BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
NOTICE
TO:
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board the TESTIMONY OF RICHARD E. AYRES, THOMAS C.
HORNSHAW, Ph.D., GERALD KEELER, Ph.D., DEBORAH RICE, Ph.D., CHRISTOPHER
ROMAINE, JIM ROSS, JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D., and MARCIA WILLHITE, a copy of
which is herewith served upon you.
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
By: ______________________
Gina Roccaforte
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
DATED: April 27, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P. O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED
217/782-5544
ON RECYCLED PAPER
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD E. AYRES
Qualifications
My name is Richard Ayres. I am the principal in the Ayres Law Group, located at 1615
L Street, N.W., Suite 1350, Washington D.C. My legal practice concentrates on the
Clean Air Act (“CAA”), with which I have been professionally involved since the first
major federal clean air legislation was passed in 1970.
I graduated with honors in 1964 from Princeton University's undergraduate program in
the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. In 1969 I received an
Ll.B. from Yale Law School, together with an advanced degree in Political Science from
Yale University.
In 1970, I co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”), now one of the
leading environmental organizations in the world. I was one of two attorneys who
headed the organization’s Clean Air Act work. At NRDC, where I worked until 1991, I
was involved in shaping the nation's clean air law and policies in all three branches of the
federal government.
In 1991, I entered the private practice of law, becoming a partner in O'Melveny & Myers,
a large international law firm headquartered in Los Angeles, where I headed the
environmental department in the Washington office. In 1996, I became a partner in the
large national law firm of Howrey Simon Arnold & White of Washington, D.C. In 2001,
I opened my own law firm, which represents industry, State governments, and
individuals, almost entirely in air pollution-related matters. My clients have included
companies in automobile, diesel engine, transportation, electric power, oil, natural gas,
chemical, pulp and paper, small engine and pollution control industries, as well as State
governments and individuals. I represent clients before the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the federal courts.
In 2005, I was asked by the national organizations of State and local air pollution control
officials, known as the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(“STAPPA”) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (“ALAPCO”),
to advise and assist them with developing a Model Rule for control of mercury emissions
from large coal-fired electric generating plants. This project reflected widespread
disenchantment among State and local air pollution officials with the mercury rule
adopted by the USEPA. Under the direction of the organizations’ mercury control
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
committee, I served as draftsman of the Model Rule document published in October,
2005.
Subsequently I was asked by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assist the
agency with the mercury control rule now before the Board. In that connection I have
served as a resource and advisor to the staff of the Illinois EPA on the rule now before
you.
I will testify regarding the legal and policy aspects of the federal mercury rule and the
CAA, the STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule, and the Illinois mercury rule.
The Federal “Clean Air Mercury Rule” (“CAMR”)
Since 1970, the CAA has provided for federal regulation of emissions of “hazardous air
pollutants” (“HAPs”). In 1970, Congress directed USEPA to establish standards for
HAPs that would “protect public health with an ample margin of safety.” Clean Air
Amendments of 1970, Section 112. In 1990, in response to USEPA’s failure to
implement the mandated program effectively, Congress amended Section 112 into its
current form. 42 U.S.C. 7412.
The revised Section 112 directed USEPA to set technology-based emission limitations
for all sources of HAPs. The law listed more than 180 HAPs, including mercury. For
each source category of HAPs, USEPA was required to write “Maximum Available
Control Technology” (“MACT”) emission standards. § 7412(d). To the extent that a
MACT standard is insufficient to protect public health, USEPA is also required to
establish more stringent standards to protect public health with an ample margin of
safety. § 7412(f).
With respect to electric generating units (“EGUs”), the largest category of mercury
emitters, the CAA provides a special process. §7412(n). USEPA must conduct a study
and report to Congress, not later than November 15, 1994, regarding the hazards to
public health posed by mercury emissions from EGUs. If USEPA concludes that it is
“appropriate and necessary,” the agency must regulate mercury emissions from EGUs.
§7412(n)(1)(B).
USEPA did not transmit the required report to Congress until 1998. Even then, the Final
Report deferred making the finding whether regulating mercury emissions from EGUs
was “appropriate and necessary.”
Two years later, in 2000, USEPA finally issued a finding that “regulation of HAP
emissions from coal- and oil-fired utility steam generating units under Section 112 is
appropriate and necessary.” At the same time, USEPA added these units to the list of
sources that are subject to MACT standards under Section 112(c) the CAA.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
Beginning in 2001, USEPA convened a stakeholder process under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (“FACA”) to provide input on the federal mercury HAP standard. The
FACA committee included representatives from federal, State and local governments,
industry and environmental organizations. The Committee met 14 times over an 18
month period, thoroughly analyzing the issues involved in regulating emissions from
EGUs.
In 2004, however, USEPA abruptly terminated the FACA committee and reversed
regulatory course. It proposed, and then adopted, federal regulations that (1) removed
coal and oil-fired EGUs from the list of HAP emitters under §112(c); (2) eschewed
setting any MACT standard for EGUs; and, (3) adopted instead a mercury cap and trade
program it described as a New Source Performance Standard (“NSPS”) under Section
111, 42 U.S.C. 7411.
This “Clean Air Mercury Rule” (“CAMR”), as USEPA called it, ignored the advice of a
FACA stakeholder committee, including State and local officials and representatives of
the electric utility industry. State and local representatives in the FACA process had
called for unit-by-unit emissions standards reflecting the greatest reduction in emissions
technically feasible. They rejected emission trading for HAPs, which would not assure
emissions reductions at every HAP source. And they encouraged USEPA to provide an
enhanced role for States in implementing the standard. CAMR was contrary to this
advice on every point.
CAMR broke entirely unprecedented legal and policy ground. As the comments
submitted by Illinois EPA pointed out, USEPA’s proposal for a “cap and trade” NSPS
was unprecedented as policy and created unnecessary legal risks. In the 34 years
preceding CAMR that Sections 111 or 112 have been in the CAA , the agency has never
interpreted either of them in this way. Nothing in the language or legislative history of
the CAA, previous EPA regulations, or court decisions supports the legal theory that
HAPs can be regulated under a Section 111 NSPS, rather than by a HAP standard under
Section 112. Prior to CAMR, USEPA had adopted MACT regulations under Section 112
for every one of the source categories of HAPs it had regulated.
Moreover, nothing in the language or history of the CAA, previous EPA regulations, or
court decisions provided a legal basis for establishing a “cap and trade” NSPS. Since
1970, when NSPS came into the CAA, USEPA has always interpreted NSPS as requiring
unit-by-unit technology-based standards, and has never attempted to adopt a standard
implemented with a cap and trade program, nor claimed any such authority.
USEPA’s new interpretation has very serious implications for air pollution control
policy. Unlike Section 112, Section 111 does not provide authority to impose additional
pollution reduction requirements if installation of available control technology is not
sufficient to protect public health. So under the CAMR theory, USEPA would be
powerless to require greater control of mercury emissions based on public health needs if
the CAMR cap proved inadequate. Another consequence of adopting a cap and trade
program is that the regulator cannot guarantee each unit will install available emission
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
control technologies. If the owner or operator wishes, he or she may comply with the
CAMR cap at a given unit or plant using emission allowances rather than reducing
pollution. Such a compliance strategy would not provide protection for public health for
the people affected by the plant’s emissions. When the pollutants in question are HAPs,
a cap and trade program creates obvious questions of equity, and, depending on who lives
in the area affected by the emissions, of environmental justice.
Illinois submitted comments that were critical of the USEPA proposal. The State pointed
out that mercury is a highly potent neurotoxin, particularly harmful to developing fetuses
and young children. Because of the presence of mercury in fish, all of Illinois’ water
bodies have fish consumption advisories. The State urged USEPA to adopt MACT
standards for mercury emissions from EGUs under Section 112 of the CAA.
The State also commented that USEPA should adopt much more stringent mercury
emission limitations. Illinois particularly criticized USEPA’s proposal to require no
emission reductions until 2018, other than whatever incidental “co-benefits” might flow
from installation of emission controls for sulfur and nitrogen oxides after 2010. Illinois
also criticized the proposed 2018 standard because, as USEPA acknowledged, “banking”
of “early reduction allowances,” might prevent the national CAMR “cap” from be
achieved before 2028.
The State also opposed mercury emission trading, because of the potential for leaving
some citizens less protected where EGUs decide to use mercury allowances for
compliance rather than reducing emissions.
Finally, Illinois commented that any mercury rule should be fuel neutral, with a common
standard for bituminous and subbituminous coal. The State noted that the limits for new
sources using subbituminous coal in the USEPA proposal were so lax that they “are
tantamount to no control.”
USEPA received over 500,000 comments on its proposals – the most ever received by the
agency on a regulatory proposal. They were overwhelmingly critical of the CAMR
proposal. Most urged USEPA to abandon the cap and trade NSPS approach and return to
the approach of setting MACT standards applicable to each EGU.
Members of the FACA committee commented that it had never discussed the notion of
regulating mercury from EGUs with an NSPS under Section 111. They also noted that
the NSPS USEPA proposed (and subsequently adopted) was more lenient than FACA
representatives of the electric power industry had already agreed was reasonable.
In May, 2005, USEPA promulgated a model emission cap and trade program, and State-
by-State mercury emission budgets, These budgets are applicable whether or not a State
chooses to adopt the Model Rule.
The national cap for 2010 is set at 38 tons; in 2018, a
national cap of 15 tons takes effect.
Because the rule allows for trading and banking,
USEPA projects that even by 2020, emissions will still be 24.3 tons, reduced by only 50
per cent from the 1999 baseline. It is important to note that the existence of a statewide
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
emissions “cap” does not mean that mercury emissions from EGUs will necessarily ever
be less than the cap. Under CAMR, owners of Illinois EGUs could meet some or all of
their obligations by buying mercury allowances from outside the State rather than by
reducing emissions. Moreover, CAMR provides that USEPA must issue additional
allowances if the mercury allowance price exceeds a pre-established trigger.
CAMR does not require States to use the USEPA model “cap and trade” program or any
other “cap and trade” program. States are required to submit a State Plan demonstrating
that the State will meet the assigned mercury budget. States are therefore free to address
the problem of mercury emissions from EGUs through alternative programs, including
ones that require a percentage emission reduction from each EGU or establish a specific
emission standard applicable to each EGU as the proposed Illinois program does.
Because of the deficiencies in the CAMR perceived by State air pollution control
authorities, fourteen States, including Illinois, filed a Petition for Reconsideration with
USEPA in May, 2003. The Petition asked USEPA to convene a proceeding to reconsider
CAMR, and in the meantime to stay the effectiveness of its decision to remove coal and
oil-fired units from the Section 112(c) list of sources of HAPs.
Senators from both parties also attempted to nullify CAMR by Congressional action. S.J.
Res. 20, which would have overturned the NSPS “cap and trade” program and ordered
USEPA to adopt MACT standards under Section 112(d) of the CAA was defeated
narrowly in the Senate, by a 51-47 vote.
Illinois and other parties also filed petitions for review of CAMR in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging the legality of CAMR.
State of Illinois v. Environmental Protection Agency
, Dkt. Nos. 05-1174 and 05-1189
(D.C. Cir.);
See also, State of New Jersey, et al., v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency,
Dkt. No. 05-1097 and consolidated cases. These petitions ask the
D.C. Circuit to invalidate CAMR and require USEPA to establish a standard under
Section 112 of the CAA. They are currently pending.
The STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule
As previously described, the associations of State and local air pollution control officials,
STAPPA/ALAPCO, were part of the FACA process. STAPPA/ALAPCO submitted
comments strongly critical of the proposed CAMR on many of the same grounds cited by
the Illinois EPA. When USEPA adopted CAMR over the objections of many State air
pollution officials, STAPPA/ALAPCO formed a committee of State officials to develop
an alternative model rule to provide guidance to States that wished to adopt a more
effective rule than CAMR. The STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule represents the
consensus of many State air pollution officials on a feasible and reasonable program for
controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired EGUs. As STAPPA/ALAPCO described
it,
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
The STAPPA/ALAPCO mercury Model Rule (“Model Rule”) for coal-fired
electric generating units (“EGUs”) is intended to provide State and local
governments the tools needed to obtain reductions in mercury emissions required
to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). The Model Rule would
protect the public health using technologies that are available and rapidly entering
the commercial market.
