofits, but excluded constraints on new build capacity types (i.e . no
new coal) .
•
For nuclear units, used the same IPM configuration as in the EPA Base Case 2004 v .2.1 .9,
but with updated EIA AEO 2005 incurrence cost (-27/Kw) for continued operation
.
Set the 2007 SO2 banking value for 4 .99 million tons
.

 
Used North Carolina Clean Smoke Stacks data for 2009 in determining "must run" units
.
The renewable portfolio standards (RPS) is modeled based on the most recent RGGI
documentation using a single RPS region for Massachusetts (MA), Rhode Island (RI),New
York
(NY), New Jersey
(NJ),
Maryland (MD) and Connecticut
(CT) . The RPS
requirements within these states can be met by renewable generation from New England,
New York and PJM. EPA Base Case 2004 v .2 .1.9 methodology and EIA AEO 2004
projected renewable builds were used for the rest of the regions .
VISTAS Changes to EPA 2.1 .9 - Detailed Tables
The following tables show changes made by VISTAS and other RPOs during 2004 and 2005 during the
VISTAS modeling project. Two series of changes were made during that work. Appendix I shows
VISTAS phase I changes and Appendix 2 shows VISTAS phase II changes . Vistas phase I changes are
implemented on top of NEEDS NODA database (i .e ., NEEDS v2.1.9 database) to develop the NEEDS
Vistas I database. Vistas II changes are implemented on top of NEEDS Vistas I database and the resulted
NEEDS Vistas II database formed the foundation of the Vistas phase
II runs which forms the starting
point for this study. All data was provided by the VISTAS technical director or stakeholder participants .
Phase I Changes
Existing Unit Level NOx Control Technoloqy Assumptions
Exhibit CIA : Revisions to NO, Post Combustion Control
Installations in Vistas Phase I
ASHEVILLE
2706 B_1
SNCR
None
BARRY
.
3-B-1
SNCR
None
BARRY
3-B-2
SNCR
None
BARRY
3-B-3
SNCR
None
BARRY
3134
SNCR
None
Barry
3 G_A1
None
SCR
Barry
MT STORM
3_G_A2ST
3954 B_3
None
None
SCR
SCR
PLEASANTS
6004_B 1
None
SCR
PLEASANTS
6004 B 2
None
SCR
Victor J Daniel Jr
6073 G_3
None
SCR
Victor J Daniel Jr
6073_G_3CT
None
SCR
Victor J Daniel Jr
6073 G 4CT
None
SCR

 
Unit Level NOx Emission Rate Chanqes
Exhibit C1 .2: Changes made to NO, Emission Rates (Ibs/MMBtu) in Vistas Phase I
GREENE COUNTY
10
0-B-1
0.718
0.718
0.468
0.468
GREENE COUNTY
10_9 2
0.416
0.416
0.380
0.380
Greene County
10 G_GT10
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10_G GT2
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10 G GT3
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10_G_GT4
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10 G GT5
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10_G GT6
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10 G_GT7
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10_G GT8
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
Greene County
10 G GT9
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
CROSS
130
3 -
1
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
CROSS
130 B 2
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
EATON
2046
6
1
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
EATON
2046 B_2
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
EATON
2046B-3 0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
Chevron Oil
2047
G
1
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
Chevron Oil
2047 G_2
0.320
0.320
0 .320
0.320
Chevron Oil
2047
G
-3
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
Chevron Oil
2047 G4
0.320
0.320
0 .320
0.320
Chevron Oil
2047 G_5
0.064
0.064
0 .064
0.064
SWEATT
20487B-1
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
SWEATT
2048
_
B_2
0.280
0.280
0 .280
0.280
Sweatt
2048(3A 0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
JACK WATSON
20497B-1
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
JACK WATSON
2049 B_2
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
JACK WATSON
2049_8 3
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
JACK WATSON
2049_8 4
0.470
0.470
0.415
0.415
JACK WATSON
2049 B75
0.590
0.590
0.415
0.415
Jack Watson
2049
GA
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
E C GASTON
26 B11
0.473
0.473
0.473
.
0.473
E
C
GASTON
2692
0.473
0.473
0.473
0.473
E C GASTON
26 93
0.457
0.457
0.457
0.457
E C GASTON
26_B_4
0.457
0.457
0.457
0.457
E C GASTON
26_8 5
0.429
0.060
0.429
0.060
E C Gaston
26_GGT4
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
ASHEVILLE
2706_8 1
0.491
0.319
0.491
0.319
CLIFFSIDE
2721 B 5
0.294
0.070
0.294
0.070
BARRY
3 B 1
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
BARRY
3_92
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
BARRY
3_B_3
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
BARRY
3 B 4
0.290
0.290
0.290
0.290
BARRY
3
B_5
0.380
0.380
0.380
0.380
Barry
3_G A1
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Barry
3
GA1CT
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Barry
3_G
_
A1ST
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Barry
3 GA2C1
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Barry
3_G_A2C2
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Barry
3_G A2ST
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
W S LEE
3264_8
0.393
9
1
0.393
0.250
0.250
W S LEE
3264_2
0.415
0.415
0.250
0.250
W S Lee
3264 G_4
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
W S Lee
3264 G5
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
W S Lee
3264-C6
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
3287_B_MC
MCMEEKIN
M1
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
3287_B_MG
MCMEEKIN
M2
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
MT STORM
3954 B 3
0.604
0.060
0.604
0.060
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002 B_1
0.275
0.060
0.275
0.060
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002 B 2
0.247
0.060
0.247
0.060
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002
B
3
0.306
0.070
0.306
0.070

 
JAMES H
B 4
275
0.070
0.275
0.070
PLEASANTS
6004 B_1
0.302
0.060
0.302
0.060
PLEASANTS
6004 B_2
0.335
0.060
0.335
0.060
WANSLEY
6052 B 1
0.405
0.070
0.405
0.070
WANSLEY
6052-872
0 .390
0.070
0.390
0.070
Wansley
6052-(375A
0 .880
0.880
0.880
0.880
VICTOR J DANIEL JR .
6073_B_1
0 .310
0.310
0.310
0.310
VICTOR J DANIEL JR .
6073B2
0 .350
0.350
0.350
0.350
Victor J Daniel Jr
6073 G 3
0 .013
0.013
0.013
0.013
6073_G_3C
Victor J Daniel Jr
T
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
6073 G 3S
Victor J Daniel Jr
T
0 .013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Victor J Daniel Jr
6073_G_4
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
6073_G_4C
Victor J Daniel Jr
T
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
6073_G_4S
Victor J Daniel Jr
T
0.013
0.013
0.013
0 .013
MCINTOSH
6124 B 1
0.613
0.613
0.410
0.410
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
1
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124_G_CT
McIntosh
2
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
3
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
4
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
5
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
6
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
7
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
6124 G_CT
McIntosh
8
0.090
0.090
0.090
0.090
WINYAH
6249 3 1
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
WINYAH
6249B_
2
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
WINYAH
6249
_
_B_3
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
WINYAH
6249 B 4
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
SCHERER
6257_B_ 1
0.450
0.450
0.150
0:150
SCHERER
6257B2
0.450
0 .450
0.150
0.150
SCHERER
6257-133
0.300
0 .300
0.150
0.150
SCHERER
6257_B_4
0.300
0 .300
0.150
0.150
Wilson
6258G 5A
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
6258G-5B
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
6258 G_5C
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
6258 G 5D
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
-5E
6258
G
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
625C
6
-5F
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
Wilson
6258 G IC1
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
GRIST
641
_8
B
_
2
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
GRIST
641_
3
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
GRIST
641_8 4
0.400
0.400
0.240
0.240
GRIST
641_B_5
0.400
0.400
0.240
0.240
GRIST
641 B 7
0.482
0.060
0.482
0.060
SCHOLZ
642 B 1
0.540
0.540
0.320
0.320
SCHOLZ
642
_B_2
0.570
0.570
0.320
0.320
SMITH
643 B 1
0.490
0.490
0.240
0.240
SMITH
643 B2
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
Lansing Smith
643 G
_
_CT1
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
GADSDEN
7_8_1
0.544
0.544
0.544
0.544
GADSDEN
7_B 2
0.544
0.544
0.544
0.544
Atkinson
700_G 5A
0.320
0.320
0.320
0 .320
Atkinson
700_G_5B
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
703_B_1BL
BOWEN
R
0.405
0.070
0.405
0.070
703_B_2BL
BOWEN
R
0.405
0.070
0.405
0 .070

 
BOWEN
BOWEN
Bowen
HAMMOND
HAMMOND
HAMMOND
HAMMOND
HARLLEE BRANCH
HARLLEE BRANCH
HARLLEE BRANCH
HARLLEE BRANCH
JACK MCDONOUGH
JACK MCDONOUGH
Jack McDonough
Jack McDonough
MCMANUS
MCMANUS
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
McManus
MITCHELL
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mitchell
Mode 1 Rate (Uncontrolled Base Rate)- This emission rate reflects current configuration of combustion
controls. If a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed
that it is not
operating .
Mode 2 Rate (Controlled Base Rate) -This emission rate reflects current configuration
of combustion. If
a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed that it is operating
.
Mode 3 Rate (Uncontrolled Policy Rate) - This emission rate reflects a state of the art configuration of
combustion controls. If a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed
that it is not operating
.
Mode 4 Rate (Controlled Policy Rate) -This emission rate reflects a state of the art configuration of
combustion controls. If a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed
that it is operating
.
For more details on the development of these rates please refer to h_ttp_/[w
_epss`~±~!Ii~~ tiefs,,
ena-
ipny_sm ion_7ngwsyspgpdf
703_B_3BL
R
0.409
0.070
0.409
0.070
703 B 4BL
R
0.419
0.070
0.419
0.070
703 G_6
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
708 B 1
0 .800
0.800
0.410
0.410
708 B2
0.800
0.800
0.410
0.410
708B-3
0 .800
0.800
0.410
0.410
708 B_4
0 .404
0.070
0.404
0.070
709
_
B1
0 .800
0.800
0.519
0.519
709 B_2
0 .800
0.800
0.374
0.374
7097B-3
0.800
0.800
0.381
0 .381
709 B_4
0.800
0.800
0.381
0.381
710_BMB1
0.450
0.450
0.230
0.230
710 B
_
MB2
0.450
0.450
0.230
0 .230
710 G 3A
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
710G_3B
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
715 B1
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
715_B2
0.310
0.310
0.310
0.310
715 (373A
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715 G 3B
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715 G_3C
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
7150 4A
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
_
715 G 4B
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715_0 4C
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715 G 4D
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715
G
4E
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715 G 4F
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
715 G IC1
3.200
3.200
3.200
3.200
727 B 3
0.625
0.625
0.625
0.625
727-64A
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
727 G74B
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880
727 G 4C
0.880
0.880
0.880
0.880

 
Existing Unit Level
S02
Control Technology Assumptions
Exhibit C1 .3: Chan es made to S0
2
Scrubber Installations in Vistas Phase I
Existing Unit Level Emission Rate Assumptions
Exhibit C1.4: Chan es made to S02 Emission Rate Limits lbs/MMBtu
in Vistas Phase I
GREENE COUNTY
10_B_ 1
4.000
1 .197
GREENE COUNTY
10_B_2
4.000
1 .197
EATON
2046_B_1
4.800
0.001
EATON
2046_B_2
4.800
0.001
EATON
2046_B_3
4.800
0.001
SWEATT
2048_B_ 1
4.800
0.001
SWEATT
2048132
4.800
0.001
JACK WATSON
2049_B_ 1
4.800
0.001
JACK WATSON
2049_B_2
4.800
0.001
JACK WATSON
2049_B_3
4.800
0.001
JACK WATSON
2049_B_4
4.800
0.885
JACK WATSON
2049_B_5
4.800
0.885
E C GASTON
26_B_ 1
3.800
1 .667
E C GASTON
26_B_2
3.800
1 .667
E C GASTON
26_B_3
3 .800
1 .667
E C GA
ASTON
26_B_4
3.800
1 .667
E C GASTON
26_B_5
3.800
1 .667
BUCK
2720_B_5
2.300
1 .630
BUCK
2720_B_6
2.300
1 .630
BUCK
2720_B_7
2.300
1 .630
BUCK
2720_B_8
2.300
1 .630
BUCK
2720_B_9
2.300
1 .630
CLIFFSIDE
2721 _B_ 1
2.300
2 .200
CLIFFSIDE
2721_B_2
2.300
2.200
CLIFFSIDE
2721_B_3
2.300
2 .200
CLIFFSIDE
2721_8_4
2.300
2.200
CLIFFSIDE
2721_B_5
2.300
2.200
DAN RIVER
2723_B_1
2.300
1 .810
DAN RIVER
2723_B_2
2.300
1 .810
DAN RIVER
2723_B_3
2.300
1 .810
BARRY
3_B_ 1
1 .800
1 .197
BARRY
3_B_2
1 .800
1 .197
BARRY
3_8_3
1 .800
1 .197
BARRY
3_B_4
1.800
1 .197
BARRY
3_B_5
1 .800
1 .197
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002_B_ 1
1 .800
0.795
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002 B 2
1 .800
0.795
NORTH BRANCH POWER
7537B_1A
Dry Scrubber
STATION
NORTH BRANCH POWER
7537B_1
_B
Dry Scrubber
STATION
Morgantown Energy Facility
10743_G GEN1
Dry Scrubber

 
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002B3
1 .800
0.795
JAMES H MILLER JR
6002_B_4
1 .800
0.795
VICTOR J DANIEL JR .
6073B1
4.800
0.885
VICTOR J DANIEL JR
.
6073B2
4.800
0.885
SCHERER
6257_B_1
1 .200
0.796
SCHERER
6257_B_2
1 .200
0.796
SCHERER
6257_B_3
1 .200
0.796
SCHERER
6257_B_4
1 .200
0.796
CRIST
641_B_2
0.740
0 .001
CRIST
641_B_3
0 .740
0.001
CRIST
641B4
5.900
1 .197
CRIST
641B5
5.900
1 .197
CRIST
641_B_6
5.900
1 .197
CRIST
641 B_7
5.900
1 .197
SCHOLZ
642 B_ 1
6.170
1 .200
SCHOLZ
642 B_2
6.170
1 .200
SMITH
643_B 1
6.170
1 .197
SMITH
643_B 2
6.170
1 .197
GADSDEN
7 B 1
4.000
2.500
GADSDEN
7-B-2
4.000
2.500
BOWEN
703_B_1BLR
4.580
1 .667
HAMMOND
708_B_1
4.580
1.667
HAMMOND
708B2
4.580
1 .667
HAMMOND
708B3
4.580
1 .667
HAMMOND
708_B_4
4.580
1.667
HARLLEE BRANCH
709_B_1
4.580
1 .667
HARLLEE BRANCH
709_B_2
4.580
1 .667
HARLLEE BRANCH
709B3
4.580
1 .667
HARLLEE BRANCH
709_B_4
4.580
1 .667
JACK MCDONOUGH
710_B_MBI
4.580
1 .667
JACK MCDONOUGH
710_B_MB2
4.580
1 .667
MCMANUS
715_B_ 1
3.159
2.620
MCMANUS
715_B_2
3.159
2.620
MITCHELL
727_B_3
4.580
2.500
YATES
728_B_Y2BR
4.580
1 .667
YATES
728_B_Y3BR
4.580
1.667
YATES
728_B_Y4BR
4.580
1 .667
YATES
728_B_Y5BR
4.580
1.667
KRAFT
733_B_1
4.580
1 .270
KRAFT
733B2
4.580
1.270
KRAFT
733B3
4.580
1 .270
KRAFT
733_B_4
0.800
0.001
RIVERSIDE
734B11
2.632
0.001
RIVERSIDE
734B12
3.159
0.001
RIVERSIDE
734_B_4
2.632
0.001
RIVERSIDE
734_B_5
2.632
0.001
RIVERSIDE
734_B_6
2.632
0.001
GORGAS
8-B-10
4.000
1 .667
GORGAS
8_B_6
4.000
2.500
GORGAS
8 B 7
4.000
2.500

 
Existing Unit Level PM Control Assumptions
Exhibit C1 .5: Changes made to Particulate Matter (PM)
Control Installations in Vistas Phase I
Existinq Unit Characteristics -Summer Net Dependable
VACA SC-Combined Cycle
CRIST
Lansing Smith
Atkinson
Atkinson
Dahlberg
Dahlberg
FRANKLIN
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
SCE&G Hardeeville
SCE&G Hardeeville
SCE&G Hardeeville
Cross 3
Exhibit C1.6: Changes made to Summer Net
De endable Ca acit M
in Vistas Phase I
Zero capacity denotes that unit was retired in 2002 .
G G ALLEN
2718_B_3
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
G G ALLEN
2718_8_5
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
WESTON
4078 B 3
Hot-side ESP + Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter
077_C 077
1317
807
64181
B_1
24
0"
A274_G_A274
500
530
700_G_5A
32
15.3
700_G_5B
32
15.3
7709_G_10
75
80
7709G9
75
80
A7840_G_A331
570
630
A294_G_A294
320
326.8
A295_G_A295
240
245.1
A296_G_A296
80
81.7
3286 C_2
170
3286 C_
3
170
3286 C_4
170
130C3
660

 
Existing Unit Heat Rate Data
Existinq Unit Unit ID
E hibit C1.7: Chan es made to Heat Rate Btu/kWh in Vistas Phase I
E hibit C1 .8: Unit ID Chan
2
3-4
5-6
1-4
5-7
8
Committed Units-Control Decisions
Exhibit C1 .9: Duke and Progress Energy S02 Control Plan for North Carolina Clean
Smokestacks Rule in Vistas Phase I
Asheville 1
Scrubber
2005
Progress Energy
Asheville 2
Scrubber
2006
Progress Energy
Cape Fears
Scrubber
2012
Progress Energy
Capefear6
Scrubber
2011
Progress Energy
Mayo 1
Scrubber
2008
Progress Energy
Roxboro 1
Scrubber
2009
Progress Energy
Roxboro 2
Scrubber
2007
Progress Energy
Roxboro 3
Scrubber
2007
Progress Energy
Roxboro 4
Scrubber
2007
Progress Energy
Sutton 3
Scrubber
2012
Progress Energy
Allen 1
Scrubber
2011
Duke Power
Allen 2
Scrubber
2011
Duke Power
Allen 3
Scrubber
2011
Duke Power
Allen 4
Scrubber
2012
Duke Power
Allen 5
Scrubber
2012
Duke Power
Belews Creek 1
Scrubber
2008
Duke Power
Belews Creek 2
Scrubber
2008
Duke Power
Cliffside 5
Scrubber
2009
Duke Power
Marshall 1
Scrubber
2007
Duke Power
Marshall 2
Scrubber
2007
Duke Power
Marshall 3
Scrubber
2006
Duke Power
Marshall 4
Scrubber
2006
Duke Power
Talbot County Energy
A397 G_A397
397
Talbot County Energy
A398 G_A398
398
Talbot County Energy
A399_G A399
399
Talbot County Energy
A400 G A400
400
Mill Creek
A294_G A294
294
Mill Creek
A295 G_A295
295
Mill Creek
A296 G A296
296