Though based on the accumulated knowledge of State and Local air pollution control
officials regarding the state of the art in mercury emission reduction technology, these
standards do not specify or require any particular technology or method. The objective is
to identify achievable emission reductions that will protect public health, and to stimulate
the rapid commercialization of additional mercury control technologies and methods to
achieve those reductions.
In addition to Illinois , sixteen States – including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maryland
– are currently considering or have already adopted alternatives to CAMR based on the
Model Rule.
The Illinois EPA proposal is similar to the STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule in many
respects. All of the following features of the Model Rule are found in the Illinois EPA
proposed mercury rule. The Model Rule requires that owners and operators of EGUs
expeditiously adopt available and reasonable emission reduction measures to protect
public health. The Model Rule also phased in the standards over time. Similarly, the
Model Rule provides owners and operators a number of options to give them greater
flexibility in making the required emission reductions. The Model Rule specifies the
same standard, regardless of coal type. It allows compliance with either a percentage
reduction requirement or an emission standard related to the electrical output of the EGU.
One compliance option in the Model Rule would require 100 per cent of an owner or
operator’s EGUs to achieve 80 per cent capture of inlet mercury beginning December 31,
2008,
1
and increase mercury capture to 90-95 percent at each plant site by December 31,
2012. The second option would require an owner or operator to capture 90-95 per cent of
inlet mercury, but compliance could be postponed to the end of 2012 for a group of units
generating no more than 50 percent of the total electricity generated by the owner or
operator upon agreement to take certain extra steps starting December 31, 2012: capture
90-95 percent of inlet mercury, and also meet specified standards for reducing emissions
of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides.
Like the Illinois proposal, STAPPA/ALAPCO’s Model Rule prohibits emission trading.
Also like the proposed Illinois rule, the Model Rule allows compliance to be
demonstrated by averaging among in-state plants in Phase I, and averaging at a plant site
1
It should be noted that the Model Rule’s percentage reduction standards are specified in terms of capture
of “inlet” mercury, defined as average concentration of mercury in flue gas at the inlet of the emission
control device immediately downstream of the boiler. Thus the Model Rule would give no credit for
mercury removed by, e.g., pretreatment of coal (“coal washing”). Since the Illinois proposed rule does
give credit for pretreatment, it cannot be said which is more stringent.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
7
in Phase II. Compliance with the STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule is demonstrated on a
rolling 12 month average, just as in the proposed Illinois rule. In order to prevent in-state
EGU’s from selling CAMR allowances to upwind States, which could defeat the
objective of the rule, both the Illinois proposal and the STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule
would not distribute federal CAMR allowances.
The 90-95 percent range in the emission limitation in the Model Rule is in recognition of
today’s uncertainty about the ultimate capability of technologies to remove mercury. The
members of the STAPPA/ALAPCO committee were persuaded that, using currently
demonstrated technologies, existing EGUs are capable of capturing at least 90 percent of
inlet mercury on the timetables provided in the Model Rule. Some STAPPA/ALAPCO
members were convinced that greater reductions – of at least 95 percent – can be
achieved on the specified timetables. Indeed, Massachusetts' regulations already require
95 percent capture of inlet mercury by 2012. Experience with other pollution control
technologies and methodologies suggests that pollution reduction efficiencies will turn
out to be greater, and costs lower, than today’s most optimistic predictions.
The Illinois Mercury Rule
As noted previously, the proposed Illinois Mercury Rule is patterned closely after the
STAPPA/ALAPCO Model Rule. Its purpose is to address the serious health issues
associated with mercury emissions, as emitted mercury works its way up the food chain
to humans. Findings suggesting that the emissions from coal-fired power plants are
limiting the personal and economic futures of a substantial numbers of kids being born in
Illinois seems sufficient reason to apply reasonable measures to eliminate the emissions.
As the TSD describes, the Illinois EPA has already taken steps to curtail exposures to
mercury from almost every other significant mercury source category. The proposed
regulation addresses the single source category that contributes the largest amount of
mercury to the environment – electricity generation by coal-fired power plants.
a. Flexibility in the Illinois proposal
As the TSD and the testimony of the experts show, the proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
achieves the maximum public health protection, while keeping the program flexible and
economically reasonable. The proposed rule requires 90 percent reduction of mercury
emissions, but this requirement is softened by important sources of flexibility in the
program. First, the emission standard is expressed into ways: (1) as a percentage
reduction of input mercury; and (2) as an emission output standard, in units of emissions
allowed per unit of electricity production. The latter is crafted to allow owners and
operators of EGUs to get credit towards meeting the standard for any operation, prior to
combustion as well as in the boiler, that reduces mercury emitted from the power plant.
By giving credit for coal washing, this provision assures that the playing field is leveled
for Illinois bituminous coal, whose use is predicted to increase under the proposed
Illinois Mercury Rule.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
8
Second, the proposed Illinois Mercury Rule allows for in-state emissions averaging in
both phases. In effect, the proposed mercury standard can be met on an Illinois “fleet”
basis after 2009, and on a plant basis at the beginning of 2013.
Third, the proposed rule provides for an exemption for units that will be retired within a
specified time. This exemption eliminates the possible unfairness of requiring
investment in mercury control technology for a unit that has a very limited useful life.
The proposal does not include an exemption for units that claim technological inability to
achieve one of the two standards in the rule. In this it parallels the STAPPA/ALAPCO
Model Rule. The committee of air pollution officials who wrote the Model Rule
concluded, after reviewing the state of the technology to control emissions of mercury
from power plants, that the flexibility already in the Model Rule (which is very similar to
that in the Illinois proposal) would be sufficient.
b. Architecture of the Illinois Program
An important question about the proposed Illinois program is whether it will gain the
approval of USEPA under CAMR. Obviously, the proposed program differs in many
respects from the CAMR. But CAMR does not require States to adopt a program exactly
like the model cap and trade program provided by USEPA. It requires only that a State
program be at least as demanding, in terms of emission reductions, as CAMR. The
proposed Illinois program passes that test. Thus the mercury control program proposed
by the Illinois EPA is consistent with the USEPA regulations. Because the Illinois EPA
proposal will make substantially greater emission reductions on a more accelerated
timetable than required to meet USEPA’s emission cap for Illinois, USEPA is bound by
CAMR to approve the Illinois regulation.
It might be asked whether, since Illinois has commented in favor of using a MACT
standard under Section 112 of the CAA rather than USEPA’s Section 111 NSPS
approach, the State is therefore bound to fashion its standard using the process and
criteria specified in Section 112. In my view, it is not. For many years the CAA has
preserved the right of States to adopt more stringent requirements than requested by
USEPA,
see
CAA Section 116, 42 USC 7416, and the courts have upheld this right.
Moreover, in view of the fact that USEPA removed mercury from the list of HAPs under
Section 112(c) of the CAA, it would be extremely difficult for the agency now to insist
that the States must be bound by the strictures of that section.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Biographical Information for
Richard E. Ayres, Esq.
Richard Ayres graduated with honors in 1964 from Princeton University's undergraduate
program in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. In 1969 Mr.
Ayres received an Ll.B. from Yale Law School, together with an advanced degree in
Political Science from Yale University. He was an editor of the Yale Law Journal, and
received the Perez Prize, a faculty award for the best student-authored article.
In 1970, Mr. Ayres co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), now
one of the leading environmental organizations in the world. At NRDC, where he
worked until 1991, he was influential in shaping the nation's clean air policies in all three
branches of the federal government.
In 1991, Mr. Ayres entered the private practice of law, becoming a partner in O'Melveny
& Myers, a large international law firm, headquartered in Los Angeles. He headed the
environmental department in the firm’s Washington office. In 1996, he became a partner
in the large national law firm of Howrey Simon Arnold & White of Washington, D.C. In
2001, Mr. Ayres opened his own law firm, which represents industry, state governments,
and individuals, almost entirely in air pollution-related matters. His clients have included
companies in automobile, diesel engine, transportation, electric power, oil, natural gas,
chemical, pulp and paper, small engine and pollution control industries, as well as state
governments and individuals. He represents clients before the U.S. EPA and the federal
courts.
Mr. Ayres has handled nearly three dozen cases in the federal appellate courts, including
the Supreme Court of the United States, and handled cases before the federal district
courts. These cases involved the interpretation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and state common law doctrines. He argued
Train v.
NRDC
(1975) and
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation v. NRDC
(1977) before
the Supreme Court. In 1980 Mr. Ayres achieved the largest single reduction in pollution
in American history in litigation in multiple federal district courts n cases against the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), then the nation's largest emitter of sulfur oxides.
The settlement resulted in a reduction of five percent of the entire national emissions of
sulfur dioxide. In 1998 he represented a major manufacturer of diesel engines in the
largest enforcement case ever brought by the government against manufacturers of
engines and vehicles. And in 2002 Mr. Ayres was able to obtain a $20 million settlement
for about 200 residents of a small village that allowed them to move away from a large
power plant rather than suffer continued downwash of sulfuric acid mist and other
pollutants.
Mr. Ayres has participated in many of the most important U.S. EPA rulemaking
proceedings under the Clean Air Act since 1971. Among the more notable are:
development of all 50 of the original State Implementation Plans; revisions to the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards in 1972, 1980, and 2006; regulation of the use of
tall smokestacks by large electric power generating plants; emission standards for new
coal-fired electric generating plants; standards for "reformulated" gasoline; adoption of
emission trading guidance for States; standards for sulfur content of gasoline;
development of open Market Emission Trading guidance; New Source Review; and
several rulemakings involving regulation of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer.
Mr. Ayres has also had extensive experience with Congressional policymaking. During
Congressional consideration of amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1977, 1980, and
1990, he led the National Clean Air Coalition, which included the major environmental
and public health organizations, and labor unions, churches, and civic organizations. The
Coalition successfully sought important additions to the national clean air program
enacted by Congress in the 1970 Clean Air Amendments.
In 1977, the Coalition supported what became the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program, designed to manage emissions growth in the interests of preserving high quality
air and maximizing the potential for economic growth. As a means of achieving these
goals, the Coalition successfully advocated requirements that new emissions units be
required to install state-of-the-art pollution control technology.
In 1990, the Coalition successfully urged the first President Bush and the Congress to
adopt programs to control acid rain, reduce emissions of toxic chemicals, and cut
emissions from new motor vehicles. The acid rain control program requires major
reductions in sulfur oxides emissions from electric power plants. The hazardous
emissions control program replaced a previously ineffective section of the Clean Air Act
with a list of 189 toxic chemicals and instructions for EPA on how to control them.
Motor vehicle standards enacted in 1990 have cut allowable emissions from new cars by
more than 75 percent.
Mr. Ayres has served on a number of blue ribbon panels dealing with the nation's clean
air policy. He was appointed by President Carter to the statutory National Commission
on Air Quality in 1978. He was a member of the Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology, and Regulatory Decision Making from 1991-1994, which produced a major
report on rulemaking in federal agencies. From 1992-2005 he was a member of the U.S.
EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, and he currently serves on the Environmental
Advisory Council to Mayor Tony Williams of Washington, D.C. In 1988, Mr. Ayres was
recognized by the Yale Law School Association of Washington for outstanding service to
the public interest. In 1989, he was honored by the Yale Law School Environmental Law
Association for his role in creating the public interest law movement.
Mr. Ayres is currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the Vermont Law School,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Breakthrough Technologies Institute.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
RELEVANT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ayres, Richard and Mary Rose Kornreich, “Setting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,” in Martineau and Novello, eds.,
The Clean Air Act Handbook
American Bar
Ass’n, Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources (2004).
Ayres, Richard, “Expanding the Use of Environmental Trading Programs Into New Areas
of Environmental Regulation,” 18 Pace Environmental Law Review 87 (Winter 2000).
Ayres, Richard, "The Clean Air Act: Performance and Prospects," 13 American Bar
Association
Natural Resources and Environment
379 (1998).
Ayres, Richard, Robert Rose, Alan C. Lloyd, and Robert Wichert, World Hydrogen
Conference Paper, “Carbon Trading and Hydrogen – Possibilities and Pitfalls” (Bueso
Aires, Argentina, 1998).
Ayres, Richard, "Developing a Market in Emission Credits Incrementally: An 'Open
Market' paradigm for Market-Based Pollution Control,"
Bureau of National Affairs
Environment Reporter
, 1997.
O’Reilly, James T., Kim Burke, James Witt, William Luneberg, and Richard E. Ayres,
Clean Air Permitting Manual,
Clark Boardman Callaghan Environmental Law Series
(March 1997)
Ayres, Richard and Richard Parker, "The Proposed WEPCO Rule: Making the Problem
Fit the Solution,"
Environmental Law Reporter
, 1992.
Ayres, Richard, and David Doniger, “New Source Standard for Power Plants II: Consider
the Law,” 3 Harv. E. L. Rev. 563 (1979).
Ayres, Richard, “Environmental Pollution Control on Stationary Sources under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970,” 4 Ecol. L.Q. 441 (1975).
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS C. HORNSHAW, Ph.D.
Qualifications
My name is Thomas C. Hornshaw. I am a Senior Public Service Administrator and the Manager
of the Toxicity Assessment Unit of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency, IEPA).
I have been employed at the Agency since August of 1985, providing expertise to the Agency in
the area of environmental toxicology. Major duties of my position include development and use of
procedures for toxicity and risk assessments, review of toxicology and hazard information in
support of Agency programs and actions, and critical review of risk assessments submitted to the
Agency for various cleanup and permitting activities.
Also among my duties is one task that particularly qualifies me to participate in this rulemaking. I
am the Agency’s representative to the Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program (FCMP), and
since 1996 I have been the chairman of this Program. In addition to the IEPA, four other state
agencies participate in the FCMP, the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Public
Health, and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. Each agency has specific duties, as
detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement last renewed in 1989, with the Agency's tasks including
laboratory analysis of all fish samples collected for the Program. As a result of my duties, I am
familiar with the fish contaminant data generated for the FCMP, and maintain a database of these
laboratory results.
I received Bachelor of Science (with honors) and Master of Science degrees in Fisheries Biology
from Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. I also received a dual Doctor of
Philosophy degree from Michigan State University, in Animal Science and Environmental
Toxicology. I am a member of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and
Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society. I have authored or co-authored six papers published in
peer-reviewed scientific journals, one report issued through the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and have written or co-written six articles which have appeared in trade journals. I have
also presented sixteen posters and/or talks describing facets of my graduate work and my work at
the Agency at various regional and national meetings. A more descriptive account of my work and
educational background and a list of publications, posters, and talks is included in a Curriculum
Vitae presented as Exhibit A to this testimony.
Testimonial Statement
My testimony today concerns two topics contained in the Agency’s “Technical Support
Document for Reducing Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Generating Units.” I
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
provided for the Technical Support Document (TSD) a description of the operation of the FCMP
(including discussion of the toxicity criteria used by the FCMP to issue sport fish consumption
advisories), and an evaluation of whether Illinois anglers and their families could be at risk from
consuming their catch. This testimony discusses these topics, and focuses especially on mercury
in Illinois sport fish.
THE ILLINOIS FISH CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAM
Operation of the FCMP
– Section 4.2.1 of the TSD provides an overview of the procedures by
which consumption advisories for Illinois sport fish are determined. The majority of these
procedures derive from two documents, the “Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program
Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA; 1989) (attached to this testimony as Exhibit B) and the
“Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory” (Protocol; Anderson et
al., 1993) (attached to the TSD as Document 1). The MOA was drawn up by the cooperating
agencies to provide guidance for the activities needed to administer a credible fish advisory
program. The Protocol was developed by staff from the health, natural resource, and
environmental agencies of all eight Great Lakes states in response to a mandate from the Great
Lakes governors to harmonize the sport fish advisories for the five Great Lakes. As described
below, those procedures not addressed by these two documents or that have become outdated
have been addressed by policy determinations adopted by the FCMP over time.
The FCMP performs three key functions: provide the fish contaminant information necessary for
the Department of Public Health to issue sport fish consumption advisories; provide the IEPA
with information needed to assess waters regarding the goals of the Clean Water Act; and
provide the Department of Natural Resources with information needed to assess the ability of
waters to support abundant, useful, and diverse fish communities. The main goal of the FCMP is
to identify for Illinois anglers those species of fish and bodies of water which may pose the
greatest risks to the anglers and their families, allowing them to avoid these risks by making
informed judgments about the types and amounts of sport fish they eat.
Key elements of the procedures and policies followed by the FCMP to issue sport fish
consumption advisories include:
•
The MOA specifies tasks for the member agencies that allow the FCMP to evaluate
contaminant levels in sufficient numbers and sizes of sport fish from most bodies of
water accessible to anglers. The goal is to sample most accessible waters every five to
ten years, except for waters already under advisory. In these cases, more frequent
sampling is used to assess whether changes in the advisory are needed.
•
The MOA specifies the collection of filet and whole fish samples from a network of 73
permanent stations to be sampled annually or biennially for monitoring of trends in
contaminant levels over time, plus additional samples from across the state to evaluate
important sport-fishing waters. However, trend-monitoring is no longer a goal of the
FCMP and since 1993 only filet samples have been analyzed, and the permanent
monitoring stations are now sampled at the same frequency as other stations.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
•
The MOA specifies collection of a core set of samples from each body of water,
composites of filets from 3-5 fish of similar size for: two different sizes of bottom-feeders
(preferably carp); one sample of an omnivorous species (preferably channel catfish); and
one sample of a predatory species (preferably largemouth or smallmouth bass). These
samples are analyzed for 14 bioaccumulative organic chemicals and mercury. If a sample
is found to contain one or more of the analytes above a criterion, the FCMP has adopted a
policy of requiring a second set of samples from the water, which should include two
bottom-feeders, two omnivores, two predators, and one or more additional species to
confirm the original findings and provide sufficient data for the issuance of advisories.
•
The MOA specifies the use of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s Action Levels as
criteria for determining the need for advisories. However, the process developed in the
Protocol has been used to replace the FDA criteria for Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
Mercury, and Chlordane. The Protocol determines a Health Protection Value (HPV) for
a contaminant, which is then used with five assumed meal frequencies : Unlimited (225
meals/year); One meal/week (52 meals/year); One meal/month (12 meals/year); One
meal/two months (6 meals/year); and Do not eat (0 meals/year), to calculate the level of
contaminant in fish that will not result in exceeding the HPV at each meal frequency.
The HPVs for two target populations, critical health effects, and new criteria for
methylmercury for the various meal frequencies are listed in the Table 4.3 of the TSD.
•
The Protocol stresses the benefits of fish consumption; language relaying this message is
included with all consumption advisories issued.
•
The FCMP has adopted a policy that, except in extraordinary circumstances, two or more
recent sampling events in a water body finding fish exceeding a level of concern for one
or more contaminants are necessary for issuing or changing an advisory. Similarly, two
or more recent samples finding no fish exceeding criteria are necessary for rescinding an
advisory.
Toxicity Criteria for Methylmercury
– The HPVs currently used by the FCMP for
methylmercury are derived from USEPA criteria. In the past, the FCMP relied on a criterion for
mercury in sport fish of 0.5 mg/kg developed by the Illinois Department of Public Health, with
samples exceeding the criterion given “Do not eat” advice and samples below the criterion
placed in the “Unlimited” category. With the adoption of the Protocol as the basis for
developing sport fish advisories, it became necessary to revise this approach in order to make the
mercury advisories consistent with the five categories of consumption advice specified in the
Protocol. Since the Protocol did not contain a Health Protection Value (HPV) for mercury at that
time, the FCMP adopted the USEPA’s Reference Dose for methyl mercury of 0.0001 mg/kg/d as
the HPV to be used in calculating the various concentrations in fish corresponding to the
Protocol’s meal frequencies. In adopting the Reference Dose as the HPV, the FCMP reasoned
that the thorough review of the toxicity database for methyl mercury by the National Academy of
Sciences, which formed the basis for USEPA’s Reference Dose, provided an adequate
justification for using the Reference Dose until the Great Lakes States could develop an HPV for
use with the Protocol. It should be noted that the Great Lakes States have since adopted the
Reference Dose as the HPV for methyl mercury in the Protocol.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
Since the Reference Dose was derived specifically to protect the developing nervous system of
the fetus and children, the FCMP has specified that the meal advice developed from it pertains to
women of childbearing age and children less than 15 (the “sensitive” population in Table 4.3 of
the TSD). In order to protect the “non-sensitive” population, women beyond childbearing age
and adult men, the FCMP adopted for this population the previous USEPA Reference Dose for
methylmercury. This Reference Dose, 0.0003 mg/kg/d, had been based on studies of the effects
of methylmercury on adults, and is thus appropriate for determining the concentrations in fish
corresponding to the Protocol’s meal frequencies.
ARE ILLINOIS ANGLERS AT RISK FROM CONSUMING THEIR CATCH?
An important question addressed in the TSD is whether Illinois anglers and their families eat
enough of their catch to present a health risk, since it could be reasoned that the sport fish
advisories issued by the FCMP should prevent people from eating too much contaminated fish.
Both the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Illinois Natural History Survey
conduct surveys of Illinois anglers, but unfortunately neither includes questions concerning
consumption of their catch. Therefore, this question had to be answered by indirect means, and I
reviewed reports of several surveys reporting on seafood consumption patterns by the general
public and by anglers to answer this question.
National Surveys
– Several national surveys have been conducted to evaluate fish and shellfish
consumption by the general public. Even though these surveys were conducted for different
purposes over different time frames, using different methodologies, the range of national per
capita fish and shellfish consumption rates is very consistent among studies considered to be
valid. These values range from 10 grams per day (g/d) to 17.9 g/d, or approximately 16-28
eight-ounce meals per year [see Table 2 within Document 5 attached to TSD].
Most surveys of the general population contain persons who eat no fish, but a few also contain
information on respondents that had consumed fish during the survey period. These “consumers
only” data provide a more reasonable estimate of fish and shellfish consumption by persons who
eat seafood. For example, Pao et al. (1982) evaluated the “consumers only” data from the 1977-
1978 USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) (USDA, 1983), and found that the
mean overall fish and shellfish consumption rate for consumers was 48 g/d, or approximately 77
eight-ounce meals/year, versus the rate for the general population from the NFCS of 12 g/d (19
meals/yr). Another study by Popkin et al. (1989) provides additional data that may be
particularly relevant to evaluating potential risks due to seafood consumption. This study
reviewed data for female “consumers only” of childbearing age (ages 19-50) from both the
NFCS and the 1985-1986 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII)
(USDA, 1987; USDA 1988). This study found that these female consumers reported an average
consumption of fish and shellfish of 111 g/d (approximately 178 meals/year) from the NFCS
data and 88.2 g/d (141 meals/year) from the CSFII data.
Surveys of Consumers of Sport Fish
– The literature regarding persons who eat sport-caught
fish is limited in comparison to studies of the general population’s consumption of all types of
seafood. As is the case for the “consumers only” populations discussed above, anglers consume
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
more seafood meals per year than the general population [see Table 6 within Document 5
attached to TSD]. This table shows that mean levels of fish consumption in these studies range
from 12.3 to 63.2 g/d (approximately 19-101 eight-ounce meals/year). Most of these studies also
provide high-end rates of sport fish consumption (95
th
or 96
th
percentiles, or maximum reported),
which range from 17.9 to 220 g/d (28-353 meals/year).
Studies of sport fish consumption by angler cohorts in Michigan and California provide the most
thorough evaluations of consumers of sport fish. The studies of Michigan anglers (the Michigan
Sport Anglers study; West et al., 1992, 1993, Murray and Burmaster, 1994) provide data for total
amounts of fish and self-caught fish consumed by various sub-groups of the cohort [see Table 8
within Document 5 attached to TSD]. From the table, it can be seen that this group also
consumes much more fish than the general population, with mean and 95
th
percentile rates as
high as 61.3 and 123.9 g/d (99 and 199 meals/year), respectively. Particularly relevant for
describing at-risk populations is the information regarding females (ages not specified), with
mean and 95
th
percentile of total fish consumption reported to be 42.3 and 85.7 g/d (68 and 138
meals/year), respectively.
The studies of California anglers provide very similar results, although this study evaluated
consumption of marine fish. These studies (the 1991-1992 Santa Monica Bay Seafood
Consumption Study; SCCWRP and MBC, 1994, Allen, et al., 1996) reported an overall mean
consumption rate by Bay anglers of 49.6 g/d (80 meals/year), which is consistent with the mean
values for the Michigan anglers from Table 8. The Santa Monica Bay Study also includes data
on various ethnic groups that demonstrate considerable variability; the 90
th
percentiles ranged
from a low of 64.3 g/d (103 meals/year) for Hispanics to a high of 173.6 g/d (279 meals/year) for
“Other” (primarily Pacific Islanders) anglers.