 
Exhibit C1.10: Duke and Progress Energy NO, Control Plan for North Carolina Clean
Smokestacks Rule in Vistas Phase I
Source: Gregory Stella, VISTAS Technical Advisor for Emissions Inventories
.
Asheville 1
SCR
2009
Progress Energy
Lee 2
ROFA
2007
Progress Energy
Lee 3
SCR
2010
Progress Energy
Sutton 2
ROFA
2006
Progress Energy
Allen 1
SNCR
2003
Duke Power
Allen 2
SNCR
2007
Duke Power
Allen 3
SNCR
2005
Duke Power
Allen 4
SNCR
2006
Duke Power
Allen 5
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Belews Creek 1
SCR
2003
Duke Power
Belews Creek 2
SCR-
2004
Duke Power
Buck 3
SNCR
2009
Duke Power
Buck 4
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Buck 5
SNCR
2006
Duke Power
Buck 6
SNCR
2007
Duke Power
Cliffside 1
SNCR
2009
Duke Power
Cliffside 2
SNCR
2009
Duke Power
Cliffside 3
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Cliff side 4
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Cliffside 5
SCR
2002
Duke Power
Dan River 1
SNCR
2009
Duke Power
Dan River 2
SNCR
2009
Duke Power
Dan River 3
SNCR
2007
Duke Power
Marshall 1
SNCR
2007
Duke Power
Marshall 2
SNCR
2006
Duke Power
Marshall 3
SNCR
2005
Duke Power
Marshall 4
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Riverbend 4
SNCR
2007
Duke Power
Riverbend 5
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Riverbend 6
SNCR
2008
Duke Power
Riverbend 7
SNCR
2007
Duke Power

 
Phase 11 Changes
Potential Units Characteristics - Cost and Heat Rate
Exhibit C2.1: Default Cost and Heat Rate for Potential Units in Vistas Phase 11
Coal Steam
8670
3.75
22.49
1104.27
IGCC
7517
2.38
31 .59
1260.31
Combined Cycle
6857
1 .69
10.19
516.12
Turbine
10450
2.92
9.90
360 .09
ACT
8550
2.59
8.60
332 .39
ACC
6393
1 .63
9.56
501 .35

 
Existinq Unit Characteristics-Capacity
Unit in Vistas Phase II
FLINT CREEK
6138_B_1
480.0
528.0
Indianola
1150G1
0.6
0.3
Indianola
1150G2
1 .2
1 .1
Indianola
1150G3
0.8
1 .0
Indianola
1150G5
3.5
3.6
Indianola
1150G7
18.5
18.1
MUSCATINE
1167_B_7
25.6
0.0
MUSCATINE
1167_B_8
76.3
35.0
MUSCATINE
1167_B_9
161.0
147.0
PELLA
1175_B_7
20.1
12.8
PELLA
1175_B_8
2.8
15.0
PELLA
1175_B_6
15.6
15.0
Summit Lake
1206_G_IC1
0.9
1
.1
Summit Lake
1206G1
6.9
6.0
Summit Lake
1206G2
7.0
6.4
Summit Lake
1206G3
7.6
7.1
Summit Lake
1206_G_GT1
31 .0
30.9
Summit Lake
1206_G_GT2
30.0
31.2
EARL F WISDOM
1217_B_1
38.5
37.5
FAIR STATION
1218 B_1
23.4
23.4
LA CYGNE
1241_B 1
682.0
724.0
LA CYGNE
1241_B_2
668.0
674.0
Fredonia
1277G3
0.3
1 .4
Fredonia
1277G4
0.5
2.5
Fredonia
1277G2
1 .3
1 .4
EAST 12TH STREET
7013_B_4
28.7
25.8
Osawatomie
A324_G_A324
84.0
77.0
West Gardner
A429_G_A429
334 .0
308.0
Russell Energy Cntr
A374_G_A374
15.0
12.8
Erie
1276 G_4
1 .5
1 .1
Erie
1276 G_ 1
0.6
1.1
Erie
1276 G_3
1 .0
1.1
ARSENAL HILL
1416_B_5A
120.0
110.0
LIEBERMAN
1417 B_2
26.0
25 .0
LIEBERMAN
1417 B_3
110.0
111 .0
LIEBERMAN
1417 B_4
111.0
109.0
WATERFORD #3 NUCLEAR
4270_B_W 3-1 N
1159.0
1075.0
RIVER BEND NUCLEAR
6462_B_1N
997.0
936.0
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_03
18.0
25.0
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_04
18.0
25.0
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_06
18.0
25.0
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_07
18.0
25.0
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099 G 08
18.0
25.0
Bayou Cove Peaking Power
A55433_G_A112
320.0
300.0
Perryville
A328 G A328
558.0
637.0

 
ASBURY
2076_B_ 1
211 .0
213.0
HAWTHORN
2079_B_9
120.4
137.0
Hawthorn
2079G7
73.1
77.0
Hawthorn
2079 G_8
73.1
77.0
HAWTHORN
2079_B 5
550.0
565.0
MONTROSE
2080
B_ 1
155.0
170.0
MONTROSE
2080 B_2
153.0
164 .0
MONTROSE
2080 B_3
161 .0
176 .0
LABADIE
2103_B_ 1
574.0
600 .0
LABADIE
2103_B_2
574 .0
597.0
LABADIE
2103B3
576.0
612.0
LABADIE
2103_B_4
576.0
612.0
MERAMEC
2104_B_ 1
132 .0
114.0
MERAMEC
2104_B_2
132 .0
114.0
MERAMEC
2104_B_3
277.0
272.0
MERAMEC
2104B4
336.0
321 .0
State Line Combined Cycle
7296_G_2-1
129.0
250.0
Columbia
55447_G_CT01
31.6
35.0
Columbia
55447_G_CT02
31 .6
35 .0
Columbia
55447 G_CT03
31 .6
35.0
Columbia
55447_G_CT04
31 .6
35.0
WHELAN ENERGY CENTER
60 B_ 1
72.0
76.3
NORTH DENVER
2244 B_5
20.0
22.0
Kearney
2268 G_1
1.0
1 .3
Jones Street
2290G11
54.7
59.0
Jones Street
2290 G_2
54.7
59.0
NORTH OMAHA
2291 B_1
75.6
79.0
NORTH OMAHA
2291 B_2
110.5
111 .0
NORTH OMAHA
2291 B_3
110.5
111 .0
NORTH OMAHA
2291 B_4
133.2
138.0
NORTH OMAHA
2291 B_5
214.7
224.0
Sarpy County
2292 G_ 1
51 .4
55.0
Sarpy County
2292 G_2
51 .4
55.0
Sarpy County
2292 G_3
105.5
106.0
Sarpy County
2292_G_BSD
3.4
3.0
Sarpy County
2292 G_4
47.5
48.0
Sarpy County
2292G5
47.5
48.0
NEBRASKA CITY
6096 B 1
584.9
646.0
COOPER NUCLEAR
8036_B_1N
758.0
778.0
Cass County
A138_G_A138
330.0
320.0
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3302
485.0
480.0
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3313
460.0
450.0
Northeastern
2963_B_3301A
163.0
157.0
Weleetka
2966 G_4
53 .0
55.0
Weleetka
2966 G_6
47 .0
54.0
Riverside
4940_G_IC1
3.0
2.8
OKLAUNION
127 B_ 1
676.0
690.0
LIMESTONE
298_B_LIM1
720.0
836.0
LIMESTONE
298 B LIM2
720.0
766.0

 
P H ROBINSON
3466_B_PHR4
739.0
737.0
T H Wharton
3469_G_33
48.0
57.0
T H Wharton
3469_G_34
48.0
57.0
T H Wharton
3469G41
48.0
57.0
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP8
555.0
610.0
WILKES
3478_B 3
343.0
348.0
PAINT CREEK
3524 B_4
117.0
118.0
Rio Pecos
3526 G_4
3.0
5.0
RIO PECOS
3526 B_5
36.0
38.0
San Angelo
3527 G_1
22.0
21 .0
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B_ 1
580.0
598.0
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B 2
580.0
598.0
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B_3
435.0
445.0
PIRKEY
7902_B_ 1
580.0
675.0
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN1
84.0
115.0
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN2
84 .0
115.0
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN3
84.0
115.0
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN4
81 .1
115.0
Lost Pines I
55154_G_CTA
155.7
162.0
Lost Pines I
55154_G_CTB
155.7
162.0
Lost Pines I
55154_G-ST
163.9
176.0
PRESQUE ISLE
1769_B_5
87.0
88.0
PRESQUE ISLE
1769_B_6
90.0
88.0
PRESQUE ISLE
1769B7
85.0
88.0
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_8
85.0
88.0
Elgin Energy Center
A191_G_A191
117.0
107.0
Elgin Energy Center
A194_G_A194
117.0
107.0
Grand Tower
862 G_1-3
213.2
325.0
NEWTON
6017 B 1
555.0
557 .0
NEWTON
6017 B_2
555.0
569.0
MONROE
1733_B 1
750.0
770 .0
MONROE
1733_B 2
750.0
785.0
MONROE
1733 B_3
750.0
795.0
MONROE
1733_B_4
750.0
775.0
ST CLAIR
1743 B_1
163.0
153.0
ST CLAIR
1743 B 2
162.0
162.0
ST CLAIR
1743_B 3
163.0
171 .0
ST CLAIR
1743 B_4
162.0
158.0
ST CLAIR
1743_B_6
294.0
321 .0
Lakefield Junction
7925 G_4
72.3
87.0
Lakefield Junction
7925-G5
72.3
87.0
Lakefield Junction
7925 G_6
72.3
87.0
M L HIBBARD
1897 B_3
36.9
33.3
M L HIBBARD
1897 B_4
13.9
15.3
OWATONNA
2003B6
19.9
14.0
De Pere Energy Center
55029 G_CT01
186.1
183.0
PULLIAM
4072 B_3
28.6
26.0
PULLIAM
4072_B_4
27.0
29.0
PULLIAM
4072B5
50.2
51 .0

 
PULLIAM
4072_B_6
70.9
69.0
PULLIAM
4072_B_7
86.7
82.0
PULLIAM
4072_B_8
143.5
132.0
Pulliam
A338_G_A338
83.0
74.0
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_7
23.7
22.4
BLOUNT STREET
3992_8_8
49.4
49.0
BLOUNT STREET
3992B9
48.8
48.2
Concord
7159_G_1
83.0
94.0
Concord
7159G2
83.0
94.0
Concord
7159_G_3
83.0
94.0
Concord
7159_G_4
83.0
94.0
Paris
7270 G_ 1
83.0
100.0
Pads
7270 G_2
83.0
100.0
Paris
7270 G_3
83.0
100.0
Paris
7270 G_4
83.0
100.0
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170 B_ 1
600.0
617.0
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170_8_2
600.0
617.0
Pleasant Prairie
6170 G_3
2.0
2.0
WESTON
4078 B_ 1
61.5
62.0
WESTON
4078 B_2
81.8
86.0
WESTON
4078 B 3
334.3
338.0
Weston
4078_G_31
19.3
20.0
Weston
4078_G_32
48.6
47.0
West Marinette
4076_G_31
40.4
43.0
West Marinette
4076_G_32
41 .4
43.0
West Marinette
4076_G_33
80.2
75.0
West Marinette
7799_G_34
79.5
79.5
South Oak Creek
4041 G 9
20.0
18.0
VALLEY
4042 B_ 1
69.6
70.0
VALLEY
4042 B_2
70.4
70.0
VALLEY
4042 B_3
71 .0
70.0
VALLEY
4042_B 4
69.0
70.0
Valley
4042 G_3
3.0
3.0
Germantown
6253G1
53.0
63.0
Germantown
6253G3
53.0
63.0
Germantown
6253_G_4
53.0
63.0
Germantown
6253G5
72.6
93.0
AES Warrior Run Cogeneration Facility
10678_G_GEN1
204.3
180.0
C P CRANE
1552 B_1
190.0
200.0
C P CRANE
1552 B_2
190.0
200.0
Riverside
1559 G_8
22.0
17.0
Riverside
.
1559_G_GT7
22.0
17.0
Rockspring Generating
A366_G_A366
113.3
190.0
Rockspring Generating
A367_G_A367
113.3
190.0
Rockspring Generating
A368_G_A368
226.7
190 .0
Rockspring Generating
A369_G_A369
226.7
190.0
St Albans
3726_G_IC1
1 .1
1 .3
St Albans
3726_G_IC2
1 .1
1 .3
MO NTMLLE
546B6
402.0
407.4

 
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
.
568_B_BHB2
170.0
372.0
Bridgeport Harbor
568_G_4
14.6
9.9
Branford
540 G 10
14.9
16.2
Algonquin Power Windsor Locks LLC(fka Dexter)
10567_G_GTG
31 .6
26.0
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN1
169.4
0.0
Capital District Energy Center Cogen Ass
50498_G_GTG
41 .0
31 .9
Lake Road
55149_G_U1
177.3
232.1
AES Thames Incorporated
10675_G_GEN1
194.8
181 .0
Cos Cob
542 G 10
17.9
17.9
Cos Cob
542 G 11
17.1
18.2
Cos Cob
542 G 12
16.4
18.4
Franklin Drive
561G19
17.2
15.4
Middletown
562 G 10
17.2
17.1
Norwalk Harbor
548 G 10
11 .8
11 .9
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN2
169.4
224.0
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN3
178.5
224.0
New Milford Gas Recovery
50564_G_GENI
2.4
3.0
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG1
29.0
44.5
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG2
29.0
38.5
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG3
29.0
44.9
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG4
29.0
42.2
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG5
29.0
39.9
Hartford Landfill
55163_G_UNT1
0.9
0.8
Hartford Landfill
55163_G_UNT2
0.9
0.8
Hartford Landfill
55163_G_UNT3
0.9
0.8
Montville
546 G 10
2.8
2.7
Montville
546 G 11
2.8
2.7
Torrington
565 G_10
17.2
15.8
Tunnel
557 G 10
16.9
15.9
South Meadow
563 G 12
39.0
37.7
South Meadow
563 G 13
39.0
38.3
South Meadow
563G1 4
39.0
37.4
Capital District Energy Center Cogen Ass
50498_G_STG
31.7
19.8
Algonquin Power Windsor Locks LLC(fka Dexter)
10567_G_STG
12.6
12.0
Lake Road
55149_G_U2
177.3
227.0
NEW HAVEN HARBOR
6156_B_NHB1
447.0
447.9
Devon
544 G 12
30.5
29.8
Devon
544G13
30.8
33.3
Devon
544G14
31 .8
29.6
Clement Dam Hydroelectric LLC
10276_G_49
2.4
0.9
Lochmere Hydroelectric Plant
54572_G_UNT1
0.3
0 .1
Lochmere Hydroelectric Plant
54572_G_UNT2
0.3
0.1
Lochmere Hydroelectric Plant
54572_G_UNT3
0.3
0 .1
Lochmere Hydroelectric Plant
54572_G_UNT4
0.3
0.1
Pinetree Power Tamworth Inc
50739_G_GEN1
22.7
21 .0
White Lake
2369_G_GT1
17.7
16.2
Errol Hydroelectric Project
10570_G_1
3.0
2.5
Lost Nation
2362 G_GT1
13.7
15.0
Whitefield Power and Light Co
10839 G GEN1
14.5
14.4

 
Bridgewater Power Company LP
10290 G GEN1
18 .1
15.8
Newfound Hydroelectric Company
50324_G_1
0.8
0 .4
Newfound Hydroelectric Company
50324_G_2
0.8
0 .4
Pinetree Power Incoporated Bethlehem
50208_G_GEN1
16.4
15.8
Dunbarton Energy PartnersL P
50347_G_MA15
0.7
0.6
Four Hills Nashua Landfill
55006_G_UNT1
2.1
0.5
Four Hills Nashua Landfill
55006_G_UNT2
0.7
0.5
Gregg Falls
50384_G_ 1
2.2
0.0
Hillsborough Hosiery
10036_G_GEN1
0.6
0.1
Hillsborough Hosiery
10036_G_GEN2
0.6
0.1
Jackman
2360_G_ 1
3.6
3.6
Bio Energy Corporation
52041_G_GEN1
11 .4
0.0
Briar Hydro Assoc Penacook Upper Falls F
50414_G_1
3.4
0.9
Briar Hydro Associates Rolfe Canal Facil
50351G1
4.3
1 .1
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
50873_G_GEN1
12.5
12.5
EHC West Hopkinton
54384_G_GEN1
1 .0
0.5
Franklin Industrial Complex
10109 G_ 1
0.4
0.3
Franklin Industrial Complex
10109_G_2
0.2
0.3
Merrimack
2364_G_GT1
16.3
16.8
Pembroke Hydro
50312 G_ 1
2.7
0.5
Mine Falls Ltd Partnership
10183_G_GEN1
2.9
0.0
NEWINGTON
8002_B_ 1
406.0
400.2
SCHILLER
2367_8_5
49.6
47.2
SCHILLER
2367_B_6
48.0
47.9
Milton Hydro
10519_G_2
0.4
0.1
Milton Hydro
10519_G_3
0.3
0.1
Milton Hydro
10519_G_4
0.5
0.1
Rollinsford
54418_G_GEN1
0.8
0.3
Rollinsford
54418_G_GEN2
0.8
0.3
Somersworth Lower Great Dam
50704_G_GEN1
1 .3
0.5
Hemphill Power and Light Company
10838_G_GEN1
14.3
14.1
Fore River Generating Station
A199_G_A199
687.5
775.0
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_ 1
89.0
91 .0
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_2
89.0
91 .0
INDIAN RIVER
594_8_3
162.0
165.0
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_4
403.0
420.0
Indian River
594_G_10
17 .0
20.0
Lewes
600_G_7
0.9
0.9
Lewes
600 G_8
0.9
0.9
Seaford
601_G_7
1 .1
1 .1
Hay Road
7153_G_ 1
112.0
100.0
Hay Road
7153_G_2
112.0
100.0
Hay Road
7153_G_3
112 .0
100 .0
Van Sant Station
7318 G_ 1
39.0
40.0
Stone Container Corporation Hopewell Mil
50813_G_GEN1
4.8
47.6
Cogentrix Hopewell
10377 G GEN1
39.1
54.6
Cogentrix Hopewell
10377_G_GEN2
39.1
54.6
Reusens
3779 G_1
10.4
2 .5
Smith Mountain
3780-G-1
70.0
66.0