Study of Illinois Lake Michigan Anglers
– Using Illinois Natural History Survey data from
creel surveys of anglers fishing the Illinois portion of Lake Michigan from 1987 to 1993,
Pellettieri et al. (1996) evaluated the potential for these anglers to exceed the Health Protection
Value (HPV) adopted by the Great Lakes states for daily intake of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) of 3.5 micrograms per day (ug/d) as a result of their consumption of sport-caught fish
from Lake Michigan. This study used data from Illinois and Wisconsin to determine PCB levels
in five commonly caught species (yellow perch, brown and rainbow trout, and coho and chinook
salmon). These calculated PCB concentrations were then combined with the five meal
consumption frequencies chosen by the Great Lakes states for issuing consumption advice
(Unlimited = 225 meals/year; One meal/week = 52 meals/year; One meal/month = 12
meals/year; 6 meals/year; and Do not eat) to estimate anglers’ intakes of PCBs for nine survey
time periods covering spring, summer, and fall. The study found that if anglers consume their
catch at the Unlimited rate, the acceptable daily PCB intake would be exceeded for all time
periods (range of intakes 7.27 to 71.85 ug/d), and even consumption at the One meal/week rate
would exceed the limit in four time periods (those periods when more highly contaminated
salmon were most likely to be caught; range 1.67 to 16.60 ug/d).
Are Anglers at Risk?
– This review of fish consumption literature provides convincing
evidence that sport anglers may consume amounts of sport-caught fish that could allow them and
their families to exceed health-based limits for chemical contaminants in their catch. The
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
literature regarding anglers’ consumption of their catch strongly suggests that a subset of these
anglers have meal frequencies that put them well above the recommended rates for even fairly
low levels of contamination. For example, even the mean rates of consumption for sport-caught
fish, in the range of 60-80 meals/year based on the Michigan and California studies, exceed the
recommended meal frequency of One meal/week for lower levels of contamination. These
consumption rates also exceed the Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program’s state-wide
advisory for mercury, which recommends that women of child-bearing age and children under 15
limit their consumption of predator species to no more than one meal/week.
If anglers at the upper end of the meal frequency distribution are eating relatively contaminated
fish, the risks to the anglers and their families are even greater. This is clearly illustrated by the
upper percentile results noted above, with high-end consumers of sport fish eating 100 to 300+
meals/year. Such consumption rates would place these anglers and their families at risk from
even low levels of contamination in their catch, and if contaminant levels are moderate or high
the risks are correspondingly elevated. This is further demonstrated by the results from the
Illinois Lake Michigan anglers, who were found to exceed recommended levels of PCB intake at
the Unlimited meal frequency and even the One meal/week rate for some time periods. Thus, it
can be said with a high level of confidence that it is possible for anglers and their families to
consume enough sport fish to put themselves and their families at risk from chemical
contaminants in their catch.
Concluding Statement
This concludes my portion of the Agency’s testimony for reducing mercury emissions from coal-
fired electric generating units.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Exhibit A
CURRICULUM VITAE
THOMAS C. HORNSHAW
EDUCATION: Ph.D., Animal Science and Environmental Toxicology, 1985. M.S., 1981, and
B.S., 1976, Fisheries Biology, Michigan State University.
EXPERIENCE: Senior Public Service Administrator, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, 1985 - Present.
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University,
1981 - 1984.
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State
University, 1978 - 1981.
Student Aide, Water Quality Division, Biology Section, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1976 - 1977.
FIELDS OF EXPERIENCE: At the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Dr.
Hornshaw's major duties include the management of the Toxicity Assessment Unit;
development and use of procedures for human and environmental exposure assessments
and risk assessments; review of toxicological data and hazard information in support of
Agency programs and actions; and critical review of remedial investigation and risk
assessment documents submitted to the Agency during hazardous waste site investigations
and cleanups. Dr. Hornshaw was a member of the Agency's Cleanup Objectives Team until
1993, when that Team's functions were assumed by the Toxicity Assessment Unit. As a
member of the Air Toxics Action Committee, he participated in the development of Illinois
=
Air Toxics rules. He is one of the Agency's representatives to the Great Lakes Toxic
Substances Control Agreement (member of the Fish Advisory Task Force) and is the Chair
of the multi-agency Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. Dr. Hornshaw is also a
member of the National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure Guidance Levels,
moderated by USEPA, whose task is the development of action levels for use in unplanned
air releases of hazardous chemicals. In an earlier assignment at the Agency, Dr. Hornshaw
assisted in the development of bioassay protocols and quality assurance procedures for the
Biomonitoring Unit.
As part of his duties during his Ph.D. research at Michigan State University, Dr. Hornshaw
conducted experiments to develop protocols for mammalian wildlife dietary LC50 and
reproduction tests, using mink and European ferrets as representative mammalian
carnivores. He has published four papers in scientific journals as a result of this research,
and the protocols developed from these studies have been published by USEPA.
As part of his duties during his M.S. research at Michigan State, Dr. Hornshaw conducted
experiments to assess the suitability of several species of Great Lakes fish for animal feed,
testing the fish in reproduction trials with mink. He quantitated levels of polychlorinated
biphenyls in fish, mink fat, and mink milk as a portion of this research, and published the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Exhibit A
results of these studies in a scientific journal. These results were also published in several
trade journals serving the fur industry. He has authored or co-authored articles detailing
the results of several other studies sponsored by the fur industry in these trade journals.
After receiving his Bachelor's degree from Michigan State, Dr. Hornshaw worked as a
student aide in the Biology Section of the Water Quality Division of Michigan's Department
of Natural Resources. His duties included assisting staff aquatic biologists in the collection
of fish, water, sediment, and benthos samples, in laboratory work, in data handling, and in
reporting requirements. His field experience included sample collection and identification
from inland lakes, Great Lakes, and rivers and streams.
HONORS: Bachelor of Science, with honors; Member, Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research
Society.
AFFILIATIONS: Member, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
THESES:
Hornshaw, T. C. 1984. Development of Dietary LC50 and Reproduction Test Protocols
Using Mink and Ferrets as Representative Mammalian Carnivores. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI. 212pp.
Hornshaw, T. C. 1981. Renewed Use of Underutilized Species of Great Lakes Fish for
Animal Feed. M.S. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 45pp.
PUBLICATIONS (Peer Reviewed):
Ringer, R. K., Hornshaw, T. C., and Aulerich, R. J. Mammalian Wildlife (Mink and Ferret)
Toxicity Test Protocols (LC50, Reproduction, and Secondary Toxicity). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report No. EPA/600/3-91/043. July 1991. NTIS Document # PB91-
216507.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., and Ringer, R. K.
1987.
Toxicity of thiram
(tetramethylthiuram disulfide) to mink and European ferrets. Bull. Environ. Contam.
Toxicol. 38: 618 - 626.
Hornshaw, T. C., Ringer, R. K., Aulerich, R. J., and Casper, H. H. 1986. Toxicity of sodium
monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) to mink and European ferrets. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 5: 213 - 223.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., and Ringer, R. K. 1986. Toxicity of o-cresol to mink and
European ferrets. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5: 713 - 720.
Hornshaw, T. C., Safronoff, J., Ringer, R. K., and Aulerich, R. J. 1986. LC50 test results in
polychlorinated biphenyl-fed mink: age, season, and diet comparisons. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 15: 717 - 723.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Exhibit A
Bleavins, M. R., Aulerich, R. J., Hochstein, J. R., Hornshaw, T. C., and Napolitano, A. C.
1983. Effects of excessive dietary zinc on the intra- uterine and postnatal development of
mink. J. Nutr. 113: 2360 - 2367.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., and Johnson, H. E. 1983. Feeding Great Lakes fish to
mink: effects on mink and accumulation and elimination of PCBs by mink. J. Toxicol.
Environ. Health 11: 933 - 946.
PUBLICATIONS (Trade Journals):
Hornshaw, T. 1992. Illinois' Air Toxics selection process described. National Air Toxics
Information Clearinghouse (NATICH) Newsletter. USEPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. January, 1992.
Aulerich, R. J., Napolitano, A. C., and Hornshaw, T. C. 1986. How supplemental copper
affects mink kit hemoglobin concentration. In The Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming
.
Communications Marketing, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN. pp. 42 - 46.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., and Ringer, R. K. 1985. Mineral concentrations in the hair
of natural dark and pastel mink. Scientifur 9(3): 216 - 219.
Aulerich, R. J., Napolitano, A. C., and Hornshaw, T. C. 1985. Effect of supplemental copper
on mink kit hemoglobin concentration. Fur Farmer's Gazette of the United Kingdom 35(4):
8 - 11.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., Johnson, H. E., and Ringer, R. K. 1982. How suitable are
today's Great Lakes fish for use in feeding mink? Fur Rancher 62(9): 21 - 23.
Hornshaw, T. C., and Aulerich, R. J. 1980. Can Great Lakes fish again be fed safely to
mink? In The Fur Rancher Blue Book of Fur Farming
. Communications Marketing, Inc.,
Eden Prairie, MN. pp. 48 - 49.
PRESENTATIONS:
Hornshaw, T.C. “Background Metals and PAHs – Panel Discussion.” Session Chair and
Panel Member at the Midwestern States Risk Assessment Symposium, August 25-27, 2004,
Indianapolis, IN.
Hornshaw, T.C. “Vapor Intrusion Action Levels – Panel Discussion.” Panel Member at the
Midwestern States Risk Assessment Symposium, July 24-26, 2002, Indianapolis, IN.
Hornshaw, T. C.
A
The Illinois Strategy for Endocrine Disruptors.
@
Talk presented at The
Endocrine Disruptor Debate: Environmental Chemicals and Reproductive and
Developmental Health, October 17, 1997, St. Paul, MN.
Hornshaw, T. C.
A
Risk Pathways and Exposure Potential as Critical Factors in the
Determination of Remedial Objectives.
@
Talk presented at the Science for Environmental
Professionals and Attorneys Conference, January 8, 1997, Chicago, IL.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Exhibit A
Hornshaw, T. C.
A
Potential Health Effects of Triazine Herbicides and Their Metabolites in
Community Water Supplies.
@
Talk presented at the 1996 Illinois Agricultural Pesticides
Conference, January 3-4, 1996, Champaign, IL.
Hornshaw, T. C. "The Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program." Talk presented at
the Biannual Meeting of the Federal-State Toxicology and Risk Assessment Committee
(FSTRAC), November 6-8, 1991, Chicago, IL.
Hornshaw, T. C. "Assessing Exposure to Toxic Air Releases from a Chemical Facility:
Illinois Acrylonitrile Exposure Assessment." Talk presented at the National Governors'
Association Conference on Assessing Exposure to Toxic Contaminants: Issues and
Problems Facing State Government, March 29, 1989, Salt Lake City, UT.
Hornshaw, T. C. "Risk Assessment from State Point of View." Talk presented at the 1st
Annual Hazardous Materials Management Conference/Central, March 16, 1988, Chicago,
IL.
Perino, J. V., Whitaker, J. B., and Hornshaw, T. C. Technical aspects of an aquatic
toxicological testing program at a state regulatory agency. Poster presented at the 1st
Annual Meeting of the Ozark-Prairie Chapter of the Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, April 24-26, 1986, Columbia, MO.
Hornshaw, T. C. "Illinois EPA's Aquatic Toxicity Testing Program." Talk presented to the
Illinois Environmental Consensus Forum. December 12, 1985. Springfield, IL.
Aulerich, R. J., Bursian, S. J., Nachreiner, R. F., Olson, B. A., Hochstein, J. R., Hornshaw, T.
C., and Koudele, K. A. Toxicological manifestations of dietary exposure to 3,4,5,3', 4', 5' -
hexachlorobiphenyl in mink. Poster presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society of
Toxicology, March 18-22, 1985, San Diego, CA.
Hornshaw, T. C. "Effects of Feeding Great Lakes Fish to Mink." Talk presented at the Great
Lakes Commercial Fisheries Workshop, March 12, 1985, Mackinaw City, MI.
Hornshaw, T. C., Safronoff, J., Aulerich, R. J., and Ringer, R. K. Development and
validation of dietary LC50 test protocols for wildlife mammalian carnivores using mink and
ferrets. Poster presented at the 5th Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, November 4-7, 1984, Arlington, VA.
Hornshaw, T. C., Ringer, R. K., and Aulerich, R. J. Toxicity of thiram to mink and
European ferrets. Poster presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of
Toxicology, March 12-16, 1984, Atlanta, GA.
Hornshaw, T. C., Ringer, R. K., and Aulerich, R. J. Toxicity of sodium monofluoroacetate
(Compound 1080) to mink. Poster presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of
Toxicology, March 6-11, 1983, Las Vegas, NV.
Hornshaw, T. C., Aulerich, R. J., Johnson, H. E., and Ringer, R. K. Suitability of today's
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
Exhibit A
Great Lakes fish for animal feed. Poster presented at the International Symposium on PCBs
in the Great Lakes, March 15-17, 1982, East Lansing, MI.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
1
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF
GERALD J. KEELER, PH.D.
Prepared by
______________________
Gerald J. Keeler, Ph.D.
2880 Baylis Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
April 23, 2006
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
Qualifications
The opinions presented here stem from my understanding of mercury as an environmental
contaminant which are based upon my education and extensive experience as an
environmental researcher for the past two decades. I graduated from the Honor’s Program
at Boston College in 1982 with a B.S. in Physics, and received my M.S. and Ph.D. in
Atmospheric Sciences from the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan in
Ann Arbor in 1983 and 1987, respectively. From 1987-1990 I received Post-Doctoral
Training at the Harvard School of Public Health and was a Visiting Scientist at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology working in the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory on
studies related to tracking pollutant transport and atmospheric chemistry. Since June of
1990 I have been a Professor at the University of Michigan conducting research and
teaching in the areas of air pollution, exposure assessment, atmospheric chemistry and
deposition, environmental measurements, and the fate and transport of contaminants with a
focus on mercury and mercury compounds emitted to the environment. Over the past 16
years I have performed many scientific studies on environmental mercury funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF), NOAA, various offices of the US EPA (Great Lakes
National Program Office, Regions II, IV, and V, as well as the Office of Research and
Development), and for the States of Michigan, Massachusetts, Vermont, Wisconsin, and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. I have given key note and invited
scientific presentations for the USEPA, Environmental Council of States, New England
Governors and Canadian Premiers Conference, and at other environmental policy meetings
in the US, Canada and in Europe, focused on mercury. In addition, I was invited to testify
in front of the House Science Committee at a Special Session on
Acid Deposition and
Mercury
in 2001. Lastly, I served on the Ste of Michigan Electric Utility Workgroup,
which brought together representatives from the utility sector and the MI DEQ to
investigate ways to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
I have authored or co-authored over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers on the
sources, transport, chemistry, and deposition of atmospheric pollutants with a majority of
them focusing on mercury. In addition, I have authored or co-authored a similar number of
scientific and project reports and was lead author on the sources of HAPS to the Great
Waters prepared for the USEPA.
A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is provided in Attachment A which details my
educational and professional background including a complete list of my scientific
publications.
In forming my opinions I keep current with scientific papers published in
the peer-reviewed literature as well as government reports, conference proceedings, and
scientific textbooks dealing with the subject matter. I also drew heavily upon my research
activities over the past two decades that have dealt specifically on mercury pollution and
the peer-reviewed results within those publications.
Purpose of Testimony
I have prepared this testimony on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IL EPA, the Agency). I was asked by the Agency to prepare a state-of-the-art assessment
of the sources of mercury deposition to the Great Lakes and to specifically discuss the
importance of coal-fired utilities on the deposition of mercury to the region.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
Summary
Sources of atmospheric mercury deposition
Major anthropogenic mercury sources in the Great Lakes Region and preliminary
estimates of their annual emissions into the atmosphere have been reported. 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. However, 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
currently not available.
Mercury emissions from coal burning utilities make it the largest source category within
the US today and new rules have just been issued by the Federal Government in an effort
to control these emissions. The relationship between the emissions of mercury to the
atmosphere from any one plant and the amount received at any receptor is complex.
Defining the sources of mercury impacting a receptor can be accomplished using various
modeling techniques.
One approach that has been successful in determining the
contributions of Hg from various sources is based on observations made at sampling or
receptor sites. This method has the major benefit of not requiring speciated mercury
emissions rates from all the major sources which are likely to impact the receptor site.
Source receptor relationships have been developed for mercury in wet deposition and for
ambient particulate phase mercury to date. Published studies have revealed that mercury
levels in precipitation and in the particulate phase can be quantitatively apportioned to their
source.
The sources of atmospheric mercury deposition can be determined in both urban and
rural areas if the relevant data is collected on the proper time scales. Our studies in
Detroit, MI revealed that when mercury measurements taken with other criteria pollutants,
e.g. ozone, and meteorological parameters allowed for an apportionment the sources of
mercury observed at that monitoring site. Regional sources of oxidized mercury 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 many of the major urban areas in the Great Lakes region which have a similar density of
industrial and mobile sources contributing to the elevated levels measured in these areas.
Furthermore, the levels of mercury in urban runoff can be directly related to the wet and
dry deposited mercury from the atmosphere which comprises a large non-point source of
contamination to surface waters in the Great Lakes. Our studies have shown that the
highest levels of mercury in the ambient air, as well as in wet deposition, can be related to
its source using source tracers and meteorological analysis.
Impact of Coal-fired Utilities
In a 1998 Report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
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, EPA recognized that the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
Ohio River Valley contained a high density of coal-fired utility boilers and that monitoring
of atmospheric mercury deposition was not being conducted in that area. The University
of Michigan initiated a mercury monitoring and source apportionment study with the
USEPA to investigate the impact of local and regional coal combustion sources on
atmospheric mercury deposition in the Ohio River Valley. The first results of this study
clearly identified coal combustion sources as the dominant source of the mercury
deposition.
The relative importance of domestic coal combustion sources to atmospheric mercury
deposition in the U.S. and the efficacy of the CAMR cap and trade approach to decrease
Hg in fish is the topic of an ongoing debate. At the center of this debate is the question of
the relative importance of Hg emissions from domestic coal-fired utility boilers to
atmospheric deposition into sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. As part of the
CAMR development process, EPA 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 or source-oriented models (e.g., CMAQ) are limited by the large
uncertainties in emission inventories including the lack of speciated mercury emissions
profiles, atmospheric mercury chemistry, and accurate wet and dry deposition
parameterizations. Receptor models differ from source-oriented models in that they use
statistical methods for which implementation only relies upon observations of deposition at
a location or receptor. Deterministic and receptor modeling source apportionment
approaches are independent and complementary.
Multivariate statistical receptor models have been successfully used to apportion the
sources of Hg deposited in S. Florida and the sources of other chemical compounds
elsewhere. These techniques have the advantage of not requiring prior measurements of
source profiles or emission inventories. The latest receptor models were applied to the
precipitation chemistry data collected at Steubenville, Ohio to determine the sources
contributing to Hg in wet deposition.
Coal combustion was clearly dominant in terms of explaining the mercury deposition
(~70%). While there are several large steel manufacturing facilities in the Steubenville,
OH–Wheeling, WV area as well as plants to the east in Pittsburgh but iron-steel production
was not a significant contributor to mercury deposition (< 1%) at this site. An unidentified
phosphorous source as well as an oil combustion/incineration source were found to be a
significant minor contributor to mercury deposition (2 and 6% respectively).
A
meteorological analysis corroborates that a substantial amount of the mercury deposition
found at the Steubenville site was due to local and regional sources.
The large temporal variability and range of concentrations (20 fold) among the event
samples in Steubenville also point to strong local and/or regional source influence. This is
consistent with previous findings 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. Because the multivariate statistical
analysis points to ~70% of the Hg in the wet deposition as originating from a coal
combustion source, all analysis indicate the major contribution from local and regional
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
coal-burning sources.
The importance of coal combustion on the levels of particulate Hg was also quantified
as part of the GLAMAP. The major sources contributing to the ambient Hg were located
in the large urban/industrial areas and along the Ohio River Valley. A combined receptor
modeling and transport modeling approach was able to spatially identify the Ohio River
Valley region from northeastern Ohio to Illinois as the dominate source region contributing
to the ambient levels of mercury in the Great Lakes Region measured during the two-year
study. This is consistent with the findings from the study of the sources of wet deposition
in Steubenville discussed above.
Conclusion
Some of the highest concentrations of mercury in precipitation, and in the ambient air in
vapor and particulate forms have been observed in the Great Lakes region, which is
consistent with our understanding of the impact of the high mercury emissions density in
the major urban/source areas in the Midwest region, including the large number of coal-
fired utilizes. Measurement studies have reported significant south to north gradients in the
levels and deposition of mercury, 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. The lowest mercury levels and wet
deposition are associated with transport from the lowest mercury emissions areas.
Source-receptor studies have recently been completed that indicate that coal-fired
utilities contributed ~70% of the mercury wet deposition measured at a site in eastern Ohio
over a two-year period from 2003-2004. 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 is heavily influenced by a few large precipitation events that
contributing significantly to the annual deposition and these events are associated with
emissions from local/regional sources. Elevated ambient mercury levels near large sources
suggest that dry deposition would also be elevated and likely to 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.
More specifically, there are 21 coal-fired power plants Illinois, which constitute the largest
source of uncontrolled mercury emissions in the State, emitting close to 4 tons per year of
mercury into the atmosphere. The State's coal-fired power plants are scattered throughout
Illinois, with many located near major bodies of water. The states location relative to the
Great Lakes makes its coal-fired power plants especially important with respect to loadings
of mercury to the large lakes and the many downwind, in-land lakes which have been
identified as impaired water bodies due to the levels of mercury found in fish. Areas with
elevated mercury deposition due to emissions related to coal combustion have been
identified and it is not clear whether the EPA emissions trading program will eliminate
these “hot spots” or prevent future areas with high loadings of mercury from the
atmosphere.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
Attachment 1
Curriculum Vitae
Gerald J. Keeler
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
7
Curriculum Vitae
Gerald J. Keeler
EDUCATION
1987
Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
1983
M.S. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
1982
B.S. Physics, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA
Positions at University of Michigan
Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
SPH, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (2003 – present)
Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space
Sciences, COE, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (2003 – present)
Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Geological Sciences, LS&A, Ann
Arbor, Michigan. (2003 – present)
Director
, Global Change Laboratory, University of Michigan, College of
Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (2000 – 2004)
Associate Director
, Institute for Environmental Sciences, Engineering, and
Technology, University of Michigan, College of Engineering, Ann
Arbor. (1998 – 2000)
Associate Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Environmental Health
Sciences, SPH, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1996 – 2003)
Associate Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,
and Space Sciences, COE, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1996 – 2003)
Research Scientist, Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences, UM. (1991 –
2001)
Director, EPA Air Pollution Training Center at the University of Michigan (1990 –
2000)
Director
,
University of Michigan Air Quality Laboratory (UMAQL).
(1990 –
present)
Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Environmental Health
Sciences, School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1990 – 1996)
Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic,
and Space Sciences, COE, Ann Arbor, Michigan. (1993 – 1996)
Positions at Other Institutions
Visiting Scientist, MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Cambridge, MA. (1987 – 1991)
Research Associate, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. (1987 – 1990)
HONORS AND AWARDS
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
8
1998
Excellence in Research Award-Dept. of AOSS, College of Engineering,
UM
1994
Alumni Merit Award-University of Michigan (UM), College of Engineering
1993
Research Partnership Award, Rackham School of Graduate Studies, UM
1982
Boston College Honor's Program Graduate
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Member, Michigan Environmental Science Board
(Selected by Governor 1/2004)
Member, Michigan Governor's Relative Risk Task Force on Air Quality
Member, Michigan Mercury Electric Utility Workgroup
Member, American Association for Aerosol Research
-Past Member Atmospheric Aerosols Working Group
Member American Chemical Society (ACS)
Member American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Member International Society of Exposure Analysis (ISEA)
Chair, Technical Review Committee USEPA
Mercury Report to Congress, Exposure and Health Effects Review Panel
JOURNAL & PROPOSAL REVIEWS AND NATIONAL/PROFESSIONAL
ADVISING
Atmospheric Environment
-
Guest Assoc. Editor for Special Edition on Mercury
Aerosol Science & Technology
Air and Waste Management
Biogeochemistry
Environmental Science & Technology
Environmental Health Perspectives
Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres
Journal of Environmental Monitoring
Science of the Total Environment
Tellus
U.S. EPA Competitive Grants Program
U.S. EPA STAR Grants Program
U.S. EPA Office of International Affairs (Washington, D.C.)
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
INTERNATIONAL
Technical Advisory Committee,
International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant-4
th
, Hamburg, Germany August, 1996.
Technical Advisory Committee,
International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant-5
th
, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
Technical Steering Committee,
International Conference on Heavy Metals in the
Environment
, August 6-10, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2000.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
9
Technical Advisory Committee,
International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant-6
th
, Minimata, Japan October 22-29, 2001.