 
Smith Mountain
3780 G_2
160.0
174.0
Smith Mountain
3780 G_3
105.0
106.0
Smith Mountain
3780 G_4
160.0
174.0
Smith Mountain
3780_05
70.0
66.0
Leesville
3777 G_1
17.3
25.0
Leesville
3777 G_2
17.3
25.0
Buck
3772 G_1
8.6
2.8
Buck
3772 G_2
2.8
2.8
Buck
3772 G_3
2.8
2.8
Byllesby
3773 G_1
4.3
4.3
Byllesby
3773 G_2
4.3
4.3
Byllesby
3773 G_3
4.3
4.3
Byllesby
3773 G_4
4.3
4.3
Claytor
3774 G_ 1
16.4
18.8
Claytor
3774_02
16.4
18.8
Claytor
3774G3
16.4
18.8
Claytor
3774_04
16.4
18.8
Niagara
3778_
01
2.6
1.2
Niagara
3778_G_2
1 .2
1 .2
KANAWHA RIVER
3936_B 2
195.0
205.0
London
6560 G_1
13.8
4.8
London
6560 G_2
4.8
4.8
London
6560 G_3
4.8
4.8
Marmet
6561 G 1
13.8
4.8
Marmet
6561_02
4.8
4.8
Marmet
6561 G 3
4.8
4.8
KAMMER
3947 B_1
200.0
205.0
KAMMER
3947_B_2
200.0
205.0
KAMMER
3947_B 3
200.0
205.0
PHILIP SPORN
3938 B 51
440.0
445.0
Winfield
6562 G_ 1
16.4
4.9
Winfield
6562 G_2
4.9
4.9
Winfield
6562 G_3
4.9
4.9
PLEASANTS
6004 B_ 1
614.0
639.0
PLEASANTS
6004 B_2
614.0
639.0
Wrightsville Power Facility
A446_G_A446
67.8
74.0
Wrightsville Power Facility
A445_G_A445
161 .7
74.0
Wrightsville Power Facility
A444_G_A444
30.1
16.5
Wrightsville Power Facility
A443_G_A443
20.9
16.5
Wrightsville Power Facility
A442_G_A442
65.2
74.0
Wrightsville Power Facility
A441_G_A441
155.3
74.0
Wrightsville Power Facility
A440_G_A440
28.9
16.5
Wrightsville Power Facility
A439_G_A439
20.1
17.4
Evangeline Power Station
55305_G_U7CT
186.4
155.0
Evangeline Power Station
55305_G_U72
186.4
155.0
Evangeline Power Station
55305_G_U6CT
186.4
157.0
Evangeline Power Station
553o5_G_7ST
240 .1
178.0
Evangeline Power Station
55305_G_6ST
112.3
104.0
Buchanan
1754G1
1 .7
0.4

 
Hay Road
A7153_G_A435
500 .0
179.0
MAPP IA_Turbine
045_C_045
170 .0
0.0
ENTG LA Combined Cycle
021 C 021
1409.0
509.0
MACW PA Combined Cycle
038_C_038
1150.0
550.0
ERCT TX Combined Cycle
027_C_027
255.0
0.0
ERCT_TX Turbine
025_C_025
220.0
180.0
WUMS WI Combined Cycle
081 _C_081
1390.0
845.0
ELK RIVER
2039 B_1
11 .3
7.8
ELK RIVER
2039 B_2
9.3
7.5
ELK RIVER
2039 B_3
19.2
14.5
State Line Combined Cycle
7296_G_2
152.0
250.0
Cayuga
1001_G_4
99.0
106.0
Connersville
1002_G_ 1
42.0
43 .0
Walter C Beckjord
2830_G_GT1
46.6
51 .0
Walter C Beckjord
2830_G_GT3
46.6
51 .0
Walter C Beckjord
2830_G_GT4
46.6
51 .0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT1
77.0
83.0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT2
77.0
83.0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT3
77.0
83.0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT4
77.0
83.0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT5
77.0
83.0
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT6
77.0
83:0
Concord Facility
50873_G_GEN1
12.5
6.3
Anita
1123 G 6
1825.0
1 .8

 
Cogeneration Flaq
Exhibit C2.3: Cogeneration' Flag Revision by Unit in Vistas Phase
II
MUSCATINE
1167B8
No
Yes
VALLEY
4042B1
No
Yes
VALLEY
4042
_B_2
No
Yes
VALLEY
4042_B_3
No
Yes
VALLEY
4042B4
No
Yes
Bio Energy Corporation
52041_G_GEN1
Yes
No
Indeck Pepperell Power Facility
10522_G_GEN1
No
Yes
Indeck Pepperell Power Facility
10522_G_GEN2
No
Yes
BLACKSTONE STREET
1594B1 1
No
Yes
BLACKSTONE STREET
1594_8_12
No
Yes
BLACKSTONE STREET
1594_B_5
No
Yes
BLACKSTONE STREET
1594_8_6
No
Yes
KENDALL SQUARE
1595B1
No
Yes
KENDALL SQUARE
1595B2
No
Yes
KENDALL SQUARE
1595_B_3
No
Yes'
CANAL
1599_B_1
Yes
No
Pittsfield Generating Company L P
50002_G_GEN2
No
Yes
Pittsfield Generating. Company L P
50002_G_GEN3
No
Yes
Pittsfield Generating Company L P
50002_G_GEN4
No
Yes
Kendall Square
A259 G A259
No
Yes

 
Existing Unit Emissions Controls
E hibit C2.4: NOx Combustion Control Chan
Unit in Vistas Phase II
Combustion Modification ; add LNB in
2709B2
Combustion Modification
2006
MONROE
14411
Flue Gas Recirculation
Empire Energy
Center
Empire Energy
Center
A184_G A184
A185 G A185
Water Injection
Water Injection
SABINE
3459_B 3
Low NOx Burner Technology with
Separated OFA (Tangentially-fired units
only)
OFA
SABINE
3459B4
Combustion Modification
Flue Gas Recirculation
SABINE
3459 B-5
Low NOx Burner Technology with Close-
coupled OFA (Tangentially-fired units
only)
OFA
ROCKPORT
6166 B_MB1
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
LNB & OFA
ROCKPORT
6166 B_MB2
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
LNB & OFA
CONESVILLE
CONESVILLE
CONES VILLE
2840131
2840_B2
2840_B4
Other
OFA
OFA
LNB + OFA + BOOS
CONESVILLE-
2840B5
Overfire Air
LNB+OFA
CONESVILLE
2840 B-6
Overfire Air
LNB+OFA
Exeter Energy
Project
GLEN LYN
50736 G GEN1
3776 B 51
Other
thermal de-NOx (urea injection)
LNB
GLEN LYN
3776B52
Other
LNB
KANAWHA
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
RIVER
3936B1
boilers only)
OFA + CANALIS
KANAWHA
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
RIVER
3936B2
boilers only)
OFA + CANALIS
PHILIP SPORN
3938B1 1
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
OFA
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B21
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
OFA
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B31
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
OFA
PHILIP SPORN
3938B41
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
OFA
BIG SANDY
1353 B BSU1
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom
boilers only)
LNB+OFA

 
Existinq Unit Characteristics- Location Codes
Exhibit C2.5: Plant Location Revisions b
Gilliam South
7857G1
GUTHRIE
ADAIR
77
1
Lenox Wind
Turbine
ZZ351_C_1
TAYLOR
173
Mulvane
1308_G_2
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Mulvane
1308 G_ 1
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Mulvane
1308G4
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Mulvane
1308 G_3
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Mulvane
1308_G_5
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Mulvane
1308G6
SEDGWICK
SUMNER
173
191
Bayou Cove
Peaking Power
A55433 G A112
JEFFERSON
DAVIS
ACADIA
53
1
Bergen
2398_G_1SC
HUDSON
BERGEN
17
3
Bergen
2398_G-1ST
HUDSON
BERGEN
17
3
Bergen
2398G3
HUDSON
BERGEN
17
3
Bergen
A121 G A121
HUDSON
BERGEN
17
3
Essex Junction
Wastewater
Trea
ZZ133_C_1
CHITTENDEN
7
Bradford
ZZ118-C-1
BRADFORD
15
Hum bolt
Industries,
Energy Unl
ZZ480 C-1
LUZERNE
79
Meyersdale
Wind Power
Project
ZZ382_C_1
SOMERSET
111
Rolling Hills
55884C N01
BERKS
11
Rolling Hills
55884_C_N02
BERKS
11
Reusens
3779 G_ 1
CAMPBELL
BEDFORD
31
19
Reusens
3779 G_2
CAMPBELL
BEDFORD
31
19
Reusens
3779_G_3
CAMPBELL
BEDFORD
31
19
Reusens
3779 G_4
CAMPBELL
BEDFORD
31
19
Reusens
3779 G_5
CAMPBELL
BEDFORD
31
19
Smith Mountain
3780 G_1
FRANKLIN
BEDFORD
67
19
Smith Mountain
3 780 G 2
FRANKLIN
BEDFORD
67
19
Smith Mountain
3780 G 3
FRANKLIN
BEDFORD
67
19
Smith Mountain
3780 G_4
FRANKLIN
BEDFORD
67
19
Smith Mountain
3780 G_5
FRANKLIN
BEDFORD
67
19
Winfield
6562 G_1
KANAWHA
PUTNAM
39
79
Winfield
6562 G_2
KANAWHA
PUTNAM
39
79
Winfield
6562G3
KANAWHA
PUTNAM
39
79
North Plant
7922 C 10
PO WESHIEK
157

 
Existing Unit Characteristics-Firinq Type
Exhibit C2.6: Firin T
e Revisions b Unit in Vistas Phase II
HARVEY COUCH
169B1
Wall
HARVEY COUCH
169_B_2
Wall
LAKE CATHERINE
170_B_3
Wall
LAKE CATHERINE
170B4
Tangential
ROBERT E RITCHIE
173_B_ 1
Cyclone
ROBERT E RITCHIE
173_B_2
Tangential
FAIR STATION
1218 B_1
wall
CIMARRON RIVER
1230 B_ 1
wall
JUDSON LARGE
1233 B_4
wall
ARTHUR MULLERGREN
1235 B_3
wall
GORDON EVANS
1240 B_ 1
wall
GORDON EVANS
1240_B_2
wall
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_1
wall
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_2
wall
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_3
wall
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_4
wall
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_1
wall
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_2
wall
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_3
wall
R S NELSON
1393_B_3
tangential
R S NELSON
1393_B 4
wall
WILLOW GLEN
1394_B_ 1
tangential
WILLOW GLEN
1394B2
tangential
WILLOW GLEN
1394 B_3
wall
WILLOW GLEN
1394 B_4
wall
WILLOW. GLEN
1394B5
tangential
TECHE
1400B1
front firing
TECHE
1400B2
front firing
TECHE
.
1400B3
opposed
LITTLE GYPSY
1402_B_1
wall
LITTLE GYPSY
1402B2
wall
LITTLE GYPSY
1402B3
wall
NINEMILE POINT
1403B1
wall
NINEMILE POINT
1403B2
wall
NINEMILE POINT
140383
wall
NINEMILE POINT
1403_B_4
tangential
NINEMILE POINT
1403B5
tangential
STERLINGTON
1404_B_10
wall
MICHOUD
1409B1
wall
MICHOUD
1409_B 2
wall
MICHOUD
1409_B_3
wall
ARSENAL HILL
1416_B_5A
tang
LIEBERMAN
1417_B_3
tang
LIEBERMAN
1417 B 4
tanq
CHAMOIS
2169B1
cyclone
LEWIS GREEK
3457B1
wall
LEWIS CREEK
3457 B 2
wall

 
SABINE
3459B1
tangential
SABINE
3459B2
tangential
SABINE
3459_B_3
tangential
SABINE
3459B4
wall
SABINE
3459_B_5
tangential
San Angelo
3527_G_ 1
other
SAN ANGELO
352762
wall
SAM SEYMOUR
6179_B_ 1
wall
tangential
MONROE
1733131
wall
cell
MONROE
1733_B_2
wall
cell
MONROE
1733_B_3
wall
cell
MONROE
1733B4
wall
cell
GREENWOOD
6035 B_1
wall
BEACON HEATING
1724_B_1
wall
BEACON HEATING
1724_B_2
wall
BEACON HEATING
1724_B_3
wall
BEACON HEATING
1724_B_4
wall
CONNERS CREEK
1726B1 5
wall
CONNERS CREEK
1726_B_16
wall
GEN J M GAVIN
8102_B_ 1
wall
cell
GEN J M GAVIN
8102B2
wall
cell
CARDINAL
2828_ B_1
wall
cell
CARDINAL
2828_B_2
wall
cell
MUSKINGUM RIVER
2872B5
wall
cell
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_7
wall
other
DEVON
544 B 7
FF
DEVON
544B8-
FF
NORWALK HARBOR
548B1
TF
NORWALK HARBOR
548_B_2
TF
MIDDLETOWN
562_B_2
FF
MONTVILLE
546_B_5
TF
MONTVILLE
546_B_6
TF
MIDDLETOWN
562_B_4
TF
MIDDLETOWN
562B3
CY
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB2
CY
Occum
582 G_ 1
other
Bantam
6457 G_1
other
NEW HAVEN HARBOR
6156_B_NHB1
TF
Robertsville
549 G_ 1
other
Robertsville
549G2
other
NEWINGTON
8002_B_ 1
Tangential
EDGE MOOR
593_B_5
Wall
MCKEE RUN
599_B_1
wall
MCKEE RUN
599B2
wall
MCKEERUN
599_B_3
wall
M L HIBBARD
1897_B_3
stoker
M L HIBBARD
1897 B 4
stoker
I
MERRIMACK
2364 B 1
cyclone
wall
I

 
Exhibit C2.7: Bottom Type Revisions by Unit in Vistas Phase II
FAIR STATION
1218_B_ 1
Dry
CIMARRON RIVER
1230B1
Dry
JUDSON LARGE
1233_B_4
Dry
ARTHUR MULLERGREN
1235B3
dry
GORDON EVANS
1240_B_ 1
dry
GORDON EVANS
1240B2
dry
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_1
dry
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_2
dry
MURRAY GILL
1242B3
dry
MURRAY GILL
1242_B_4
dry
HUTCHINSON
1248B1
dry
HUTCHINSON
1248B2
dry
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_3
dry
CHAMOIS
2169B1
wet
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_8 BHB3
dry
wet
EDGE MOOR
593_B_5
dry
MCKEE RUN
599 B 1
dry
MCKEE RUN
599_B_2
dry
MCKEE RUN
599 B 3
dry

 
Existing Units Heat Rate
Exhibit C2.8: Heat Rate Revisions by Unit in Vistas Phase H
CECIL LYNCH
HAMILTON MOSES
HAMILTON MOSES
HARVEY COUCH
HARVEY COUCH
LAKE CATHERINE
LAKE CATHERINE
LAKE CATHERINE
LAKE CATHERINE
Mabelvale
ROBERT E RITCHIE
ROBERT E RITCHIE
Robert E Ritchie
FLINT CREEK
INDEPENDENCE
INDEPENDENCE
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Indianola
Lake Mills
Lake Mills
MUSCATINE
MUSCATINE
MUSCATINE
Summit Lake
Summit Lake
Summit Lake
Summit Lake
Summit Lake
EARL F WISDOM
FAIR STATION
FAIR STATION
LA CYGNE
LA CYGNE
Erie
Erie
Erie
DOLET HILLS
R S NELSON
R S NELSON
WILLOW GLEN
167 B_2
168 B_1
168_B 2
169 B_1
169 B_2
170 B_1
170 B_2
170 B_3
170 B_4
171 G_3
173 B_ 1
173 B_2
173_G_GT1
6138_B 1
6641_B_ 1
6641B2
1150_G_1
1150_G_2
1150_G_3
1150_G_4
1150_G_5
1150_G_6
1150G7
1154_G_5
1154_G_6
1167_B_7
1167B8
1167_B_9
1206_G_ 1
1206 G_2
1206 G_3
1206_G_GT1
1206_G_GT2
1217 B_1
1218 B_1
1218 B_2
1241_B_1
1241_B_2
1276_G_4
1276G1
1276G3
51-B- 1
1393_B_3
1393_B_4
1394 B 1
12740
12154
12154
12154
14416
11537
11372
12435
11007
15243
13002
11666
12688
10042
10619
11150
15130
15130
15130
15130
15130
15130
15130
11649
12666
11344
12029
11499
10041
10041
10041
14245
14245
13380
12067
12067
12050
10383
11990
11990
11990
10765
12531
11152
12039
12566
12188
11818
13725
11372
13356
13226
12208
11870
13999
10372
9931
14250
10300
10549
10442
10500
10500
10500
10500
10500
10500
12979
9700
9050
14114
15279
10740
10500
10500
10500
13500
13500
12200
11691
10609
10518
10740
9655
10057
10057
10674
10476
10419
10431
Cos Cob
542G1 1
11829
12700
I
I