Technical Advisory Committee,
International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant-7
th
, Ljubljana, Slovenia June 27-July 2, 2004.
Graduate student mentorship - Principal Advisor for past 15 years (29)
Mary Azizian, Carl Lamborg, Steve Mischler, Jamal Hashim, Zailina Hashim, Lisa
Cleckner, Marion Hoyer, Ganda Glinsorn, Tamar Krantz, Janet Burke, Tim Dvonch,
Amy Gildemeister, Matt Landis, Elizabeth Malcolm, Anne Rea, Alan Vette, Ron
Albelak, Yolada Yaipairoon, Masako Morishita, Mary Lynam, Fuyuen Yip, Ali
Kamal, Sang Yoon, Sheryl Kennedy, Bian Liu, Li-Hao Young, Emily Christainson,
Lynne Gratz.
GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Dr. Keeler has been awarded more than 85 competitive grants and contracts from the
agencies listed below, with research expenditures > $1 million per year for the past 12
years.
RESEARCH FUNDING HISTORY
City of Detroit
Environment Canada
Ford Motor Company
Great Lakes National Program Office of the US EPA
Health Effects Institute (HEI)
Health and Welfare Canada
Lake Superior Basin Trust Fund
Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund
Michigan Life Sciences Corridor
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Research (NESCAUM)
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Regional Great Lakes Protection Fund-Chicago
State of Massachusetts
State of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
-Air Quality Division, Surface Water Quality Division
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
State of Vermont Environmental Protection
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. National Science Foundation
U.S. National Institute of Health
U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development
U.S. EPA Region I, II, IV, V
U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
10
U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA)
PUBLICATIONS
PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
1.
Pierson, W.R., Brachaczek, W.W., Gorse, R.A., Jr., Japar, S.H., Norbeck, J.M. and
Keeler, G.J. Acid rain and atmospheric chemistry at Allegheny Mountain.
Environmental Science and Technology
21
, 679-691. 1987.
2.
Keeler, G.J., Brachaczek, W.W., Gorse, R.A., Jr., Japar, S.M. and Pierson, W.R.
Effect of ambient humidity on dichotomous sampler coarse/fine ratios.
Atmospheric Environment
22
, 1715-1720. 1988.
3.
Pierson, W.R., Brachaczek, W.W., Gorse, R.A., Jr, Japar, S.H., Norbeck, J.M. and
Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric acidity measurements on Allegheny Mountain and the
origins of ambient acidity in the Northeastern United States.
Atmospheric
Environment
23
, 431-450. 1989.
4.
Spengler, J.D., Keeler, G.J., Koutrakis, P., Ryan, P.B., Raizenne, M. and Franklin,
C.A. Exposures to acidic aerosols.
Environmental Health Perspectives
,
79,
43-51.
1989.
5.
Small, M.J., Boyd, C., Keeler, G.J. and Marinicio, R.J. Stochastic simulation of
meteorological variability for long-range atmospheric transport: II-Long term
statistical models.
Atmospheric Environment
23,
2825-2840. 1989.
6.
Vossler, T.L., Lewis, C.W., Stevens, R.K., Dzubay, T.G., Gordon, G.E, Tuncel,
S.G., Russworm, G.M. and Keeler, G.J. Composition and origin of summertime air
pollutants at Deep Creek Lake, Maryland.
Atmospheric Environment
23
, 1715-
1720. 1989.
7.
Keeler, G.J. and Samson, P.J. On the spatial representativeness of trace element
ratios.
Environmental Science and Technology
23
, 1358-1364. 1989.
8.
Keeler, G.J., Japar, S.M., Brachaczek, W.W., Gorse, R.A., Jr. and Pierson, W.R.
The sources of aerosol elemental carbon at Allegheny Mountain.
Atmospheric
Environment
24A
, 2795-2805. 1990.
9.
Keeler, G.J., Spengler, J.D., Koutrakis, P., Allen.G.A., Raizenne, M. and Stern, B.
Transported acidic aerosols measured in southern Ontario.
Atmospheric
Environment
24A,
2935-2950. 1990.
10.
Brauer, M., Koutrakis, P., Keeler, G.J. and Spengler, J.D. Indoor and outdoor
concentrations of acidic aerosols and gases.
Journal of Air and Waste Management
Association
41
, 171-181. 1991.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
11
11.
Keeler, G.J., Spengler, J.D. and Castillo, R. Acid aerosol measurements at a
suburban Connecticut site.
Atmospheric Environment
24A
, 2915-2923. 1991.
12.
Koutrakis, P., Wolfson, J.W., Brauer, M., Spengler, J.D., Keeler, G.J. and Slater,
J.L. Determinations of aerosol strong acidity losses due to interactions of collected
particles: Results from laboratory and field studies.
Atmospheric Environment
26A
, 87-996. 1992.
13.
Hoyer, M.E.,
Keeler, G.J. and Ball, J.C. Detection of oxidative mutagens in an
urban air particulate extract: A preliminary study.
Mutation Research
283
, 295-
299. 1992.
14.
Holsen, T.M., Noll, K.E., Fang, G.C., Lee, W.J., Lin, J.M. and Keeler, G.J. Dry
Deposition and particle size distributions measured during Lake Michigan Urban
Air Toxics study.
Environmental Science and Technology
27
, 1141-1150. 1992.
15.
Pirrone, N.
and Keeler, G.J. Deposition of trace metals in urban and rural areas in
the Lake Michigan Basin.
Water Science & Technology
28
, 261-271. 1993.
16.
Akereddu, F.A., Barrie, L.A., Olson, M.P., OOkawa, K.K., Pacyna, J.M. and
Keeler, G.J. The Flux of anthropogenic trace metals into the Arctic the mid-
latitudes in 1979/80.
Atmospheric Environment
27A
, 711-723. 1994.
18.
Keeler, G.J. and Pierson, W.R. Regional trace element and sulfate transport.
Atmospheric Environment
27A
, 761-772. 1994.
19.
Pirrone, N
., Keeler, G.J., and Warner, P. Trends of ambient concentrations and
deposition fluxes of particulate trace metals in Detroit 1982 to 1992.
Science of the
total environment
162
,
43-61. 1995.
20.
Graney, J.R.
, Halliday, A.N., Keeler, G.J., Nriagu, J.O., Robbins, J.A. and Norton,
S.A. Isotopic record of lead pollution in lake sediments from the northeastern
United States.
Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta.
59
,
9647-9658. 1995.
21.
Pirrone, N
., Keeler, G.J. and Holsen, T.M. Dry Deposition of trace elements over
Lake Michigan: A hybrid-receptor deposition modeling approach.
Environmental
Science and Technology
29
, 2112-2122. 1995.
22.
Pirrone, N.
and Keeler, G.J. and Holsen, T.M. Dry Deposition of semivolatile
organic compounds to Lake Michigan.
Environmental Science and Technology
29
,
2123-2132. 1995.
23.
Pirrone, N
., Keeler, G.J., Nriagu, J.O. and Warner, P. Historical trends of airborne
trace metals in Detroit from 1971 to 1992.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
88
, 145-
165. 1995.
24.
Keeler, G.J., Glinsorn, G.G. and Pirrone, N. Particulate mercury in the atmosphere:
Its significance, transport, transformation and sources.
Water, Air and Soil
Pollution
80
, 159-168. 1995.
25.
Dvonch, J.T.,
Vette, A.F., Keeler, G.J., Evans, G. and Stevens, R.K. An intensive
multi-site pilot study investigating atmospheric mercury in Broward County,
Florida.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
80
, 169-178. 1995.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
12
26.
Hoyer, M., Burke, J. Rea, A. and Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric sources, transport and
deposition of mercury in Michigan: Two years of event precipitation.
Water, Air
and Soil Pollution
80
, 199-208. 1995.
27.
Burke, J.,
Hoyer, M., Keeler, G.J. and Scherbatskoy, T. Wet deposition of mercury
and ambient mercury concentrations at a site in the Lake Champlain Basin.
Water,
Air and Soil Pollution
80
, 353-362. 1995.
28.
Cleckner, L.B.,
Esseks, E., Meier, P.G. and Keeler, G.J. Mercury concentrations in
two Great Waters.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
80
, 581-584. 1995.
29.
Pacyna, J.M. and Keeler, G.J. The origin of mercury in the Arctic.
Water, Air and
Soil Pollution
80
, 621-632. 1995.
30.
Pirrone, N.,
Glinsorn, G. and Keeler, G.J. Ambient levels and dry deposition
fluxes of mercury to Lakes Huron, Erie, and St. Claire.
Water, Air and Soil
Pollution,
80
,179-188. 1995.
31.
Pirrone, N
., Keeler, G.J., Nriagu, J.O. and Warner, P.O. Historical Trends of
Airborne Trace Metals in Detroit from 1971 to 1992.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
,
88
, 145-165. 1996.
32.
Brian, R., Tang, Y., Brook, J.R., Vincent, R. and Keeler, G.J. Aqueous extraction
of airborne particulates collected on Hi-vol. Teflon filters.
Journal of
Environmental Analytical Chemistry
63,
315-322. 1996.
33.
Rea, A. W.,
Keeler, G.J. and Scherbatskoy, T. The cycling of mercury in
throughfall and litterfall in a northern mixed hardwood forest.
Atmospheric
Environment
30
, 3257-3264. 1996.
34.
Pirrone, N.
and Keeler, G.J. A Preliminary Assessment of the Urban Pollution in
the Great Lakes Region.
Science of the total environment,
189
, 91-98. 1996.
35.
Pirrone, N
., Keeler, G.J. and Nriagu, J.O. Regional differences in worldwide
emissions of mercury to the atmosphere.
Atmospheric Environment
30
, 2981-2987.
1996.
36.
Pirrone, N.
and Keeler, G.J. The Rouge River watershed pollution by trace
elements: atmospheric deposition and emissions sources.
Water Science and
Technology
33
, 259-265. 1996.
37.
Keeler, G.J. and Pirrone, N. Atmospheric transport and deposition of trace
elements to Lake Erie from Urban areas.
Water Science and Technology
33
, 267-
275. 1996.
38.
Landis, M.S.
and Keeler, G.J. A Critical Evaluation of an Automatic Wet-Only
Precipitation Collector for Mercury and Trace Element Determinations.
Environmental Science and Technology
31
, 2610-2615
.
1997.
39.
Rea, A.
and Keeler, G.J
.
Microwave digestion and analysis of foliage for total
mercury by cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectroscopy.
Biogeochemistry
40
,
115-123. 1998.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
13
40.
Pirrone, N.
, Keeler, G.J., Nriagu, J.O. and Allegrini, I. Historical Records of
Mercury Pollution in North America.
Atmospheric Environment
32
, 929-940
.
1998.
40.
Sofuoglu, S.C.,
Paode, R.D., Sivadechathep, J., Noll K.E., Holsen, T.M. and
Keeler, G.J. Dry Deposition Fluxes and Atmospheric Size Distributions of Mass,
A1, and Mg Measured in Southern Lake Michigan during AEOLOS.
Aerosol
Science and Technology
29
:4, 281-293. 1998
41.
Hashim, Z.
, Hashim, J.H., Mancy, K.H., Keeler, G.J., Burton, M. Inhalation
exposure assessment of lead on urban and suburban children in the Klang Valley,
Malaysia.
Journal of Ensearch
.
9
,15-19. 1996.
42.
Hashim, J.H.,
Hashim, Z., Keeler, G.J., Mancy, K.H. Influence of meteorological
variables on atmospheric lead in the Klang Valley, Malaysia.
Journal of Ensearch
.
10(3/4),
189-194. 1997.
43.
Paode, R.D.,
Sofuoglu, S.C., Sivadechathep, J., Noll, K.E., Holsen, T.M. and
Keeler, G.J. Dry Deposition Fluxes and Mass Size Distributions of Pb, Cu, and Zn
Measured in Southern Lake Michigan during AEOLOS.
Environmental Science
and Technology
32
, 1629-1635. 1998.
44.
Dvonch, J.T.,
Graney, J.R., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J. and Stevens, R.K. An
Investigation of Source-Receptor Relationships for Mercury in South Florida Using
Event Precipitation Data.
The Science of the Total Environment
213
, 95-108
.
1997.
45.
Scherbatskoy, T., Shanley, J.B. and Keeler, G.J. Factors controlling mercury
transport in an upland forested catchment.
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
105
,
427-
438
.
1998.
46.