 
Cos Cob
542 G 12
.
1 829
12700
Devon
544 G 10
9586
13300
Franklin Drive
561 G 19
11829
13300
Middletown
562 G 10
10592
13300
Norwalk Harbor
548 G 10
9708
14650
New Milford Gas Recovery
50564_G_GEN1
11805
17053
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG1
10888
9000
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG2
10888
9000
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG3
10888
9000
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG4
10888
9000
Wallingford
55517_G_CTGS
10888
9000
Montville
546 G 10
11829
11050
Montville
546G11
11829
11050
Torrington
565 G 10
11829
13300
Devon
544_G_11
9586
9771
Devon
544 G 12
12341
9771
Devon
544G1 3
12341
9771
Devon
544 G 14
12341
9771
MERRIMACK
2364_B 1
10252
11672
MERRIMACK
2364_B2
10180
10411
AES Granite Ridge Energy
A093_G_A093
7056
18680
NEWINGTON
8002_B_1
12361
14336
Newington Power Facility
A311_G_A311
7056
8402
SCHILLER
2367_B4
12866
13896
SCHILLER
2367 B_5
12808
13498
SCHILLER
2367_B 6
12688
12518
Christiana
591 G 11
12666
15789
Q1 ristiana
591 G 14
12666
16848
Delaware City
592 G 10
16500
15317
EDGE MOOR
593 B_3
9512
13668
EDGE MOOR
593 B_4
10116
9569
EDGE MOOR
593_B 5
10131
11070
Edge Moor
593 G 10
11829
18050
West Substation
597 G_ 1
11829
18146
MCKEE RUN
599 B_3
9903
12116
Lewes
600 G_7
9932
9967
Lewes
600 G_8
9932
9967
Seaford
601 G_1
11270
10404
Seaford
601 G_2
11270
10404
Seaford
601 G_3
10597
10379
Seaford
601 G_7
10000
10379
Seaford
601 G 6
9861
10445
Hay Road
7153 G_3
8500
15122
BIG SANDY
1353 8 BSU1
9627
10140
BIG SANDY
1353_B_BSU2
10720
9412
GLEN LYN
3776_B_51
12275
12427
GLEN LYN
3776_B_52
9484
12427
GLEN LYN
3776_B 6
9484
9434
CLINCH RIVER
3775_B_ 1
9638
9671
CLINCH RIVER
3775B2
9504
9784

 
CLINCH RIVER
3775B3
9445
9571
KANAWHA RIVER
3936B1
9781
9861
KANAWHA RIVER
3936B2
9866
9834
KAMMER
3947_B_1
9652
10389
KAMMER
3947_B_2
9609
10368
KAMMER
3947_B_3
9418
10362
MITCHELL
3948B1
9737
9876
MITCHELL
3948B2
9634
9793
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B_11
10366
10317
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B_21
10273
10000
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B_31
9646
9930
PHILIP SPORN
3938B41
9850
9779
PHILIP SPORN
3938B51
9594
9775
MOUNTAINEER
6264_B_1
10472
9264
JOHN EAMOS
3935B1
10477
9683
JOHN E AMOS
3935_B_2
10477
9802
JOHN E AMOS
3935B3
10477
9751
HARRISON
3944_B_ 1
10477
9918
HARRISON
3944 B_2
10477
9994
HARRISON
3944 B_3
10477
10069
RIVESVILLE
3945 B_7
11344
18031
RIVESVILLE
3945 B_8
11344
12648
FORT MARTIN
3943 B_1
9698
9584
FORT MARTIN
3943 B_2
9663
9470
WILLOW ISLAND
3946 B_1
12020
12684
WILLOW ISLAND
3946_B 2
10413
10953
PLEASANTS
6004 B_1
9858
10441
PLEASANTS
6004B2
9696
10162
ALBRIGHT
3942_B_1
10994
12516
ALBRIGHT
3942_B_2
12161
12516
ALBRIGHT
3942_B_3
10341
10788
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN1
8700
7251
ALLEN S KING
1915 B_ 1
9229
8879
ELK RIVER
2039 B_1
14500
14800
ELK RIVER
2039_B_2
14500
14800
ELK RIVER
2039_B 3
14500
14800
Blackhawk
4048 B_3
12154
15840
CAYUGA
1001 B_1
9979
10019
CAYUGA
1001 B 2
9915
9874
EAST BEND
6018_B_2
10472
9945
ED WARDS PORT
1004_B_7-1
13207
12727
ED WAR DS PORT
1004_B_7-2
13207
12727
ED WAR DS PORT
1004_B_8-1
13207
12754
R GALLAGHER
1008_B_ 1
11344
10328
R GALLAGHER
1008B2
11344
10139
R GALLAGHER
1008133
B_3
10720
10186
R GALLAGHER
1008134
10720
10328
GIBSON
6113_B_ 1
10477
9622
GIBSON
6113_B_2
10477
9785
GIBSON
6113B3
10477
9869

 
GIBSON
6113
B_4
10477
9910
GIBSON
6113
B_5
10472
10113
MIAMI FORT
2832 B_6
10013
9415
MIAMI FORT
2832 B_7
10436
9894
MIAMI FORT
2832B8
10477
9691
Noblesville
A313_G_A313
7056
7670
WABASH RIVER
1010_B_2
10816
10340
WABASH RIVER
1010133
10540
10456
WABASH RIVER
1010_B_4
11118
10456
WABASH RIVER
1010_B_5
10204
10747
WABASH RIVER
1010_B_6
10362
10274
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_ 1
11477
10260
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_2
11164
9806
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_3
10519
9598
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_4
10862
9290
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_5
10215
9634
WALTER C BECKJORD
2830_B_6
10514
9680
W H ZIMMER
601191311
B_ 1
9579
9624
Cayuga
1001_G_4
13195
10160
Connersville
1002_G_ 1
13628
11814
Connersville
1002_G_2
13628
11814
Dicks Creek
2831_G_ 1
15139
14544
Walter C Beckjord
2830 G_GT4
11567
11563
Woodsdale
7158 G_GT1
16492
12545
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT2
16492
12545
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT3
16492
12545
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT4
16492
12545
WQodsdale
7158_G_GT5
16492
12545
Woodsdale
7158_G_GT6
16492
12545
Wabash River 1
1010_G_1A
11175
9000
MIAMI FORT
2832_B_5-1
12684
12206
MIAMI FORT
2832 B 5-2
12684
12206
W eston
4078_G_31
14265
13949
Weston
4078_G_32
14265
13949
West Marinette
4076_G_31
14147
15040
West Marinette
4076_G_32
14147
15040
West Marinette
4076_G_33
14147
14489
West Marinette
7799_G_34
14314
14314
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041 B_5
9899
9857
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_8_6
10074
9907
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041 B_7
9914
9821
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_B_8
10124
9604
South Oak Creek
4041 G_9
11502
13428
VALLEY
4042 B_1
10720
13428
VALLEY
4042132
B_2
10720
13199
VALLEY
4042_B 3
10700
13199
VALLEY
4042 B 4,
10720
14749
BLACKHAWK
4048_B 4
12154
22416
ROCK RIVER
4057B1
13431
14435

 
ROCK RIVER
4057B2
13262
12169
Rock River
4057 G_3
13782
12614
Rock River
4057 G_5
13782
14265
Rock River
4057 G_6
13782
14158
Sheepskin
4059 G_ 1
12466
19469
EDGEWATER
4050 B_3
11685
11281
EDGEWATER
4050_B 4
10165
9924
EDGEWATER
4050 B_5
10070
10128
Germantown
6253 G_1
12961
13774
Germantown
6253 G_2
12961
13924
Germantown
6253 G_3
12961
14876
Germantown
6253 G_4
12961
19184
Germantown
6253 G_5
13209
13148
DEVON
544 B_7
10676
10710
DEVON
544 B_8
10908
10710
NORWALK HARBOR
548 B_ 1
10212
9756
NORWALK HARBOR
548 B_2
10286
9706
MIDDLETOWN
562_B 2
9725
9698
MONTVILLE
546_B_5
11309
9870
MONTVILLE
546 B_6
11982
10937
MIDDLETOWN
562_B_4
12712
10830
MIDDLETOWN
562_B 3
10643
8995
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB2
11093
11664
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB3
9831
10116
Bridgeport Harbor
568_G_4
9406
14497
Branford
540_0_10
14250
12700
Bridgeport Resco
50883_G_GENI
11000
9652
Cos Cob
542G10
11829
12700

 
Existing Units NOx Emission Rates bV Mode
Exhibit C2.9: NOx Emission Rate Revisions b
Unit in Vistas Phase II
CECIL LYNCH
167_B 2
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
CECIL LYNCH
167B3
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
Cecil Lynch
167 G 4
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
HAMILTON MOSES
168_B_ 1
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
HAMILTON MOSES
168_B_2
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
HARVEY COUCH
169_B_ 1
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.21
HARVEY COUCH
169_B_2
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
LAKE CATHERINE
170_B_ I
0.34
0.34
0.30
0.30
LAKE CATHERINE
170_B_2
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.47
LAKE CATHERINE
170_B_3
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
LAKE CATHERINE
170_B_4
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.16
Mabelvale
171_G_3
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
ROBERT E RITCHIE
173_B_ 1
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
Robert E Ritchie
173_G_GT1
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
WHITE BLUFF
6009 8 1
0.34
0.34
0.15
0.15
WHITE BLUFF
6009_B_2
0.34
0.34
0.13
0.13
FLINT CREEK
6138_B_ 1
0.26
0.26
0 .20
0.26
INDEPENDENCE
6641_B_ 1
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
INDEPENDENCE
6641_B_2
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
DUBUQUE
1046_B_6
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.93
DUBUQUE
1046_B_5
0.85
0.85
0.26
0.26
DUBUQUE
1046B1
0.64
0.64
0.24
0.24
LANSING
1047_8 1
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
LANSING
1047_B_2
0.35
0.35
0.32
0.32
LANSING
1047_B_3
0.72
0.72
0.35
0.35
LANSING
1047_B_4
0.39
0.39
0.20
0.20
MILTON L KAPP
1048_B_2
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_2
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.41
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_3
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.53
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_4
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.41
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_5
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.42
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_3
0.51
0.51
0.22
0.22
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_4
0.40
0.40
0.37
0.37
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_1
0.38
0.38
0.22
0.22
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_2
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.22
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_3
0.64
0.64
0.57
0.57
RIVERSIDE
1081_8_6
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.32
RIVERSIDE
1081_B_7
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.32
RIVERSIDE
1081 _B_8
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.32
RIVERSIDE
1081 B 9
0.27
0.27
0.20
0.26
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082_8_ 1
0.47
0.47
0.22
0.22
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082 B_2
0.36
0.36
0.14
0.14
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082 B_3
0.43
0.43
0.26
0.26
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091 B 1
0.92
0.92
0.49
0.49

 
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091_8_2
0.41
0.41
0.27
0.27
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091B3
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
BURLINGTON
1104_B_1
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.16
MUSCATINE
1167_B_7
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
MUSCATINE
1167B8
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
MUSCATINE
1167B9
0.30
0.30
0.13
0.40
EARL F WISDOM
1217_B_ 1
0.57
0.57
0.59
0.59
FAIR STATION
1218_B_2
0.41
0.41
0.46
0.46
OTTUMWA
6254_B_ 1
0.33
0.33
0.20
0.20
LOUISA
6664_8_101
0.20
0.20
0 .20
0.20
Lime Creek
7155_G_1
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Lime Creek
7155_G_2
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
GEORGE NEAL SOUTH
7343_B_4
0.34
0.34
0.21
0.21
Greater Des Moines
A207_G_A207
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.01
LA CYGNE
1241_B_ 1
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
LA CYGNE
1241_8_2
0.34
0.34
0.22
0.22
Hutchinson
1248_G_GT4
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Baldwin
1262G6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263_G_1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263_G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Belleville
1263 G_7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G_ 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264_G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Beloit
1264 G 7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Burlingame
1265 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Burlingame
1265 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Burlingame
1265 G 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Burlingame
1265 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Colby
1272 G_5
0.11
0
.11
0.11
0.11
Colby
1272 G 4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Colby
1272 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Colby
1272 G_8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Colby
1272 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Colby
1272 G_7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Ellinwood
1274G3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Ellinwood
1274 G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11

 
Ellinwood
1274 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Ellinwood
1274 G_1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Ellinwood
1274 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G 4
0 .11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G 1
0 .11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G 2
0 .11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G_IC5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G_IC6
0 .11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277_G_IC7
0.11
0.11 .
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G_IC8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Fredonia
1277 G_IC9
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Holton
1287 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Holton
1287 G_7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Holton
1287 G_8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Holton
1287_G_10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Holton
1287 G_9
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Holton
1287 G 11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Hugoton 1
1289G6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Jetmore
1292 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Jetmore
1292 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Jetmore
1292G1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Jetmore
1292G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Jetmore
1292 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
La Crosse
1297 G_1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
La Crosse
1297 G 2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
La Crosse
1297 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
La Crosse
1297 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Meade
1306 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Meade
1306 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Meade
1306 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Meade
1306 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Meade
1306 G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Mulvane
1308 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Mulvane
1308 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Mulvane
1308_G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Neodesha
1309 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Neodesha
1309 G 6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Neodesha
1309G7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Neodesha
1309 G_8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Oakely
1311_G_3
0.11
0.11
0 .11
0.11
Oakely
1311_G 4
0.11
0.11
0 .11
0.11
Oakely
1311
1-G-1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Oakely
1311 G 5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11

 
continued
: Heat Rate Revisions b
Oakely
1311_G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_IC6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osage City
1313_G_10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osawatomie
1314G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osawatomie
1314_G 2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osawatomie
1314G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osborne
1315G3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osborne
1315_G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Osborne
1315G1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Pratt
1317_G_IC1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.11
Sabetha
1320G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320G2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320_G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320 G_7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320 G_8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sabetha
1320_G_IC9
0.11
0.11
0 .11
0.11
Sabetha
1320_G_IC10
0.11
0.11
0 .11
0.11
Sabetha
1320G1 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
St John
1322_G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
St John
1322G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
St John
1322G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Stafford
1325 G_ 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Stafford
1325 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Stafford
1325 G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Stafford
1325 G_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sterling
1326G2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sterling
1326G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sterling
1326G1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Sterling
1326 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329G5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329 G_2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329G1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329G6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329 G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Washington
1329 G_IC4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
JEFFREY ENERGY CENTE
6068B3
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Johnson
6579 G 5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11

 
Exhibit C2.9 continued
: Heat Rate Revisions b Unit in Vistas Phase II
M,
'de
VISTA
Johnson
6579G4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Johnson
6579 G 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Johnson
6579_G 2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Johnson
6579 G 7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Johnson
6579 G IC6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Hugoton 2
7011 G 7
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Hugoton 2
7011_G 8
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Hugoton 2
7011_G 10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0 .11
Hugoton 2
7011G 9A
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Hugoton 2
7011 G_11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Hugoton 2
7011G 12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Chanute 3
7018_G9
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Chanute 3
7018_G 10
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Chanute 3
7018G11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Gardner
7281 G CT1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Gardner
7281 G CT2
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
DOLET HILLS
51B 1
0.46
0.46
0.20
0.20
LOUISIANA2
1392B11
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
R S NELSON
1393B4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.13
WILLOW GLEN
1394 B 4
0.22
0.22
0.13
0.13
WILLOW GLEN
1394 B 5
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.14
TECHE
1400 B 1
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
TECHE
1400 B 2
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
TECHE
1400 B 3
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
LITTLE GYPSY
1402 B 1
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.20
LITTLE GYPSY
1402 B 2
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
LITTLE GYPSY'
1402 B 3
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.24
NINEMILE POINT
1403 B 2
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.12
NINEMILE POINT
14038 5
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.33
STERLINGTON
1404 8_10
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.27
Sterlington
1404 G 7A
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
Sterlington
1404 G 7B
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
A B PATERSON
1407 B 3
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
A B Paterson
1407 G 5
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
MICHOUD
1409B1
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
MICHOUD
1409 B 3
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.3B
ARSENAL HILL
1416 B 5A
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
LIEBERMAN
1417B1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
LIEBERMAN
1417B2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
LIEBERMAN
1417 B 3
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
LIEBERMAN
1417 B 4
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
MONROE
1448 B 11
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.18
MONROE
1448B12
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.18
RODEMACHER
6190 8 1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

 
RODEMACHER
6190_B_2
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
WATERFORD 1 & 2
8056_8_ 1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.20
WATERFORD 1 & 2
8056B2
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
Georgia Gulf Corporation Plaquemine Divi
55051G X773
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Georgia Gulf Corporation P. Divi
55051 G_ X774
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Georgia Gulf Corporation P. Divi
55051 G X775
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099G01
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_02
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_09
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_03
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_0_04
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_0_06
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_G_07
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099_0_08
0.22
0 .22
0.22
0.22
Perryville
A328_G_A328
0.02
0 .02
0.02
0.02
ASBURY
2076 B 1
0.72
0 .72
0.72
0.77
Hawthorn
2079 G_7
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Hawthorn
2079 G_8
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
MONTROSE
2080 B 1
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
MONTROSE
2080_B_2
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.35
MONTROSE
2080_B_3
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.35
MERAMEC
21G4- 13- 1
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
MERAMEC
22104 B_2
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
MERAMEC
2104 B_3
0.39
0.39
0.23
0.23
MERAMEC
2104 B_4
0.18
0.18
0 .18
0.18
SIOUX
2107 B_ 1
0.36
0.23
0 .36
0.23
SIOUX
2107 B_2
0.31
0.20
0.31
0.20
James River
2161_G_GT1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
James River
2161_0_CT2
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
THOMAS HILL
2168_B_MB1
0.56
0.56
0 .51
0.51
THOMAS HILL
2168_B_MB2
0.56
0.56
0.51
0.51
CHAMOIS
2169 B_1
0.98
0.98
0.49
0.98
ATAN
6065 B 1
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.33
Southwest
6195 G_GT1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Empire Energy Center
6223 G_ 1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Empire Energy Center
6223_0_2
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Empire Energy Center
A184_G_A184
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Empire Energy Center
A185_G_A185
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Stateline
7296 G_ 1
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Stateline
7296_G_2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
State Line Combined Cycle
7296_G_2-1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Columbia
55447_G_CT01
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Columbia
55447_G_CT02
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Columbia
55447 G CT03
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07

 
a
p
continued
: Heat Rate Revisions b Unit in Vistas Phase II
ViA Ra
Vl$?A$jj
Columbia
55447
_G_CT04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
NORTH OMAHA
2291_B_1
0.31
0.31
0.15
0.15
NORTH OMAHA
2291_B_2
0.31
0.31
0.15
0.15
NORTH OMAHA
2291_B_3
0.31
0.31
0.15
0.15
NORTH OMAHA
2291_B_4
0.33
0.33
0.16
0 .16
NORTH OMAHA
2291 _B_5
0.31
0.31
0.16
0 .16
Sarpy County
2292_G_3
0.07
0.07
0.07
0 .07
Sarpy County
2292_G_BSD
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Sarpy County
2292_G_4
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Sarpy County
2292_G_5
0.08
0.08
0 .08
0.08
NEBRASKA CITY
6096_B_1
0.41
0.41
0 .21
0.21
Cass County
A138_G_A138
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
GRDA
165B1
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
GRDA
165_B_2
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3302
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3313
0.39
0.39
0.26
0.39
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3314
0.39
0.39
0.26
0.39
Northeastern
2963_8_3301A
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
SOUTHWESTERN
2964B801 IN
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
SOUTHWESTERN
2964_B_801S
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
SOUTHWESTERN
2964_B_8002
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
SOUTHWESTERN
2964_B_8003
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
TULSA
2965_B_1402
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
TULSA
2965_ B_1403
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
TULSA
2965_B_1404
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
RIVERSIDE
4940_B_1501
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
RIVERSIDE
4940_8_1502
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
COMANCHE
8059_B_7251
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
COMANCHE
8059_B_7252
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
OKLAUNION
127_B_ 1
0.33
0.33
0.24
0.33
LIMESTONE
298_B_LIM1
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
LIMESTONE
298_B_LIM2
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.17
LEWIS CREEK
3457_B_ 1
0.16
0.03
0.16
0.03
LEWIS CREEK
3457_8_2
0.16
0.04
0.16
0.04
SABINE
3459_B_ 1
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
SABINE
3459 B_2
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
SABINE
3459_B_3
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
SABINE
3459 B_4
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
SABINE
345985
B_5
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
CEDAR BAYOU
3460_B_CBY1
0.11
0.03
0.11
0.03
CEDAR BAYOU
3460_B_CBY2
0.10
0.03
0.10
0.03
GREENS BAYOU
3464_B_GBY5
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Greens Bayou
3464_G_73
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Greens Bayou
3464 G 74
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20

 
Exhibit C2.9 continued
•
Heat Rate Revisions b
Greens Bayou
3464_G_81
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Greens Bayou
3464_G_82
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Greens Bayou
3464 G_83
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Greens Bayou
3464_G_84
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Hiram Clarke
3465_G_5
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Hiram Clarke
3465 G_6
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Hiram Clarke
3465_G_GT1
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Hiram Clarke
3465_G_GT2
0.31
0.31
0.31
0 .31
Hiram Clarke
3465_G_GT3
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Hiram Clarke
3465_G_GT4
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
SAM BERTRON
3468_B_SRB2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
SAM BERTRON
3468_B_SRB1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
SAM BERTRON
3468_B_SRB3
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
SAM BERTRON
3468_B_SRB4
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Sam Bertron
3468_G_GT1
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Sam Bertron
3468_G_GT2
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
T H Wharton
3469_G_G1
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
T H Wharton
3469_G_31
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
T H Wharton
3469_G_32
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
T H Wharton
3469_G_33
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
T H Wharton
3469_G_34
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
T H Wharton
3469_ 3_41
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
T H Wharton
3469_G_42
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
T H Wharton
3469_G_43
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
T H Wharton
3469_G_44
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
T H Wharton
3469 G 51
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
T H Wharton
3469_G_52
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
T H Wharton
3469_G_53
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
T H Wharton
3469_G_54
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
T H Wharton
3469_G_55
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
T H Wharton
3469_G_56
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP1
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP2
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP3
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
W A Parish
3470_G_GT1
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP4
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP5
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP6
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP7
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP8
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
KNOX LEE
3476B4
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
KNOX LEE
3476 B_5
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
WILKES
3478_B_1
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
WILKES
3478 B 2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13

 
Exhibit C2.9 continued: Heat Rate Revisions by Unit in. Vistas Phase II
WILKES
3478_B_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
San Angelo
3527 G_ 1
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
SAN ANGELO
3527_B 2
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
SIM GIDEON
3601B1
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
SIM GIDEON
3601 B_2
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
SIM GIDEON
3601 B_3
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
T C FERGUSON
4937_B_1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
FORT PHANTOM
4938_8_1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
FORT PHANTOM
4938B2
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
WELSH
6139B1
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
WELSH
6139B2
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
WELSH
6139 B_3
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
SAM SEYMOUR
6179_B 1
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.17
SAM SEYMOUR
6179_B 2
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.17
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B_3
0.32
0.32
0.17
0.17
PIRKEY
7902 B_1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN1
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.01
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN2
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.01
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN3
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN4
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Lost Pines I
55154_G_CTA
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Lost Pines I
55154_G_CTB
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Lost Pines I
55154_G-ST
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_1
0.63
0.63
0.32
0.32
PRESQUE ISLE
B_2
1769132
0.63
0.63
0.27
0.27
PRESQUE ISLE
1769_B 3
0.37
0.37
0.27
0.27
PRESQUE ISLE
1769134
B_4
0.37
0.37
0.27
0.27
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_5
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.29
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_6
0.39
0.39
0.31
0.31
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_7
0.42
0.42
0.32
0.32
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_8
0.38
0.38
0.29
0.29
PRESQUE ISLE
1769_B 9
0.40
0.40
0.31
0.31
ST CLAIR
1743_B_1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
COLUMBIA
8023_B_ 1
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
COLUMBIA
8023_B 2
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
NELSON DEWEY
4054 B_ 1
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
NELSON DEWEY
4054_B_2
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170 B_2
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
EDGEWATER
4050_B_3
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
EDGEWATER
4050 B 4
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
EDGEWATER
4050_B_5
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Elgin Energy Center
A191_G_A191
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Elgin Energy Center
A192_G A192
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Elgin Energy Center
A193 G A193
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08

 
continued
•
Heat Rate Revisions b
Elgin Energy Center
A194_G_A194
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Grand Tower
862_0_1-3
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
HUTSONVILLE
863B05
0.37
0.37
0.24
0 .24
HUTSONVILLE
863B06
0.36
0.36
0.24
0.24
Kinmundy
55204_G_ 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Kinmundy
55204_G_2
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
MEREDOSIA
864B05
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
MEREDOSIA
864B06
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Pinckneyville
55202_G_5
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Pinckneyville
55202_G_6
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Pinckneyville
55202_G_7
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Pinckneyville
55202_G_8
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Pinckneyville
7980 G_ 1
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Pinckneyville
7980 G_2
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Pinckneyville
7980_G_3
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Pinckneyville
7980 G_4
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Venice
913_G_GT1
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Venice
A913_G_A422
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
HARBOR BEACH
1731_B_1
0 .50
0 .50
0.32
0.50
ST CLAIR
1743B3
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
ST CLAIR
1743 B_4
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
CLIFTY CREEK
983_B 1
0 .89
0.09
0.89
0.09
CLIFTY CREEK
983_B_2
0 .89
0 .09
0.89
0.09
CLIFTY CREEK
983_B_3
0 .89
0 .09
0.89
0.09
CLIFTY CREEKS
983_B 4
0.95
0.09
0.95
0.09
CLIFTY CREEK
983_B_5
0.95
0.09
0.95
0.09
CLIFTY CREEK
983B6
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
TANNERS CREEK
988131-11
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
TANNERS CREEK
988_B_U2
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
TANNERS CREEK
988131-13
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
TANNERS CREEK
988_B-U4
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
ROCKPORT
6166_B_MB1
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
ROCKPORT
6166_B_MB2
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
CON ESVILLE
2840_B_1
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
CON ESVILLE
2840 B_2
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
CON ESVILLE
2840_B_3
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
CON ESVILLE
2840_8_4
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.58
CONESVILLE
2840 B 5
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
CON ESVILLE
2840_B_6
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
GEN J M GAVIN
8102_B_1
0.65
0.07
0.65
0.07
GEN J M GAVIN
8102_B 2
0.68
0.06
0.68
0.06
CARDINAL
2828 B_1
0.54
0.07
0.54
0.07
CARDINAL
2828 B_2
0.50
0.06
0.50
0.06
CARDINAL
2828 B 3
0.60
0.05
0.60
0.05

 
P
PICWAY
MUSKINGUM RIVER
MUSKINGUM RIVER
MUSKINGUM RIVER
MUSKINGUM RIVER
USKINGUM RIVER
YGER CREEK
YGER CREEK
YGER CREEK
YGER CREEK
YGER CREEK
INNESOTA VALLEY
LACK DOG
LACK DOG
Black Dog
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
akefield Junction
akefeld Junction
akefeld Junction
akefield Junction
akefeld Junction
akefield Junction
Fergus ControLCtr
HIGH BRIDGE
HIGH BRIDGE
HERBURNE COUNTY
HERBURNE COUNTY
HERBURNE COUNTY
LLEN S KING
OLIET 9
OWERTON
OWERTON
OWERTON
OWERTON
AUKEGAN
e Pere Energy Center
neida Casino
neida Casino
PULLIAM
PULLIAM
PULLIAM
PULLIAM
continued
: Heat Rate Revisions b Unit in Vistas Phase II
2843B9
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
2872_B_1
0.74
0.74
0 .74
0.74
2872_B_2
0.74
0.74
0 .74
0.74
2872_B_3
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
2872B4
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
2872_B_5
0.54
0.06
0.54
0.44
2876_8_ 1
0.80
0 .10
0.80
0.10
2876_B_2
0.80
0 .10
0.80
0.10
2876_B_3
0.80
0.10
0.80
0.10
2876_B_4
0.80
0.10
0.80
0.10
287665
B_5
0.80
0.10
0.80
0.10
1918_8_4
0.36
0.36
0.19
0.19
1904_B_3
0.79
0.79
0.23
0.23
1904B4
0.79
0.79
0.23
0.23
A461_G_A461
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
1927_B_6
0.76
0.76
0.23
0.23
1927_B_7
0.76
0.76
0.23
0.23
1927_B_8
0.95
0.95
0.49
0.49
7925_G_ 1
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
7925_G_2
0 .05
0.05
0.05
0.05
7925G3
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
7925_G_4
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
7925_G_5
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
7925_G_6
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
7505_G_1
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
1912_B_5
0.60
0.60
0.23
0.23
1912_B_6
0.60
0.60
0.23
0.23
6090B1
0.22
0.22
0.16
0.22
6090_B_2
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
6090_B_3
0.35
0.35
0.23
0.23
1915_B 1
0.70
0.07
0.49
0.49
874 B_5
0.52
0.52
0.34
0.34
879_B_51
0.61
0.61
0.56
0.56
879B52
0.61
0.61
0 .56
0.56
879B61
0.61
0.61
0 .56
0.56
879B62
0.61
0.61
0.56
0.56
883B17
0.64
0.64
0.61
0.61
55029_G_CT01
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
7602_G_1
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
7602_G_2
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
4072_B_3
0.76
0.76
0.21
0.21
4072B4
0.76
0.76
0.21
0.21
4072B5
0.81
0.81
0.23
0.23
4072 B 6
0.81
0.81
0.23
0.23

 
PULLIAM
4072B7
0.34
0.34
0.22
0.22
PULLIAM
4072B8
0.29
0.29
0.22
0.22
Pulliam
A338_G_A338
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_7
0.52
0.52
0.32
0.32
BLOUNT STREET
3992B8
0.39
0.39
0.32
0.32
BLOUNT STREET
3992B9
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.34
South Fond Du Lac
7203_G_CT1
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
South Fond Du Lac
7203_G_CT2
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
South Fond Du Lac
7203_G_CT3
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
South Fond Du Lac
7203_G_CT4
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Concord
7159_G_1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Concord
7159_G_2
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Concord
7159_G_3
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Concord
7159_G_4
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
Paris
7270_G_1
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Paris
7270_G_2
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
Paris
7270G3
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
Paris
7270_G_4
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
WESTON
4078B1
0.73
0.73
0.20
0.20
WESTON
4078 B_2
0.40
0.40
0.18
0.18
WESTON
4078_B_3
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.16
West Marinette
7799_G_34
0.03
0.03
0.03
.
0.03
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_B_7
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_B_8
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.14
VALLEY
4042B1
0.36
0 .36
0.29
0.29
VALLEY
4042B2
0.36
0.36
0.29
0.29
VALLEY
4042B3
0.38
0 .38
0.30
0.30
VALLEY
4042_B_4
0.38
0.38
0.30
0.30
Combined Locks Energy Center
A156_G_A156
0 .01
0.01
0.01
0 .01
BLACKHAWK
4048_B_3
0 .28
0.28
0.21
0 .21
BLACKHAWK
4048_B_4
0.28
0.28
0.21
0.21
ROCK RIVER
4057_B_1
0 .30
0.30
0.30
0.30
ROCK RIVER
4057B2
0 .31
0.31
0.23
0.23
Rock River
4057G3
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Rock River
4057_G_4
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Rock River
4057G5
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
Rock River
4057G6
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
Sheepskin
4059_G_1
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Eagle River
4062_G_ 1
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Eagle River
4062_G_2
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Germantown
6253G1
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Germantown
6253G2
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Germantown
6253_G_3
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Germantown
6253 G 4
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70

 
continued : Heat Rate Revisions b
Germantown
6253 G_5
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Mirant Neenah Generation Facility
55135_G_CT01
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Mirant Neenah Generation Facility
55135_G_CT02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Ascutney
3708_G_GT4
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Rutland
3723_G_GT5
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
St Albans
3726_G_IC1
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
St Albans
3726_G_IC2
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Colchester 16
3735 G_GT1
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Essex Junction 19
3737_G_IC5
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Essex Junction 19
3737_G_IC6
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Essex Junction 19
3737_G_IC7
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Essex Junction 19
3737_G-ICS
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Burlington GT
3754_G_GTI
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
Vergennes 9
6519G5
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Vergennes 9
6519G6
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.20
Ryegate Power Station
51026_G_GEN1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
J C MCNEIL
589_B_ 1
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
DEVON
544_B_7
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
DEVON
544_B_8
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
NORWALK HARBOR
548_B_ 1
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
NORWALK HARBOR
548_B_2
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15
MIDDLETOWN
562_B_2
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
MONTVILLE
546B5
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
MONTVILLE
546_B_6
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
MIDDLETOWN
562 B_4
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
MIDDLETOWN^
562_B_3
0.30
0.30
0.15
0.15
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB2
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
BRIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB3
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
Bridgeport Harbor
568G4
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
Branford
540G10
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Lake Road
55149_G_U1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Bridgeport Resco
50883_G_GEN1
0.43
0.32
0.43
0.32
Exeter Energy Project
50736 G GEN1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Riley Energy Sys of Lisbon Wheelabrator 54758 G GEN1
0.45
0.28
0.45
0.28
Wallingford Resource Recovery
50664_G GEN1
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
Cos Cob
542G10
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Cos Cob
542_G_11
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Cos Cob
542G12
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Devon
544G10
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Franklin Drive
561_G_19
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Middletown
562G10
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
Norwalk Harbor
548G1 0
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
Bridgeport Energy
55042 G GEN2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

 
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN3
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
New Milford Gas Recovery
50564_G_GEN1
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG3
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Wallingford
55517_G_CTG4
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Wallingford
55517_G_CTGS
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
North Main Street
581_G_5
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Montville
546G1 0
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
Montville
546G1 1
2.96
2.96
2.96
2.96
Torrington
565G10
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Tunnel
557G1 0
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
South Meadow
563G1 1
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
South Meadow
563G12
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.78
South Meadow
563G13
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
South Meadow
563G14
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
Lake Road
55149_G_U2
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
NEW HAVEN HARBOR
6156_8_NHB1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Pinetree Power Tamworth Inc
50739_G_GEN1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
White Lake
2369_G_GT1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Lost Nation
2362_G_GT1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Whitef'ield Power and Light Co
10839_G_GEN1
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
Bridgewater Power Company LP
10290_G_GEN1
0 .19
0.19
0.19
0.19
Pinetree Power Incoporated Bethlehem
50208_G_GEN1
0 .19
0.19
0.19
0.19
Plymouth State-College Cogeneration
54803_G_A
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Dunbarton Energy PartnersL P
50347_G_MA15
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Four Hills Nashua Landfill
55006_G_UNT1
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Four Hills Nashua Landfill
55006_G_UNT2
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Bio Energy Corporation
52041_G_GEN1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
MERRIMACK
2364_B_ 1
0.92
0.09
0.92
0.09
MERRIMACK
2364_B_2
0.37
0.06
0.37
0.06
Merrimack
2364_G_GT1
0.90
0.90
0 .90
0.90
Merrimack
2364_G_GT2
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
AES Granite Ridge Energy
A093_G_A093
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Foss Hampton Facility
10108_G_GEN8
0.10
0.10
0.10
0 .10
NEWINGTON
8002_8_1
0.35
0.35
0.35
0 .35
Newington Power Facility
A311_G_A311
0.01
0.01
0.01
0 .01
SCHILLER
2367_B 4
0.43
0.28
0.43
0.28
SCHILLER
2367B5
0.40
0.26
0.40
0.26
SCHILLER
2367B6
0.35
0.23
0.35
0.23
Schiller
2367_G_GT1
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
Wheelabrator Claremont Facility
50872_G_GEN1
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
Hemphill Power and Light Company
10838_G_GEN1
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Christiana
591 G 11
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63