Dvonch, J.T.,
Graney, J.R., Keeler, G.J., and Stevens, R.K. Utilization of
Elemental Tracers to Source Apportion Mercury in South Florida Precipitation.
Environmental Science and Technology
33
, 4522-4527. 1999.
47.
Vincent, J.H., Ramachandran, G., Thomassen, Y. and Keeler, G.J. Application of
Recent Advances in Aerosol Sampling Science Towards the Development of
Improved Sampling Devices: The Way Ahead.
Journal of Environmental
Monitoring
1
, 285-292. 1999.
48.
Clark, N.M., Brown, R.W., Parker, E., Robins, T.G., Remick, D.G., Philbert, M.A.,
Keeler, G.J. and Israel, B.A. Childhood Asthma
.
Environmental Health
Perspectives
107
, 421-429. 1999.
49.
Albalak, R.,
Keeler, G.J., Frisancho, A.R. and Haber, M.J. Assessment of PM10
concentrations from domestic biomass fuel combustion in two rural Bolivian
highland villages.
Environmental Science and Technology
33
, 2505-2509. 1999.
50.
Albalak, R.,
Frisancho, A.R. and Keeler, G.J. Domestic biomass fuel combustion
and chronic bronchitis in two rural Bolivian villages.
Thorax
54
, 1104-1108. 1999.
51.
Rea, A.W.,
Lindberg, S.E., and Keeler, G.J. Assessment of dry deposition and
foliar leaching of mercury and selected trace elements based on washed foliar and
surrogate surfaces.
Environmental Science and Technology
34
, 2418-2425. 2000.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
14
52.
Robbins, J.A., Holmes, C., Halley, R., Bothner, M., Shinn, E., Graney, J., Keeler,
G.J., tenBrink, M., Orlandini, K.A., Rudnick, D. Time-averaged Fluxes of lead and
fallout radionuclides to Sediments in Florida Bay.
J. Geophysical Research
.
105
:28,805-28,821. 2000.
53.
Munthe, J., Wangberg, I, Pirrone, N., Ivergeldt, A., Ferarra, R., Costa, P.,
Ebinghaus, R., Feng, X., Gardfelt, K., Keeler, G.J., Lanzillotta, E., Lindberg, S.E.,
Lu, J., Mamane, Y., Nucaro, E., Prestbo, E., Schmolke, S., Schroeder, W.H.,
Sommar, J., Sprovieri, F., Stevens, R. K., Stratton, W., Tuncel, G., Urba. A.
Intercomparison of methods for sampling and analysis of atmospheric mercury
species
Atmospheric Environment
35, 3453-3462
.
2001.
54.
Thornberry, T., Town, M., Carroll, M. A., Keeler, G. J., Silman, S., Bertman, S.B.,
Pippin, M.R., Ostling, K., Grossenbacher, J.W., Shepson, P.B., Cooper, O.R. and
Moody, J.L. PROPHET’98 meteorological overview and air mass classification.
J.
Geophysical Research- Atmospheres
.
106
, p. 24359-24386. 2001.
55.
Rea, A.W.,
Lindberg, S.E. and Keeler, G.J. Dry deposition and foliar leaching of
mercury and selected trace elements in deciduous forest throughfall.
Atmospheric
Environment
35
, 3453-3462.
2001.
56.
Faloona, I., Tan, D., Brune, W., Hurst, J., Barket, D., Couch, T.L., Shepson, P.,
Apel, E., Riemer, D., Thornberry, T., Carroll, M., Silman, S., Keeler, G.J., Sagady,
J., Hooper, D., Paterson, K., Lamb, B. and Westberg, H. Nighttime observations of
prodigous hydroxyl radicals above a deciduous forest canopy.
J. Geophysical
Research- Atmospheres
.
106
, p. 24315-24333. 2001.
57.
Rea, A.W., Lindberg, S.E., Scherbatskoy, T. and Keeler, G.J. Mercury
accumulation over time in two northern mixed-hardwood forests.
Water, Air and
Soil Pollution
p
133
, 49-67. 2002.
58.
Zhang, H
., Lindberg, S.E., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J. Mercury air/surface exchange
kinetics of background soils of the Tahquamenon River watershed in the Michigan
Upper Peninsula.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution
126
, 151-169. 2001.
59.
Atasi, K.Z., Fujita, G., Le Platte, G., Hufnagel, C., Keeler, G.J., Graney, J., Chen,
T. Impact of Atmospheric Deposition on Surface Water Runoff of Mercury,
Cadmium and PCBs.
Water Science and Technology
43
, p 223-229. 2001.
60.
Keeler, G.J., Dvonch, J.T., Yip, F.Y., Parker, E. A., Israel, B.A., Marsik, F.J.,
Morishita, M., Barres, J.A., Robins, T.G., Brakefield-Caldwell, W., Sam, M.
Assessment of Personal Exposures to Particulate Matter (PM) Among Asthmatic
Children in Detroit, Michigan as part of Community Action Against Asthma
(CAAA).
Environmental Health Perspectives
110 (suppl 2):173-181. 2002.
61.
Malcolm, E. and Keeler, G.J. Measurements of Mercury in Dew: Atmospheric
Removal of Mercury Species to a Wetted Surface.
Environmental Science and
Technology,
36
, 2815 - 2821
,
2002.
62.
Landis, M.S. and Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric Mercury Deposition to Lake Michigan
during the Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
36,
4518-
4524
,
2
002.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
15
63.
Lynam, M.M. and Keeler, G.J. Comparison of methods for particulate phase
mercury analysis: techniques and sampling artifacts.
Fresnius Journal of
Analytical Chemistry
374
, 1009-1014. 2002.
64.
Vette, A.F., Landis, M.S. and Keeler, G.J. Deposition and emission of gaseous
mercury to and from Lake Michigan during the Lake Michigan Mass Balance
Study.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
36
,
4525-4532
.
2002.
65.
Landis, M.S., Vette, A. and Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in the
Lake Michigan Basin: Influence of the Chicago/Gary Urban Area.
Environ. Sci.
Technol
.
36,
4508-4517
,
2
002.
66.
Utsunimiya, S., Jensen, K.A., Keeler, G.J. and Ewing, R.C. Uraninite and Fullerene
in Atmospheric Particulates.
Environmental Science and Technology,
36
,
4943-
4947
.
2002.
67.
Harkema, J., Keeler, GJ, Wagner, JG, Marsik, F, and EB Barr, Effects of
concentrated airborne particles on the lungs of rats with allergic airway disease:
inhalation toxicology studies in a Detroit community using a mobile air research
laboratory.
Am. J. Respir.Crit. Care Med
.,
165
(8): p. A69. 2002.
68.
Parker, E.A., Israel, B.A., Caldwell-Brakefield, W., Keeler, G.J., Lewis, T.C.,
Ramirez, E., Robins, R., Rowe, Z. and Williams, M. Community Action Against
Asthma: Examining the partnership process of a community-based participatory
research project.
Environ. Health Perspec.
111, 223-231, 2003.
69.
Lu, J.Y, Schroeder, W.H and Keeler, G.J. Field intercomparison studies for
evaluation and validation of the AeminiSamplR technique for sampling and
analysis of total particulate mercury in the atmosphere.
STOTEN. 304, 115-125.
2003.
70.
Malcolm, E.G., Keeler, G.J., Lawson, S. and Sherbatskoy, T. Mercury and trace
elements in cloud water collected on Mt. Mansfield, VT.
J. Environ. Monitor.
5
,
584-590, 2003.
71.
Malcolm, E.G., Keeler, G.J. and Landis, M.S. The effects of the coastal
environment on the mercury cycle.
J. Geophys. Res.
108
, 4357-4366. 2003.
72.
Lawson, S.T., Scherbatskoy, T.D., Malcolm, E.G., Keeler, G.J. Cloud water
deposition and throughfall chemistry in a high elevation spruce-fir forest at Mt.
Mansfield, Vermont.
Journal of Environmental Monitoring
,
5
:578-583. 2003.
73.
Lewis, T.C., Robins, T.G., Dvonch, J.T., Brakefield-Caldwell, W., Keeler, G.J.,
Mentz, G.B., Lin, X., Parker, E.A., Israel, B.A., Gonzalez, L., and Williams, M.
Community Action Against Asthma: Examining the Partnership Process of a
CBPR Project.
Journal of General Internal Medicine,
18
(7):558-567 (2003).
74.
Graney, J.R., Dvonch, J.T. and Keeler, G.J. Use of elemental tracers to source
apportion mercury in south Florida aerosols.
Atmos. Environ.
38
, 1715-1726. 2004.
75.
Landis, M.S., Keeler, G.J., Al-Wali, K.I. and Stevens, R.K. Divalent inorganic
reactive mercury emissions from a mercury cell chlor-alkali plant and its impact on
near-field atmospheric dry deposition.
Atmos. Environ.
38
, 613-622. 2004.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
16
76.
Utsunomiya, S., Jensen, K.A., Keeler, G.J. and Ewing, R.C. Direct identification
of trace metals in fine and ultrafine particles in the Detroit urban atmosphere.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
38,
2289-2297, 2004.
77.
Dvonch, J.T., Brook,
R.D., Keeler, G.J., Rajagopalan, S., D’Alecy, L.D., Marsik,
F.M., Morishita, M., Yip, F.Y., Brook, J.E., Timm, E.J., Wagner, J.W. and
Harkema , J.R. Effects of concentrated fine particles on rate plasma levels of
asymmetric dimethylarginine.
Inhalation Toxicology
,
16
, 473-480, 2004.
78.
Morishita, M., Keeler, G.J., Wagner, J.G., Marsik, F.J., Timm, E.J., Dvonch J.T.,
Harkema, J.R. Pulmonary Retention of Particulate Matter is Associated with
Airway Inflammation in Allergic Rats Exposed to Air Pollution in Urban Detroit.
Inhalation Toxicology
16
, 663-674. 2004.
79.
Young, L-H. and Keeler, G.J. Characterization of Ultrafine Particle Number
Concentration and Size Distribution During a Summer Campaign in Southwest
Detroit.
J. Air & Waste Management Assoc.
54
, 1079-1090, 2004.
80.
Yip, F.Y., Keeler, G.J., Dvonch, J.T., Robins, T.G., Parker, E. A., Israel, B.A.,
Brakefield-Caldwell, W. Personal exposures to particulate matter among children
with asthma in Detroit, Michigan.
Atmos. Environ.
38
, 5227-5236. 2004.
81.
Keeler, G.J., Gratz, L. and Al-Wali, K. Influences on the Long-term Atmospheric
Mercury Wet Deposition at Underhill, Vermont.
Ecotoxicology,
14
, 71-83. 2005.
82.
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.
38
, 5227-5236. 2005.
83.
Miller, E.K., Van Arsdale, A., Keeler, G. J., Chalmers, A. Poissant, L. and
Kammen, N. Estimation and Mapping of Wet and Dry Mercury Deposition Across
Northeastern North America.
Ecotoxicology,
14
, 53-70. 2005.
84.
VanArsdale, A., Weiss, J., Keeler, G.J. and Miller,
E. Patterns of mercury
deposition in northeastern North America (1996-2002).
Ecotoxicology,
14
, 84-101.
2005.
85.
Dvonch, J.T., Marsik, F.J. and Keeler, G.J. The Use of WSR-88D Radar Data for
Source-Apportionment of Wet-Deposition Measurements from the 1995
SoFAMMS.
Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology
. 1421-1435, 2005.
86.
Malcolm, E.G., Keeler, G.J. and Landis, M.S. Evidence for a sampling artifact for
particulate-phase mercury in the marine environment.
Atmos. Environ.
In Press,
2005.
87.
Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Lindberg, S.E., Zhang, H. The air-surface exchange of
gaseous mercury over a mixed sawgrass-cattail stand within the Florida Everglades.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
39,
2005.
88.
Lynam, M.M. and Keeler, G.J. Automated speciated mercury measurements in
Michigan
, Environ. Sci. Technol
.
39,
3289-3299, 2005.
89.
Gilliland, F., Avol, E., Kinney, P., Jerrett, M., Dvonch, J.T., Lurmann, F., Buckley,
T., Breysse, P., Keeler, G., McConnell, R. Air pollution exposure assessment for
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
17
epidemiologic studies of pregnant women and children: lessons learned from the
NIEHS/EPA Children’s Environmental Health Centers.
Environ Health
Perspectives,
113(10):1447-1454,
2005.
90.