 
Exhibit C2.9 continued
: Heat Rate Revisions b
Christiana
591G14
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
Delaware City
592G10
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
EDGE MOOR
593_B_3
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.11
EDGE MOOR
593_B_4
0.22
0.18
0.22
0.18
EDGE MOOR
5938 5
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Edge Moor
593G10
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
INDIAN RIVER
594 B_ 1
0.38
0.38
0 .38
0.38
INDIAN RIVER
594 B-2
0.33
0.33
0 .33
0.33
Indian River
594G 10
0.63
0.63
0 .63
0.63
West Substation
597_G_1
0.47
0.47
0 .47
0.47
MCKEE RUN
599 B_ 1
0.34
0.34
0 .34
0.34
MCKEE RUN
599B 2
0.29
0.29
0 .29
0.29
MCKEE RUN
599 B_3
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Hay Road
7153_G_I
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Van Sant Station
7318_G_1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
NA1
A7962_G_A424
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
GLEN LYN
37761351
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
GLEN LYN
3776_B_52
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
GLEN LYN
3776B6
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
CLINCH RIVER
3775 B_ 1
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
CLINCH RIVER
3775_B_2
0.50
0.50
0 .50
0.50
CLINCH RIVER
3775 B_3
0.47
0.47
0 .47
0.47
KANAWHA RIVER
3936_B 1
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
KANAWHA RIVER
3936B2
0.39
0.39
0 .39
0.39
KAMMER
3947B1
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
KAMMER
3947_B_2
0.76
0.76
0 .76
0.76
KAMMER
3947_B_3
0.76
0.76
0 .76
0.76
MITCHELL
3948_B 1
0.66
0.07
0 .66
0.48
MITCHELL
3948 B_2
0.66
0.07
0 .66
0.48
PHILIP SPORN
3938_8_11
0.34
0.34
0 .34
0.34
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B_21
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
PHILIP SPORN
3938_B_31
0.34
.
0.34
0.34
0.34
PHILIP SPORN
3938 B 41
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
PHILIP SPORN
3938B51
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
MOUNTAINEER
6264 B_ 1
0.47
0.06
0.47
0.06
JOHN E AMOS
3935B1
0.62
0.06
0.62
0.48
JOHN EAMOS
3935 B_2
0.62
0.06
0.62
0.06
JOHN EAMOS
3935-133
0.64
0.09
0.84
0.09
FORT MARTIN
B_ 1
394381
0.65
0.29
0.65
0.42
FORT MARTIN
3943_B_2
0.47
0.26
0.47
0.21
PLEASANTS
6004_B_1
0.34
0.05
0.34
0.06
PLEASANTS
6004_B_2
0.37
0.10
0.37
0.06
McCartney
A288 G A288
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
HAWTHORN
2079 B 9
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02

 
continued : Heat Rate Revisions by Unit in Vistas Phase II
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_B_5
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
SOUTH OAK CREEK
4041_B_6
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
50873_G_GEN1
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
Gibson City
7979 G_1
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Gibson City
7979 G_2
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
ELK RIVER
2039B1
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
ELK RIVER
2039_B_2
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
ELK RIVER
2039B3
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
BIG SANDY
1353_B_BSU2
0.56
0.06
0.56
0.06
BAY FRONT
3982_B_5
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
ALMA
4140_B_B1
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
ALMA
4140_8_82
0.32
.
0.32
0.32
0.32
ALMA
4140_B_B3
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
ALMA
4140_B_B4
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
ALMA
4140_B_B5
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
J P MADGETT
4271_B_B1
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
Cayuga 1
1001 B_ 1
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.28
Cayuga 2
1001B2
0.28
0.28
0.28
0 .29
East Bend 2
6018_B_2
0.33
0.06
0.33
0 .06
Edwardsprt 71
1004_8_7-1
0.69
0.69
0.34
0 .34
Edwardsprt 72
1004_B_7-2
0.69
0.69
0.33
0.33
Edwardsport 8
1004_B_8-1
0.69
0.69
0.32
0.32
Gallagher 1
1008_B_1
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.40
Gallagher 2
1008B2
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.40
Gallagher 3
1008_B_3
0.35
0 .35
0.35
0.40
Gallagher 4
1008_B_4
0.30
0 .30
0.30
0.40
Gibson 1
6113B1
0.38
0 .06
0.38
0.06
Gibson 2
6113_B_2
0.35
0.06
0.35
0.06
Gibson 3
6113_B_3
0.43
0.06
0.41
0.06
Gibson 4
6113_B_4
0.37
0.06
0.37
0.06
Gibson 5
6113B5
0.37
0.06
0.37
0.06
MIAMI FORT
2832_B_5.1
1 .08
1 .08
0.49
0.49
MIAMI FORT
2832_B_5-2
1 .08
1 .08
0.49
0.49
Miami Fort 6
2832B6
0.46
0.46
0.28
0.28
Miami Fort 7
2832_B_7
0.46
0.07
0.46
0.06
Miami Fort 8
2832B8
0.48
0.07
0.48
0.06
Noblesville 1
A313_G_A313
0 .03
0.03
0.02
0.02
Wabash River 1
1010_G_1A
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.18
Wabash River 2
1010_8_2
0.49
0.49
0.32
0.48
Wabash River 3
1010B3
0.65
0.65
0.48
0.48
Wabash River 4
1010_B_4
0 .65
0.65
0.48
0.48
Wabash River 5
1010_B_5
0 .64
0.64
0.48
-
0.48
Wabash River 6
1010_B_6
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.48
W.C. Beckjord 1
2830B1
0.58
0.58
0.27
0.27

 
continued
•
Heat Rate Revisions b
Mode 1 Rate (Uncontrolled Base Rate) - This emission rate reflects current configuration of combustion controls. If a
post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or
a
SNCR exists, it is assumed that it is not operating
.
Mode 2 Rate (Controlled Base Rate) - This emission rate reflects current configuration of combustion . If a post
combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed that it is operating
.
Mode 3 Rate ((Uncontrolled Policy Rate) - This emission rate reflects a state of the art configuration of combustion
controls. If a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed that it is not operating
.
Mode 4 Rate (Controlled Policy Rate)- This emission rate reflects a state of the art configuration of combustion
controls. If a post combustion NOx control such as a SCR or a SNCR exists, it is assumed that it is operating
.
For more details on the development of these rates please refer to htip ..//www.cpa.kov/airmarkcts'ep:A-
ipmisection3powsysop.pdf
W.C. Beckjord 2
2830 B_2
0.61
0.61
0.25
0.25
W.C . Beckjord 3
2830 B_3
1 .02
1 .02
0.41
0.41
W.C . Beckjord 4
2830_8_4
0.56
0.56
0 .27
0.27
W.C . Beckjord 5
2830_B 5
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.40
W.C. Beckjord 6
2830 B_6
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.30
W.H. Zimmer 1
6019 B_ 1
0.42
0.06
0.42
0.06
Cayuga CT4
1001G4
0.15
0.15
0.09
0.09
Connersville CT 1
1002G1
0.85
0.85
0.22
0.22
Connersville CT 2
1002 G_2
0.85
0.85
0.22
0.22
Dicks Creek CT1
2831_G_1
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.08
W.C. Beckjord
CT1
2830_G_GT1
0.85
0 .85
0.09
0.09
W.C . Beckjord CT2
2830_G_GT2
0.85
0 .85
0.09
0.09
W.C. Beckjord CT3
2830_G_GT3
0.85
0.85
0.09
0.09
W.C. Beckjord CT4
2830_G_GT4
0.85
0.85
0.09
0.09
Woodsdale CT1
7158_G_GT1
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.12
Woodsdale CT2
7158_G_GT2
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
Woodsdale CT3
7158_G_GT3
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
Woodsdale CT4
7158_G_GT4
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
Woodsdale CT5
7158_G_GT5
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
Woodsdale CT6
7158 G GT6
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13

 
Existing Unit Additions
Exhibit C2.10: Additional Units included in NEEDS in VISTAS Phase II
Premcor
Premcor
NRG Energy Center Dover
NRG Energy Center Dover
NRG Energy Center Dover
Brunot Island
Brunot Island
Hunterstovm
Hunterstown
Hunterstown
PPLLower Mt Bethel
PPULower Mt Bethel
PPULower Mt Bethel
Shenango--Neville Island Coke Works
Shenango--Neville Island Coke Works
United States Steel
-- Mon Valley Works
United States Steel
-- Mon Valley Works
United States Steel - Mon Valley Works
United States Steel - Clairton Works
United States Steel - Clairton Works
Allegheny Energy -- Springdale Station
Allegheny Energy -- Springdale Station
PPG Industries - PPG Place
PPG IndustriesPPG Place
PPG IndustriesPPG Place
52193_G_ME0002
10030_B_000EN1
10030_G_2
1D030_G_3
3096_G_2A
3096_G_2B
55976_G_ 1
55976_G_2
55976_G_3
55667_C_ 1
55667 C_2
55667_C_3
54532_
G
_2WH
54532_G_3GE
50732_G_GEN2
50732_G_GEN1
50732_G_GEN3
50729_G_GEN3
50729_G_GEN1
3182 G_8
3182 G_7
54359_G_EG-2
54359_G_EG-1
54359 G EG-3
AMF Energy Systems
AMF Energy Systems
AMF Energy Systems
Burlington Energy Inc
.
Burlington Energy Inc.
Venice
Venice
Venice
Mankato Energy Center
Mankato Energy Center
WESTON
Sheboygan Falls
Sheboygan Falls
Lagoon Creek
Lagoon Creek
Lagoon Creek
Lagoon Creek
Perryville
Perryville
Perryville
Skeets 4
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
Riverton
70011_G_IC1
70011_G_IC2
70011 _G_IC3
70012_G_IC1
70012_G_IC2
913C03
913 C 04
913C05
56104_C_1
56104_C_2
4078_B_4
56186_C_ 1
56186_C_2
7845_G_GT9
7845_G_GT10
7845_G_GT11
7845_G_GT12
55620_G_U2-1
55620_G_U1-1
55620_G_U 1-2
7388G4
50873_G_GEN2
1239C21

 
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
Buchanan
TACONITE HARBOR
TACONITE HARBOR
TACONITE HARBOR
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
Pleasant Valley
HIGH BRIDGE
HIGH BRIDGE
HIGH BRIDGE
HIGH BRIDGE
faribault energy park
faribault energy park
Blue Lake
Blue Lake
St Bonifacius
Robert P Mone Plant
Robert P Mone Plant
Robert P Mone Plant
Burlington
CHALK POINT
Burlington GT
Milford Power
Milford Power
Waterside Power LLC
Waterside Power LLC
Lake Road
Milford Power
Milford Power
Waterside Power LLC
Greenville Dam
Willimantic
Willimantic
Wyre Wynd
Exhibit C2.10 continued
: Additional Units included in NEEDS in VISTAS Phase II
1754 G_3
1754_G_4
1754G5
175406
1754_G_7
1754 G_8
1754_G_9
1754_G_10
10075_B_ 1
10075_B 2
I0075_B_3
1927_G_101
1927_G_103
1927_G_102
1927_G_104
7843_G_13
1912_G_101
1912_G_103
1912_G_102
1912_G_104
56164_C_6
56164_C_ 1
8027_G_7
8027_G_8
6824_G_2
7872 G_ 1
7872 G_2
7872 G_3
2399_G_12
1571 B_3
3754_G_GT2
55126_G_CTG1
55126_G_STG1
56189_G_2
56189_G_1
55149_G_U3
55126_G_CTG2
55126_G_STG2
56189_G_3
70001_G_1
70002_G_1
70002_G_2
70003G1
Da ille Pond
Glan Falls
Mechanicsville
Putnam
Rocky Glen
Toutant
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
Dunbarton Energy PartnersL P
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
Foss Hampton Facility
SCHILLER
Groveton Paper board
Groveton Paper board
Concord Steam
Concord Steam
Concord Steam
Concord Steam
ANP Blackstone Energy Company
ANP Blackstone Energy Company
South Boston Combustion Turbines
South Boston Combustion Turbines
Deer Island Treatment
Deer Island Treatment
Lowell Cogen
Lowell Cogen
Hay Road
Hay Road
Hay Road
Invista
Invista
Invista
Premcor
Premcor
Premcor
Premcor
70004 G_
70005_G_1
70006_G_1
70007_G_1
70008_G_1
70009_G_1
54803_G_GEN2
54803_G_1
54803_G_2
54803_G_3
50347_G_2
10108_G_GEN1
10108_G_GEN2
10108_G_GEN3
10108_G_GEN4
10108_G_GENS
10108_G_GEN6
10108_G_GEN7
2367_C_5
56140_G_GEN1
56140_G_GEN2
70010_G_1
70010_G_3
70010_G_5
70010_G_6
55212_G_1
55212_G_2
10176_G_1
10176_G_2
10823_G_G101
10823_G_G201
10802_G_GEN1
10802_G_GEN2
7153_G_5
7153_ G_6
7153_ G_7
10793_B_BLR1
10793_B_BLR2
10793_B_BLR3
52193_B_BLR1
52193_B_BLR2
52193_B_BLR3
52193 B BLR4

 
Exhibit C2.10 continued
: Additional Units included in NEEDS in VISTAS Phase II
Plan
Mabelvale
71-G- 1
Clay Center
1270G8
Mabelvale
171G2
Lamed
1299G5
Mabelvale
171G4
Lamed
1299G6
THOMAS B FITZHUGH
201B06
Lamed
1299G7
Anita
1123-G-6
LLamed
1299G8
Coggon
1132 G_IC5
Lamed
1299G9
Graettinger
1142G6
Mulvane
1308G7
Independence
1149 G 1A
Mulvane
1308G8
Indianola
1150G8
St John
1322G2
Manning
1160G1
Sterling
1326G5
Manning
1160G2
Sterling
1326G6
Manning
1160G4
Sterling
1326G7
Maquoketa 1
1162 G 2A
GARDEN CITY
1336 B GC3
Maquoketa 1
1162 G 1A
Hugoton 2
7011G13
Mt Pleasant
1166G1
Strotherfield Substation
56022G1
Mt Pleasant
1166G10
NEOSHO
1243B7
Mt Pleasant
1166G11
Erie
1276G2
Mt Pleasant
1166 G 12
Horton
1288G1
Mt Pleasant
1166G2
Horton
1288G2
MI: Pleasant
1166G3
Horton
1288G3
Mt Pleasant
1166 G 4A
Horton
1288G4
Mt Pleasant
1166 G 5A
Pratt
1317 G_IC2
MI: Pleasant
1166G6
Wellington Municipal
1330G7
Mt Pleasant
1166G7
Wellington Municipal
1330G8
Mt Pleasant
1166G8
Wester Energy
22500 G_J1
Mt Pleasant
1166G9
Wester Energy
22500 G J2
Story City
,.
1188 G 4A
Sharpe
7973 G 1 :
Earl F Wisdom
1217G2
Mulvane 2
7976_0_9
Greenfeld
7856 G 1
Mulvane 2
7976G10
Greenfeld
7856G2
Mulvane 2
7976G11
Maquoketa 2
7921_G_13
Baldwin 2
8020G1
Maquoketa 2
7921G14
Baldwin 2
8020G2
Brooklyn
1128G6
MONROE
1448B10
South Strawberry
7926 G 1A
NRG Sterlington Power LLC
55099G10
South Strawberry
7926 G 2A
DOW Plaquemine
55419C501
Emery Station
8031_C_11
DOW Plaquemine
55419C_601
Emery Station
8031C12
DOW Plaquemine
55419C701
Exira Station
56013 G 1
DOW Plaquemine
55419C801
Exira Station
56013_0_2
Southwest
6195_0 GT2
Attics
1260_0 4A
Sand Hill
7900_C SH5
Baldwin
1262_0_1
PORT WASHINGTON POWER PLANT
4040G1
Burlington
1266 G_1A
PORT WASHINGTON POWER PLANT
4040_G_2
Burlington
1266_0 4A
Buchanan
1754_G2

 
Existinq Unit Online chanqes
Exhibit C2.11: Online Year Revisions b
Unit in Vistas Phase II
Indianola
1150_G_3
1953
1954
Indianola
1150 G_4
1961
1960
Indianola
1150_G_7
1977
1976
PELLA
1175 B_8
1964
1974
PELLA
1175_B_6
1964
1974
COFFEYVILLE
1271B5
1956
1997
Colby
1272_G_5
1958
1952
Colby
1272_G_8
1971
1964
Osage City
1313_G_10
2001
1990
Osage City
1313_G_8
2001
1990
Osage City
1313_G_9
2001
1990
Stafford
1325_G_ 1
1960
1973
Stafford
1325_G_2
1953
1973
Wellington City
7339_G_6
1989
1986
Erie
1276 G 4
1964
1992
Erie
1276 G_ 1
1953
2004
Erie
1276 G_3
1958
2004
Perryville
A328_G_A328
2002
2001
HAWTHORN
2079 B_5
1969
2001
Elkhart
986 G_ 1
1913
1921
Elkhart
986 G 2
1921
1913
Elkhart
986 G_3
1921
1913
Twin Branch
989_G_H2W
1989
1992
Twin Branch
989_G_H3W
1989
1992
Twin Branch
989_G_H4W
1989
1992
Twin Branch
989_G_H5W
1989
1992
Constantine
1760 G_3
1929
1923
Black Dog
A461 G_A461
2007
2002
South Oak Creek
4041 G_9
1968
1969
Rainbow
559 G_1
1925
1980
Rainbow
559 G_2
1925
1980
Devon
544 G 11
1988
1996
Clement Dam Hydroelectric LLC
10276_G_49
1984
1985
Pinetree Power Tamworth Inc
50739_G_GEN1
1987
1988
Amoskeag
2354 G_1
1924
1922
Dunbarton Energy PartnersL P
50347 G_MA15
1988
1996
Gregg Falls
50384_G_1
1985
1986
Hillsborough Hosiery
10036 G GEN1
1989
1988
Briar Hydro Associates Rolfe Canal
Facil
50351 G 1
1987
1988

 
continued : Online Year Revisions b Unit in Vistas Phase If
Eastman Falls
2356_G_1
1937
1912
EHC West Hopkinton
54384_G_GEN1
1985
1982
Franklin Industrial Complex
10109_G_1
1985
1978
Franklin Industrial Complex
10109_G_2
1982
1978
Merrimack
2364_G_GT1
1968
1969
Merrimack
2364_G_GT2
1969
1968
Pembroke Hydro
50312_G_ 1
1985
1986
Milton Hydro
10519_G_ 1
1914
1929
Milton Hydro
10519_G_2
1914
1929
Rollinsford
54418_G_GEN1
1986
1980
Somersworth Lower Great Dam
50704_G_GEN1
1985
1984
Hunterstown_1960
3110_G_1
1971
1960
Hunterstown_1960
3110_G_2
1971
1960
Hunterstown_1960
3110_G_3
1971
1960
Hunterstown_2002
A248_G_A248
2003
2002
Reusens
3779G1
1903
1931
Reusens
3779 G_2
1903
1931
Re usens
3779G3
1903
1931
Reusens
3779G4
1903
1931
Reusens
3779G5
1903
1931
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G-NO 5
1988
1987
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945 G NO 6
1988
1987

 
Control Technologies
Exhibit C2.12: Particulate Matter
Unit in Vistas Phase II
DUBUQUE
1046B6
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
DUBUQUE
1046_B_5
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
DUBUQUE
1046_B_ 1
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_2
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_3
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_4
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_5
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_1
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_2
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_3
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073B4
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
FAIR STATION
1218_B_ 1
none
Cold-side ESP
FAIR STATION
1218 B_2
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
R S NELSON
1393B4
none
Cold-side ESP
CHAMOIS
2169_B_ 1
none
Cold-side ESP
WHELAN ENERGY CENTER
60 B_ 1
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
GERALD GENTLEMAN
6077 B_2
Hot-side ESP
Fabric Filter
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B 1
Cyclone
Fabric Filter
PRESQUE ISLE
1769 B_5
Cold-side ESP
Cold-side ESP + Fabric Filter
PRESQUE ISLE
1769_B 6
Cold-side ESP
Cold-side ESP + Fabric Filter
WESTON
4078_B 3
Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter
CONNERS CREEK
1726_B_15
Cold-side ESP
none
CONNERS CREEK
1726B1
_ 6
Cold-side ESP
none
SHERBURNE COUNTY
6090_B 1
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
SHERBURNE COUNTY
6090_B_2
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side ESP
Bridgeport Resco
50883_G_GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Exeter Energy Project
50736 G GENT
none
Fabric Filter
Riley Energy Sys of Lisbon Wheelabrator
54758 G GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility
50664_G_GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
American Ref Fuel Company Of SE CT
10646_G_GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility
50648_G_GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G_NO 5
none
Fabric Filter
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G_NO 6
none
Fabric Filter
Pinetree Power Tamworth Inc
50739_G_GEN1
none
Cold-side ESP + Cyclone
Whitefield Power and Light Co
10839_G_GEN1
none
Cold-side ESP + Cyclone
Bridgewater Power Company LP
Pinetree Power Incoporated Bethlehem
10290_G_GEN1
50208 G GENII
none
none
Fabric Filter
Cold-side ESP + Cyclone
Bio Energy Corporation
.
52041 G GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
50873 G GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Wheelabrator Claremont Facility
50872 G GEN1
none
Fabric Filter
Hemphill Power and Light Company
10838_G_GEN1
none
Cold-side ESP + Cyclone
WILLMAR
2022_B_ 1
none
Cyclone
ELK RIVER
2039_B_ 1
none
Fabric Filter
ELK RIVER
2039_B_2
none
Fabric Filter
ELK RIVER
2039 B 3
none
Fabric Filter

 
Control Technology Chanqes
Exhibit C2.13: NOx Post Combustion Control Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
CEDAR BAYOU
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
SIOUX
SIOUX
DUCK CREEK
Riley Energy Sys of Lisbon Wheelabrator
American Ref Fuel Company Of SE CT
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility
Mid Connecticut Facility
3460 B CBY1
55015 G GEN1
55015 G GEN2
2107B1
2107B2
601681
54756 G GEN1
10646 G GEN1
50648G GEN1
54945_G_NO 5
None
None
None
None
None
None
none
none
none
none
SCR
SCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
SNCR
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G_NO 6
none
SNCR
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN3
None
SCR
Whitefield Power and Light Co
10839_G_GEN1
none
SCR
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
54803_G_A
None
SCR
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
50873_G_G EN1
none
SNCR
Ocean State Power
51030_G_GEN3
none
SCR
Calpine Tiverton Power
55048_G_UNT2
None
SCR
Block Island
6567_G_23
None
SCR
Linden Cogen Plant
50006_G_STG1
None
SCR
Bridgeport Resco
50883_G_GEN1
none
SNCR
FORT MARTIN
3943_B_1
None
SNCR
Noblesville
A313 G A313
SCR
none

 
xistinq Unit Change- Retirement Year
Exhibit C2.14: Retirement Year Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
Corning
1 34-G-4
2006
Corning
1134G1
2006
Corning
1134G2
2006
Corning
11 342006
MUSCATINE
1167B7
2010
MUSCATINE
1167B8
2019
MUSCATINE
1167B9
2033
HOLLY STREET
3549_B_1
2004
HOLLY STREET
3549B2
2004
HOLLY STREET
3549B3
2007
HOLLY STREET
3549_B_4
2007
VENICE
913B3
2002
VENICE
913_8 4
2002
VENICE
913 B 5
2002
VENICE
913 B 6
2002
VENICE
913 B 7
2002
VENICE
913 B 8
2002
Fourth Street
1025 G_1
2000
RIVERSIDE
1927 B_6
2009
RIVERSIDE
1927 B_7
2009
RIVERSIDE
1927_B_8
2009
HOOT LAKE
1943_B_1
2005
COLLINS
6025_B_2
2004
COLLINS
6025_B_3
2004
COLLINS
6025_B_4
2004
COLLINS
6025_B_5
2004
Bloom
865_G_333
2004
Bloom
865 G_334
2004
Bloom
865 G 341
2004
Bloom
865 G 342
2004
Bloom
865 G 344
2004
Calumet
866_0 311
2004
Calumet
866G312
2004
Calumet
866 G 313
2004
Calumet
866 G 314
2004
Calumet
866 G 331
2004
Calumet
866_0 332
2004
Calumet
866 G 333
2004
Calumet
866 G 341
2004
Calumet
866 G 342
2004
Calumet
866 G 343
2004
Calumet
866 G 344
2004
Electric Junction
870 G 311
2004

 
Exhibit C2.14 continued): Retirement Year Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
Electric Junction
ombard
ombard
ombard
ombard
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
Sabrooke
South Norwalk
South Norwalk
South Norwalk
South Norwalk
South Norwalk'
South Norwalk
SCHILLER
Harrisburg Facility
Johnston Willis Facility
Johnston Willis Facility
Johnston Willis Facility
Byrd Press Cogeneration Facility
Byrd Press Cogeneration Facility
Byrd Press Cogeneration Facility
Handcraft Facility
Handcraft Facility
Handcraft Facility
Scott Wood
Scott Wood
hesterfield County LFG
Va Beach Mt Trashmore II LFG
870_G_312
870_G_313
870G314
870_G_321
870_G_322
870_G_323
870_G_324
870_G_331
870_G_332
870_G_333
870_G_334
877_G_311
877_G_321
877 G_322
877_G_331
882_G_311
882_G_312
882_G_321
882_G_322
882_G_331
882_G 332
882_G__341
6598G1
6598G2
6598 G_3
6598G4
6598 G_5
6598G6
2367_B_5
10118_G_GEN1
54777_G_GEN1
54777_G_GEN2
54777_G_GEN3
54776_G_GEN1
54776_G_GEN2
54776_G_GEN3
54601_G VIII
54601_G_VII2
54601 G_VII3
50863_C_ST2
50863_C_ST3
ZZ175_C_1
ZZ173 C 1
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2006
2003
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005
2005

 
Exhibit C2.14 continued
RIST
amden Cogen L P
Howard Down
Kinsleys Landfill Inc .
Kearny
Gilbert
NRG Generating Parlin Cogeneration Inc
NRG Generating Parlin Cogeneration Inc
akewood Cogeneration L P
PRESQUE ISLE
PRESQUE ISLE
PRESQUE ISLE
PRESQUE ISLE
GREEN RIVER
GREEN RIVER
GREEN RIVER
INEVILLE
Retirement Year Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
641_B_ 1
2002
10751_G_GEN2
2002
2434G6
1999
10045_G_11
1998
2404_G_12
2002
2393 G_8
2000
50799_G_GEN3
1999
50799_G_GEN4
1999
54640_G_GEN3
2000
1769 B_ 1
2013
1769 B_2
2013
1769 B 3
2013
1769 B_4
2013
1357 B_ 1
2004
1357_B 2
2004
1357 B_3
2004
1360133
2003

 
Exhibit C2.15: Units Removed in Vistas Phase II
Plank N
11
Blytheville
8109G
3469 G 3
Blytheville
8109 G_2
T H Wharton
3469_G_4
Blytheville
8109 G_3
Va Beach Mt Trashmore II LFG
ZZ173_C_ 1
Maquoketa
1067 G_ 1
Fourth Street
1025 G_1
Maquoketa
1067 G_2
Fourth Street
1025_G_1
Algona
1120 G_3
Maple Lake
2042_G_5A
Algona
1120 G_4
GOULD STREET
1553_B_3
Algona
1120 G_5
L Street
1587_G_GT1
Anita
1123 G_1
NEW BOSTON
1589_B 2
Coon Rapids
1133 G_4
Kendall Square
1595_G_GT2
Coon Rapids
1133 G_6
Somerset
1613_G_J1
Coon Rapids
1133 G_7
Mystic Generating Station
A309_G_A309
Maquoketa
1162 G_2
Mystic Generating Station
A310_G_A310
Maquoketa
1162G1
Madison Street
596G1
Primghar
1177 G_2
Hay Road
A7153_G_A435
Nimeca Diesels
7694_G_DSL
NA1
A7962_G_A424
Wichita Diesel
1245 G_5
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Incorporated
10383_G_GEN1
Burlington
1266 G 1
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Incorporated
10383_G_GEN2
Burlington
1266 G_4
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Incorporated
10383_G_GEN3
Burlington
1266 G_3
Cogentrix of Pennsylvania Incorporated
10383_G_GEN4
Chanute 1
1267 G_5
General Electric Erie PA Power Station
50358_G_STM4
Clay Center
1270 G_4
General Electric Erie PA Power Station
50358_G_DSL3
Clay Center
1270 G 5
General Electric Erie PA Power Station
50358_G_STM3
Erie
1276 G_ 1
General Electric Erie PA Power Station
50358_G_STM2
Erie
1276 G 3
General Electric Erie PA Power Station
50358_G_DSLI
Erie
1276G4
Allegheny Energy Units 3 4 & 5
A388_G_A388
Erie
1276 G_5
Tupperware
50177_G_GEN1
City Light Plant
1284 G_1
Tupperware
50177_G_GEN2
Hugoton 1
1289G1
Tupperware
50177_G_GEN3
Hugoton 1
1289 G_5
Tupperware
50177_G_GEN4
La Crosse
1297_G_3
A365_G A365
A365_G_A365
Ottawa
1316_G_GT1
South Norwalk
6598G1
Wellington Municipal
1330 G_5
South Norwalk
6598_ G_2
Hugoton 2
7011_G_9
South Norwalk
6598 G_3
R S NELSON
1393_B_1A
South Norwalk
6598G4
R S NELSON
1393_B_2A
NENG-CT-Combined Cycle
050_C_050
State Line Combined Cycle (1)
7296_B_HRSG21
South Norwalk
6598 G_5
State Line Combined Cycle (2)
7296 B HRSG22
South Norwalk
6598G6
Scott Wood
50863_C_ST3
Bridgeport Energy
55042_G_GEN1
Scott Wood
50863_C_ST2
Chesterfield County LFG
ZZ175_C_1
Perryville
A328 G A328
Decker Creek <Delete this Unit>
3548 G PV3

 
Existinq Units Scrubber Controls
Exhibit C2.16: Scrubber Control Chan
Exhibit C2.17: Scrubber Efficienc
Unit in Vistas Phase II
WESTON
4078
B
_4
92
DOLET HILLS
51 -B- 1
92.4
76
GRDA
165_B_2
75.9
74
LIMESTONE
298 B LIM1
95.1
81
LIMESTONE
298_B_LIM2
95.1
81
W A PARISH
3470_B_WAP8
73
81
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170B1
88
95
Bridgeport Resco
50883 G GEN1
75
Riley Energy Sys of Lisbon
Wheelabrator
54758 G GEN1
75
Wallingford Resource Recovery
Facility
50664_G_GEN1
75
HARRISON
3944_B_1
98
95
HARRISON
3944B2
98
95
HARRISON
3944_B_3
98
95
PLEASANTS
6004_B_1
90
95
PLEASANTS
6004B2
90
95
ELK RIVER
2039B1
91
ELK RIVER
2039_B_2
91
ELK RIVER
2039_B_3
91
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170 B 2
95
Nelson Industrial Steam Company
50030_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
Nelson Industrial Steam Company
50030_G_GEN2
Dry Scrubber
PLEASANT PRAIRIE
6170 B_2
Wet Scrubber
Bridgeport Resco
50883_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
Exeter Energy Project
50736_G_GEN1
Wet Scrubber
Riley Energy Sys of Lisbon Wheelabrator
54758_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
Wallingford Resource Recovery Facility
50664_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
American Ref Fuel Company Of SE CT
10646_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
Bristol Resource Recovery Facility
50648_G_GENI
Dry Scrubber
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G_NO 5
Dry Scrubber
Mid Connecticut Facility
54945_G_NO 6
Dry Scrubber
Wheelabrator Concord Facility
50873_G_GEN1
Dry Scrubber
CARDINAL
2828_B_2
Wet Scrubber
ELK RIVER
2039 B_ 1
Dry Scrubber
ELK RIVER
2039B2
Dry Scrubber
ELK RIVER
2039 B 3
Dry Scrubber

 
Exhibit C2.17: Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
WHITE BLUFF
6009_B_1
9999.00
0.82
WHITE BLUFF
6009_B_2
9999.00
0.82
FLINT CREEK
6138_B_1
9999.00
1 .20
INDEPENDENCE
6641_B_ 1
9999.00
0.40
INDEPENDENCE
6641_B_2
9999.00
0.40
DUBUQUE
1046_8_6
2.50
0.79
DUBUQUE
1046_B_5
6.00
0.73
DUBUQUE
1046_B_ 1
6.00
0.77
LANSING
1047_B_1
5.00
0.01
LANSING
1047_B_2
5.00
0.01
LANSING
1047_B_3
5.00
0.81
LANSING
1047_B_4
1.32
0.61
MILTON L KAPP
1048_B_2
6.00
0.65
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_2
6.00
0.39
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_3
6.00
0.40
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_4
6.00
0.62
SIXTH STREET
1058_B_5
6.00
0.64
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_8_3
6.00
0.66
PRAIRIE CREEK
1073_B_4
6.00
0.70
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_1
5.00
0.57
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_2
5.00
0.57
SUTHERLAND
1077_B_3
5.00 .
0.56
RIVERSIDE
1081_B_6
6.00
0.81
RIVERSIDE
1081_B_7
6.00
0.81
RIVERSIDE
1081 _B_8
6.00
0.81
RIVERSIDE
1081 _B_9
6.00
0.81
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082_B_ 1
5.00
0.53
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082_ 13_2
5.00
0.54
COUNCIL BLUFFS
1082_B_3
1 .32
0.52
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091_6_1
5.00
0.73
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091_8_2
1 .32
0.71
GEORGE NEAL NORTH
1091B3
1 .32
0.71
BURLINGTON
1104B1
6.00
0.73
MUSCATINE
1167_B_7
6.00
1.22
MUSCATINE
1167_B_8
6.00
0.80
MUSCATINE
1167_B_9
0.14
0.45
PELLA
1175_B_7
5.00
0.70
PELLA
1175_B_8
2.50
0.10
PELLA
1175_B_6
5.00
0.70
EARL F WISDOM
1217_B_ 1
5.00
2.70
FAIR STATION
1218_B_ 1
6.00
5.16
FAIR STATION
1218_B_2
6.00
5.16
OTTUMWA
6254_B_ 1
1 .32
0.67
LOUISA
6664B101
1 .32
0.65

 
Exhibit C2.17 continued
: Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
Existinq Unit chanqes - Sulfur Dioxide
GEORGE NEAL SOUTH
7343_B_4
1.32
0.63
IMARRON RIVER
1230_8_ 1
9999.00
3.00
LA CYGNE
1241_B_2
3.00
1 .20
MURRAY GILL
1242_8_ 1
9999.00
3.00
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_ 1
9999.00
3.00
HUTCHINSON
1248_B_2
9999.00
3.00
HUTCHINSON
1248_8_3
9999.00
3.00
OFFEYVILLE
1271_B_4
9999.00
3.00
OFFEYVILLE
1271_B_5
9999.00
3.00
KAW
1294_B 1
9999.00
3.00
AW
1294_B_3
9999.00
3.00
WELLINGTON
1330_8_4
9999.00
3.00
EFFREY ENERGY CENTE
6068_B_ 1
0.25
1 .20
EFFREY ENERGY CENTE
6068B2
0.25
1 .20
EFFREY ENERGY CENTE
6068_B_3
0.25
1 .20
ECHE
1400_B_1
0.80
0.00
ECHE
1400_B_2
0 .80
0.00
ECHE
1400_B_3
0.80
0.70
RSENAL HILL
1416_B_5A
0.80
0 .09
IEBERMAN
1417_B_ 1
0.80
0.78
IEBERMAN
1417_B_2
0.80
0.78
IEBERMAN
1417_B_3
0.80
0.78
IEBERMAN
1417_B_4
0.80
0.79
SBURY
2076_B_ 1
12.00
1 .16
MONTROSE
2080_B_ 1
1 .30
0.85
MONTROSE
2080_B_2
1 .30
0.88
MONTROSE
2080_B_3
1.30
0.88
MERAMEC
2104_B_1
6.11
2.30
MERAMEC
2104_B_2
6.11
2.30
JAMES RIVER
2161_B_1
9.20
1 .50
JAMES RIVER
2161_B_2
9.20
1 .50
JAMES RIVER
2161_B_3
9.20
1 .50
JAMES RIVER
2161_B_4
9.20
1 .50
JAMES RIVER
2161_B_5
9.20
2.00
ATAN
6065_B_ 1
8.00
0.70
PLATTE
59_B_ 1
2.50
1 .20
WHELAN ENERGY CENTER
60_B_ 1
2.50
1 .20
ON WRIGHT
2240_B_8
2.50
1 .20
GERALD GENTLEMAN
6077_B_2
2.50
1.20
NEBRASKA CITY
6096_B_1
2.50
1.20
GRDA
165_B 2
1.21
0.60
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3302
0.74
0.40
NORTHEASTERN
2963_B_3313
0.80
1 .20
ULSA
2965 B 1402
0.74
0.50

 
Exhibit C2.17 (continued): Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b
Unit in Vistas Phase II
TULSA
2965_B_1403
0.74
0 50
TULSA
2965_B_1404
0.74
0.50
RIVERSIDE
4940_B_1501
0.80
0 .50
RIVERSIDE
4940_B_1502
0.80
0.50
KNOX LEE
3476_B_2
3.00
0.70
KNOX LEE
3476B3
3.00
0.70
KNOX LEE
3476_B_4
3.00
0.70
KNOX LEE
3476_B_5
3.00
0.70
LONE STAR
3477_B_ 1
3.00
0.31
LAKE PAULINE
3521_B_ 1
3.00
0.70
LAKE PAULINE
3521_B_2
3 .00
0.70
LAKE PAULINE
3521B3
3 .00
0.70
LAKE PAULINE
3521_B_4
3.00
0.70
OAK CREEK
3523 B_1
3.00
0.70
PAINT CREEK
3524_B 1
3 .00
0.70
PAINT CREEK
3524_B 2
3.00
0.70
PAINT CREEK
3524_B 3
3.00
0.70
PAINT CREEK
3524 B_4
3.00
0.70
RIO PECOS
3526_B 6
3.00
0.70
FORT PHANTOM
4938 B_ 1
3.00
0.70
FORT PHANTOM
4938 B_2
3.00
0.70
WELSH
6139_B 1
3.00
1 .20
WELSH
6139_B 2
3.00
1 .10
WELSH
6139 B_3
3.00
1 .12
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B_1
3.00
0.69
SAM SEYMOUR
6179 B_2
3.00
0.70
MERAMEC
2104_B_3
2.30
0.89
SIOUX
2107_B_1
4.80
1 .30
SIOUX
2107_B_2
4.80
1.33
PULLIAM
4072_B_3
0.50
1 .20
PULLIAM
4072134
0.50
1 .20
PULLIAM
4072B5
0.50
1 .20
PULLIAM
4072B6
0.50
1 .20
PULLIAM
4072B7
0.50
1 .20
PULLIAM
4072B8
0.50
1 .20
ALMA
4140_B_B1
5.50
1 .43
ALMA
4140B82
5.50
1 .43
ALMA
4140_B_B3
5.50
1 .43
ALMA
4140_B_B4
3.20
1 .43
ALMA
4140_B_B5
3.20
1 .43
J P MADGETT
4271_B_B1
3.20
1 .20
OLUMBIA
8023_B_1
3.20
1 .20
OLUMBIA
8023B2
3.20
1 .20
NELSON DEWEY
4054B1
3.20
2.15

 
Exhibit C2.17 continued): Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b Unit in Vis as Phase 11
Pla
NELSON DEWEY
4054_B_2
3.20
2.17
WESTON
4078_B_1
3.20
1 .20
WESTON
4078_B_2
3.20
1 .20
WESTON
4078_B_3
3.20
1 .20
VALLEY
4042_B_ 1
3.28
1 .20
VALLEY
4042_B_2
3.28
1 .20
VALLEY
4042_B_3
3.28
1 .20
VALLEY
4042_B_4
3.28
1 .20
EDGEWATER
4050_B_3
3.20
1 .20
EDGEWATER
4050_B_4
3.20
1 .20
EDGEWATER
4050_B_5
3.20
1 .20
GENOA
4143_B_ 1
3.20
1.20
COFFEEN
861_8_01
7.29
1 .41
COFFEEN
861_B_02
7.29
1 .39
E D EDWARDS
856_B_1
4.71
3.60
E D EDWARDS
856 B 2
4.71
0.86
E D EDWARDS
856_B_3
4.71
2.15
MEREDOSIA
864_B_01
6.80
5.52
MEREDOSIA
864_B_02
6.80
5.27
MEREDOSIA
864_B_03
6.80
5.40
MEREDOSIA
864_B_04
6 .80
5.40
MEREDOSIA
864_B_05
2 .42
0.41
NEWTON
6017_B_2
1 .20
0.48
LABADIE
2103B1
4 .80
0.75
LABADIE
2103B2
4.80
0 .75
LABADIE
2103_B_3
4.80
0.74
LABADIE
2103_B_4
4.80
0.73
MERAMEC
2104_8_4
2.30
0 .88
RUSH ISLAND
6155_B_ 1
2.30
0.68
RUSH ISLAND
6155_B_2
2.30
0.67
MONROE
1733_B_1
1 .67
1 .60
MONROE
1733_B_2
1 .67
1 .60
MONROE
1733_B_3
1 .67
1 .60
MONROE
1733_B_4
1 .67
.
1 .60
BELLE RIVER
6034_B_
1
1 .67
1 .20
BELLE RIVER
6034_B_2
1 .67
1 .20
GREENWOOD
6035_8_1
1 .67
0.80
ONNERS CREEK.
1726_8_15
2.50
0.00
ONNERS CREEK
1726B1 6
2.50
0.00
ROCKPORT
6166_B_MB1
6.00
1 .20
ROCKPORT
6166_B_MB2
6.00
1 .20
ONESVILLE
2840_8_5
0.63
1 .20
ONESVILLE
2840_B_6
0.63
1 .20
GEN J M GAVIN
8102B1
0.17
7.42

 
Exhibit C2.17 continued
•
Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b Unit in Vistas Phase II
GEN J M GAVIN
8102 B_2
0 10
7.42
CARDINAL
2828 B_3
1.80
2.00
WILMARTH
1934 B_ 1
9999.00
0.08
WILMARTH
1934_B 2
9999.00
0.08
NEW ULM
2001_B 1
9999.00
0.05
NEW ULM
2001 B_2
9999.00
0 .05
NEW ULM
2001 B 4
9999.00
4.00
Springfield
2012 G_4
9999.00
4.00
MINNESOTA VALLEY
1918 B_4
4.00
1 .19
BLACK DOG
1904 B_3
3.00
1 .30
BLACK DOG
1904 B_4
3.00
1 .30
RED WING
1926 B 1
9999.00
0.08
RED WING
1926_B 2
9999.00
0.08
HOOT LAKE
1943 B_1
4.00
0.56
HOOT LAKE
1943 B_2
4.00
0.56
HOOT LAKE
1943_B 3
4.00
0.60
HIGH BRIDGE
1912_8_5
3 .00
1 .95
HIGH BRIDGE
1912_B_6
3.00
1 .95
SHERBURNE COUNTY
6090_B_ 1
0.59
0.96
SHERBURNE COUNTY
6090132
0.59
0.96
SHERBURNE COUNTY
6090_B_3
0.57
0.60
M L HIBBARD
1897 B_3
9999.00
1 .20
M L HIBBARD
1897 B_4
9999.00
1 .20
SYL LASKIN
1891 B_ 1
4.00
4.00
YL LASKIN
1891 B_2
4.00
4.00
LLEN S KING (Existing Configuration)
1915 B_1
0.44
1 .60
LEASANT PRAIRIE
6170 B_2
3.20
1 .00
DEVON
544_B_7
0.55
0.30
EVON
544 B_8
0.55
0.30
OR WALK HARBOR
548 B 1
0.55
0.30
OR WALK HARBOR
548 B_2
0.55
0.30
IDDLETOWN
562 B_2
0.55
0.30
ONTVILLE
546 B_5
0.55
0.30
ONTVILLE
546_B 6
0.55
0.30
IDDLETOWN
562 B_4
0.55
0.30
IDDLETOWN
562_B 3
0.55
0.30
RIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB2
0.55
0.33
RIDGEPORT HARBOR
568_B_BHB3
1.10
0.33
Exeter Energy Project
50736_G_GEN1
0.00
0.11
NEW HAVEN HARBOR
6156_B_NHB1
0.55
0.33
MERRIMACK
2364 B_1
4.00
2.40
MERRIMACK
2364 B_2
4.00
2.40
SCHILLER
2367 B_4
4.00
2 .40
SCHILLER
2367B5
4.00
2.40

 
Exhibit C2.17 (continued): Sulfur Dioxide Rate Limit Chan es b
Unit in Vistas Phase II
Unit ID Chanqes
SCHILLER
2367_B_6
4.00
2 40
EDGE MOOR
593_B_3
1 .53
1 .13
EDGE MOOR
593_B_4
1.53
0.81
EDGE MOOR
593_B_5
1.05
1 .07
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_1
0.79
1 .20
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_2
0.79
1 .20
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_3
0.79
1 .20
INDIAN RIVER
594_B_4
0.79
1.20
BOWEN
703_B_2BLR
1 .20
1 .67
BOWEN
703_B_3BLR
1 .20
1 .67
BOWEN
703_B_4BLR
1 .20
1 .67
YATES
728_B_Y6BR
1 .20
1 .67
YATES
728_B_Y7BR
1 .20
1 .67
MCINTOSH
6124_B_1
1 .20
1 .27
WANSLEY
6052_B_1
1 .20
1 .67
WANSLEY
6052_6 2
1 .20
1 .67
RIVERSIDE
1927_B_6
3.00
0.90
RIVERSIDE
1927_B_7
3.00
0.90
RIVERSIDE
1927_B_8
3.00
2.50
HUTSONVILLE
863 B 05
4.48
3.21
HUTSONVILLE
863_6 06
4.37
3.11
ELK RIVER
2039_B_ 1
9999.00
0.02
ELK RIVER
2039_B_2
9999.00
0.02
ELK RIVER
2039 B 3
9999.00
0.02
BAY FRONT
3982_6 1
3.00
2.00
BAY FRONT
3982_6 2
3.00
2.00
BAY FRONT
3982_B_5
3.20
2.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_7
4.25
2.00
BLOUNTSTREET
S
3992_B_8
4.25
2.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_9
4.25
2.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_ 1
3.00
0.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_11
1 .16
0.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_2
3.00
0.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_3
1 .16
0.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_5
1 .16
0.00
BLOUNT STREET
3992_B_6
1 .16
0.00
MANITOWOC
4125_B_5
5.50
2.00
MANITOWOC
4125 B 6
3.20
2.00
MANITOWOC
4125 B_7
3.20
2.00
MANITOWOC
4125 B_8
1 .04
2.00
BLACKHAWK
4048_B_3
3.00
0.00
BLACKHAWK
4048_B_4
3.00
0.00
ROCK RIVER
4057_B_1
0.00
2.00
ROCK RIVER
4057B2
0.00
2.00

 
Exhibit C2.18: Unit ID Chan
AES Granite Ridge Energy
A093_G_A093
093
Units 1 & 2
Newington Power Facility
A311_G_A311
311
Units 1 & 2
Claremont Facility
50872_G_GEN1
GEN1
GEN1 & GEN2
Northeastern
2963 B 3301A
3301A
3301A&3301B
West Gardner
A429_G_A429
429
A429
Russell Energy Cntr
A374 G A374
374
A374
Bayou Cove Peaking Power
A55433_G_A112
112
CTG-1
Big Cajun I Peakers
55958_G_1
1
CTG1
Big Cajun 1 Peakers
55958_G_2
2
CTG2
HAWTHORN
2079 B_5
5
5A
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN1
GEN1
1
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN2
GEN2
2
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN3
GEN3
3
Sweeny Cogeneration Facility
55015_G_GEN4
GEN4
4
Berrien Springs
1753_G_1A
IA
Berrien Springs
1753_G_2A
2A
2
Berrien Springs
1753_G_3A
3A
3
Berrien Springs
1753_G_4A
4A
4
Plymouth State College Cogeneration
54803 G A
A
GEN1
Dunbarton Energy PartnersL P
50347 G MA15
MA15
1
St Bonifacius
6824_G_ 1
1
2
State Line Combined Cycle
7296 G 2
2-2

 
Summary Of Changes Made By Ladco / Illinois Epa
The following tables reflect changes made by LADCO/ Illinois EPA regarding fuel assignments for
Illinois plants, mercury cost controls, unit characteristics and ESP changes
.
Fuel Assignment
Table 3.1
,Plant'~'ofSt~'?$ .
VERMILION
897_B_ 1
Bituminous
Bituminous
VERMILION
897_B_2
Bituminous
Bituminous
WOOD RIVER
898 B 4
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous, Bituminous
HAVANA
B_9
891139
Bituminous
DALLMAN
963_B_31
Bituminous
Bituminous
BALDWIN
889_B_3
Bituminous, Subbituminous
i Subbituminous
DALLMAN
963B33
Bituminous
Bituminous
LAKESIDE
964B7
Bituminous
LAKESIDE
B_8
964138
Bituminous
Bituminous
MARION
976B1
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
MARION
976_B_2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
MARION
976_B_3
Bituminous, Subbituminous
WOOD RIVER
899B5
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous, Bituminous
JOPPA STEAM
987132
Bituminous, Subbituminous
.
!
Subbitunnous
MARION
976B4
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
WILL COUNTY
884_B_ 1
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
_
WILL COUNTY
884_B_2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
WILL COUNTY
884 B_3
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
WILL COUNTY-
884B4
Bituminous, Subbituminous
} Subbituminous
HENNEPIN
892B1
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOPPA STEAM
887131
B_ 1
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbitumnous
WAUKEGAN
883_B_7
Bituminous, Subbitmmnous
(
Subbituminous
JOPPA STEAM
887_B_3
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOPPA STEAM
897B4
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOPPA STEAM
887_B_5
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOPPA STEAM
887B6
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
BALDWIN
889B1
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
_
BALDWIN
889_B_2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
FISK
886 B 19
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous

 
HUTSONVILLE
863B05
Bituminous
Bituminous
PO WERTON
879B62
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
POWERTON
879B61
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
"
POW ERTON
879B52
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
PO W ERTON
879 B 51
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
KINCAID
876B2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
KINCAID
876 B I
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOLIET 9
874_B_5
Subbituminous
Subbituminous
CRAWFORD
867_B_8
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
CRAWFORD
867_B_7
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
MEREDOSIA
864B05
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous, Bituminous
MEREDOSIA
864B04
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
MEREDOSIA
864B03
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
MEREDOSIA
864B02
Bituminous, Subbituntinous
Bituminous
MANO_IL_Coal Steam
041C041
Bituminous
Bituminous
PEARL STATION
6238_B_1A
Bituminous
_ Bituminous
JOLIET 29
384B71
Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOLIET 29
384B72
Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOLIET 29
384 B_81
Subbituminous
Subbituminous
JOLIET 29
384 B 82
Subbituminous
Subbituminous
DUCK CREEK
6016 B_ 1
Bituminous
Bituminous
MEREDOSIA
864B01
i
Bituminous, Subbituminous
NEWTON
6017B2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
HUTSONVILLE
863B06
Bituminous
Bituminous
E D EDWARDS
856_B_ I
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous
_
" .
.
E D EDWARDS-
856_B_2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
E D EDWARDS
856133
B_3
Bituminous, Subbituminous
COFFEEN
861B01
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Bituminous, Subbituminous
COFFEEN
861B02
Bituminous, Subbituminous
HituminousiSubbitummous
WAUKEGAN
883 B_8
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
NEWTON
6017_B_I
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
DALLMAN
963B32
Bituminous
WAUKEGAN
883-B-17
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous
HENNEPIN
892 B 2
Bituminous, Subbituminous
Subbituminous

 
Changes in Mercury Control Costs
Table 3.2
es in Mercur Con rol Cos s
See EPA documentation for 2 .1 .9 definition of cost components. llliinois EPA Assumptions Changes reflected differing combinations of these
Than EPA . Source Illinois EPA
.
IA
Bituminous
ESP
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
2A
Bituminous
SP/0
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
3A
Bituminous
ESP+FF
L
2
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
4A
Bituminous
ESP+FGD
H
1
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
5A
Bituminous
ESP+FGD+SCR
H
none
none
none
6A
Bituminous
ESP+SCR
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
Ia+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
7A
Bituminous
FF
L
0.5
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
l0A
Bituminous
HESP
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
IIA
Bituminous
HESP+FGD
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
12A
Bituminous
HESP+SCR
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+Ib
13A
Bituminous
PMSCRUB+FGD
H
I
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
14A
Bituminous
PMSCRUB+FGD+SCR
H
none
none
none
IB
Bituminous
ESP
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
2B
Bituminous
ESP/O
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
3B
Bituminous
ESP+FF
H
2
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
4B
Bituminous
ESP+FGD
L
1
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
5B
Bituminous
ESP+FGD+SCR
L
none
none
none
6B
Bituminous
ESP+SCR
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
7B
Bituminous
FF
H
0.5
(2)+(3)
Ia+2b+2c+2e+2f
108
Bituminous
HESP
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
IIB
Bituminous
HESP+FGD
L
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
Ia+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
12B
Bituminous
HESP+SCR
H
2
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
13B
Bituminous
PMSCRUB+FGD
L
I
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+Ib
14B
Bituminous
PMSCRUB+FGD+SCR
L
none
none
none
15
Lignite
ESP
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
16
Lignite
ESP+FF
L
1
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
17
Lignite
ESP+FGD
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
18
Lignite
FF+DS
L
1
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
19
Lignite
FF+FGD
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
20
Subbiturninous
ESP
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
21
Subbituminous
ESP+DS
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
22
Subbituminous
ESP+FGD
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
23
Subbituminous
ESP+SCR
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
24
Subbituminous
FF
L
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
25
Subbituminous
FF+DS
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
26
Subbituminous
FF+FGD
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
27
Subbituminous
HESP
L
I
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
28
Subbituminous
HESP+FGD
L
1
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
29
Subbituminous
HESP+SCR
L
1
(2)+(3)+(4)
la+2b+2c+2e+2g+lb
30
Subbituminous
PMSCRUB
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f
31
Subbituminous
PMSCRUB+FGD+SCR
L
3
(2)+(3)
la+2b+2c+2e+2f

 
Existinq Unit Specific Plant Changes
Table 3.3
Chan es for Marion Plant
Note: Boiler #2 and #3 were retired at this facility . Thus
capacity for boiler #1 changed from 34MW to 123 MW
.
Table 3 .4
Particulate Matter Type Changes for Select Plants
WOOD
RIVER
898B4
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side
ESP
DALLMAN
963B31
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side
ESP
LAKESIDE
964137
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side
ESP
LAKESIDE
964 B 8
Hot-side ESP
Cold-side
ESP
MARION
976 B I
Original
Revised
Unit ID
1
123
Capacity (MW)
34
120
Particulate Matter Type
Post Combustion Control
Online Year
Hot-sideESP
None
1963
Fabric Filter
SNCR
2001
Heat Rate (Btu/KWh)
14455
11965
Uncontrolled NOX Base Rate
(lbs/MMBtu)
0.72
0.76
Controlled NOX Base Rate
(lbs/MMBtu)
0.72
0.76

Back to top