Lewis, T.C., Robins, T.G., Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Yip, F.Y., Mentz, G.B., Lin,
X., Parker, E.A., Israel, B.A., Gonzalez, L., and Hill, Y. Air Pollution Associated
Changes in Lung Function Among Asthmatic Children in Detroit.
Environmental
Health Perspectives
, 113(8): 1068-1075, 2005.
91.
Lynam, M.M. and Keeler, G.J. Artifacts associated with the measurement of
particulate mercury in an urban environment: the influence of elevated ozone
concentrations.
Environ. Sci. Technol
.
38
, 3081-3088, 2005.
92.
Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Lynam, M., Marsik, F.J. and Barres, J.A. The
Production of Reactive Gaseous Mercury (RGM) in Ambient Air and its Removal
by Precipitation. Submitted,
Journal of Environmental Monitoring,
2005.
93.
Morishita, M., Keeler, G.J., Wagner, J.G., Marsik, F.J., Timm, E.J., Dvonch J.T.,
Harkema, J.R. Source identification of ambient PM2.5 for community-level
exposures in urban Detroit, Michigan.
Submitted, Atmos. Environ.,
2005.
94.
Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Yip, F.Y. Spatial and temporal assessment of real time
PM 2.5 mass and black carbon in Detroit, MI (2000-2002).
Submitted, Atmos.
Environ.,
2005.
95.
Lynam, M.M. and Keeler, G.J. Source-receptor relationships for elemental and
reactive gaseous mercury in Detroit, Michigan. In Press,
Environ. Sci. Technol
.,
2005.
96.
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.
CHAPTER OF BOOKS - PEER REVIEWED
1. Keeler, G.J., Samson, P.J. and Small, M.J. Representativeness of precipitation data
in regional-scale acid deposition modeling. In: Meteorology of Acid Deposition
,
P.J. Samson, Ed. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA. 1984.
2. Samson, P.J., Moody, J.L., Kahl, J. and Keeler, G.J. Uncertainties in quantifying
source-receptor relationships for atmospheric acids. In: The Chemistry of Multi-
Phase Systems in the Atmosphere, W. Jeaschke and V.A. Mohnen, Eds. D.Reidel
Publishers. 1984.
3. Pierson, W.R., Brachaczek, W.W., Gorse, R.A., Japar, S.M., Norbeck, J.M. and
Keeler, G.J. Acid deposition and atmospheric chemistry at Allegheny Mountain. In:
The Chemistry of Acid Rain: Sources and Atmospheric Processes
. Johnson and
Gordon, Eds. 1987.
4. Gorse, R.A., Jr., Brachaczek, W.W., Japar, S.H., Keeler, G.J. and Pierson, W.R.
Source apportionment or rural elemental carbon using several multivariate
statistical analysis approaches to receptor modeling. In: Receptor Models in Air
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
18
Resources Management, Watson, J.G., Ed.
Air and Waste Management
Association, ISBN 0-923204-01-6. 1988.
5. Koutrakis, P., Keeler, G.J., Spengler, J.D. and Lowenthal, D.H. Analysis of
simulated data using specific rotation factor analysis. In: Receptor Models in Air
Resources Management, Watson, J.G., Ed. Air and Waste Management
Association, ISBN 0-923204-01-6. 1988.
6. Keeler, G.J. and Samson, P.J. On the representativeness of trace element ratios.
In: Control and Fate of Atmospheric Trace Metals
.
NATO, Pacyna and Ottar, Eds.
1989.
7. Keeler, G.J., Hoyer, M.E. and Lamborg, C.H. Measurements of atmospheric
mercury in the Great Lakes Basin. In:Mercury as a Global Pollutant: Towards
Integration and Synthesis (Huckabee, J. and Watras, C. Eds), Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, FL. 1994.
8. Lamborg, C.,
Hoyer, M.E. and Keeler, G.J. Particulate-phase mercury in the
atmosphere: collection/analysis method development and applications. In: Mercury
as a Global Pollutant: Towards Integration and Synthesis (Huckabee, J. and
Watras, C. Eds), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 1994.
9.
Pirrone, N
. and Keeler, G.J. Deposition flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
to Lake Michigan. In: Air Pollution Measurements, Methods and Monitoring
Studies. AWMA, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 1-16. 1994.
10. Keeler, G.J. and Hoyer, M.E. Atmospheric mercury in the Great Lakes Region. In:
Atmospheric Deposition of Contaminants to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters
(Baker, J. Ed), SETAC Sponsored Book, Lewis Publishers, N.Y., 1997.
11.
Pirrone, N.
and Keeler, G.J. Modeling atmospheric deposition and gas exchange of
hazardous air pollutants to Lake Michigan. In: Atmospheric Deposition of
Contaminants to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters (Baker, J. Ed), SETAC
Sponsored Book, Lewis Publishers, N.Y. 1996.
12. Scherbatskoy, T. and Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric mercury deposition and cycling in
the Lake Champlain Basin of Vermont.
In: Atmospheric Deposition of
Contaminants to the Great Lakes and Coastal Waters (Baker, J. Ed), SETAC
Sponsored Book, Lewis Publishers, N.Y. 1996.
13. Shanley, J.B., Donlon, A.F., Scherbatskoy, T. and Keeler, G.J.: Mercury cycling
and transport in the Lake Champlain basin, in T.O. Manley and P. Manley (ed.),
Lake Champlain --Research and Progress Toward Management
, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. 1999.
14. Keeler, G.J. and Dvonch, J.T. Source-Receptor Relationships for Mercury:
Monitoring and Measurement. Proceedings:EPA Conference on
“Source Emission
and Ambient Air Monitoring of Mercury”
, September 13-14, 1999, Bloomington,
Minnesota. 2000.
15. Dvonch, J.T.,
Landis, M.S., Marsik, F.M. and Keeler, G.J. Mercury Wet Deposition
Sampling: Applications and Implementation. Proceedings: EPA Conference on
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
19
“Source Emission and Ambient Air Monitoring of Mercury”
, September 13-14,
1999, Bloomington, Minnesota. 2000.
16. Keeler, G.J. and Dvonch, J.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.
O
THER CITABLE PUBLICATIONS
1. Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J. and Brook, J. Solubilization of Ambient Trace Metals
through Interactions with Atmospheric Acids. Conference Proceedings from
“Ninth
International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment”
, September 12-16,
Toronto, Ontario, 85-88. (1993)
2. Marsik, F.J., Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Landis, M.S. and Graney, J.R. The Use of
WSR-88D Radar Data for Source-Apportionment
of
Wet-Deposition
Measurements from the 1995 SoFAMMS. Conference Proceedings from American
Meteorological Society
“Third Conference on Atmospheric Chemistry”
, February
2-7, Long Beach, California, 147-51. (1997)
3. Keeler, G.J.
Workshop on Source Emission and Ambient Air Monitoring of
Mercury
, EPA/625/R-00/002, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, pp. 84-85. (2000)
4. Dvonch, J.T., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Robins, T.G., Yip, F. and Morishita, M.
Field Comparison of PM
2.5
TEOM and PM
2.5
Manual Filter-Based Measurement
Methods in Urban Atmospheres.
Journal of Aerosol Science
, 31
,
Suppl 1, S190-
S191. (2000)
5. Yip, F.Y., Dvonch, J.T., Robins, T.G., Parker, E., Morishita, M. and Keeler, G.J.
Measurements of Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal Exposure to Particulate Matter
Among Asthmatic Children in Detroit, Michigan. Proceedings: Air and Waste
Management
Association’s
Conference
“International
Symposium
on
Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants”
, September 12-14, 2000, RTP,
North Carolina. (2001)
R
ECENT GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY, OR INDUSTRIAL REPORTS
1. Atkeson, T., Axelrad, D., Pollman, C. and Keeler, G.J. Integrating atmospheric
mercury deposition and aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: An approach for
conducting a total maximum daily load analysis for atmospherically derived
pollutant. Final Report to the USEPA, October, 2002.
2. Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F. and Barres, J.A. Development and Specifications of an
Automated Sequential Precipitation Sampler (ASPS). Submitted to Department of
Environmental Protection, State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL. and the US EPA-
NERL, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (2001)
3. Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F.J., Al-Wali, K. and Dvonch, J.T. Modeled Deposition of
Speciated Mercury to the SFWMD Water Conservation Area 3A: 22 June 1995 to
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
20
21 June 1996. Project Description and Results. Submitted to Region IV, US EPA,
Athens, GA. (2000)
4. Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F.J., Morishita, M. and Dvonch, J.T. Characterization of the
Fine Particulate Mass Concentrator and Ambient PM in southwest Detroit: Report
of Findings from Year 1. Submitted to: Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.
(2001).
5. Keeler, G.J., Xu, Xiaohong, and Al-Wali, K. Development, Evaluation and
Application of a Model for Investigating Atmospheric Transport and Fate of
Mercury. Final Report, USEPA National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. (2001).
6. Harkema, J., Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F.J., Morishita, M. and Dvonch, J.T. Effects of
concentrated air particulates on rats with asthma. Health Effects Institute,
Cambridge, MA. (2004).
INVITED PRESENTATIONS (Since 1995)
1. Keeler, G. J. Atmospheric deposition processes in south Florida. Presented to:
State of Florida - Department of Natural Resource Protection (November, 1995).
2. Keeler, G. J.
Key Note
– Sources of mercury in the Florida Everglades. Friends of
the Everglades, Conference on Mercury in the Florida Everglades Miami, Florida
(February, 1996).
3. Keeler, G. J. Atmospheric transport and deposition processes in S. Florida.
Presented at: EPRI and the State of Florida - Department of Natural Resource
Protection, (April,1996).
4. Keeler, G. J.
Key Note
– Sources of mercury to the global environment. US
Geological Survey, Conference on Mercury in the Environment. Denver, Colorado
(July, 1996).
5. Keeler, G. J. Mercury speciation and deposition to Lake Superior. Wisconsin
DNR, Mercury in Lake Superior Workshop (September, 1997).
6. Keeler, G. J. Mercury in the atmosphere. Presented at: Pollution probe-Mercury
Elimination and Reduction Symposium, Toronto, Canada, (May 1997).
7. Keeler, G. J.
Key Note
– New England Governors and Canadian Premiers
Conference. Portland, ME Mercury Measurement Technology. (February 1998).
8. Keeler, G. J. The University of Michigan Alumni Association. Environmental
Concerns in the Great Lakes and Florida Everglades. (April 28, 1998).
9. Keeler, G. J. Mercury Modeling and Measurements for the 21
st
Century. Presented
at: Conference on Air Quality (Mercury, Trace Elements, and Particulate Matter)
sponsored by Energy & Environmental Research Center, McLean, Virginia. (Dec
1-4, 1998).
10. Keeler, G. J. Urban Air Toxics and Atmospheric Mercury. Presented at:
Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics: Integrating Science and Policy, Chicago,
Illinois. (May 6-7, 1999)
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
21
11. Keeler, G. J. Atmospheric Modeling in South Florida: Assessing the sources of Hg
to the Everglades Ecosystem. Presented at: Florida Mercury Research Meeting,
(May 18-21, 1998)
12. Keeler, G. J. Sampling and Analysis Methods for speciation of mercury in the
atmosphere. Presented: Instituto sull Inquinamento Atmosferico-CNR, Italy (July 1,
1998)
13. Keeler, G. J. Science Experts Workshops on Mercury in North America
Diagnosing the sources of Hg deposited in the Great Lakes Region. Las Vegas,
N.V. (October 6-8, 1998)
14. Keeler, G.J. Measurement Technology for speciated mercury determinations in the
environment. Mercury Monitoring: Air Source Assessment, Ambient Air, and
Deposition. US EPA. Chicago, January 18, 2001 (Jan. 16, 2001)
15. Keeler, G. J.,
Key Note
– EPA Workshop on the Fate, transport, and
transformation of mercury in aquatic and terrestrial environments. West Palm, FL.
(May 8-10, 2001)
16. Keeler, G. J.
Key Note
– Source-Receptor Relationships for Atmospheric
Mercury. The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) Mercury Workshop,
St. Louis, Missouri. (October 18, 2000)
17. Keeler, G. J. Atmospheric Deposition Processes and Uncertainties: Applications to
the Great Lakes. Presented at: Delta Institute Workshop on Atmospheric
Deposition of Toxics: Integrating Science and Policy, Milwaukee, WI. (October 20,
2000).
18. Keeler, G. J. Measurement Technology for speciated mercury determinations in
the environment. Mercury Monitoring: Air Source Assessment, Ambient Air, and
Deposition. US EPA Region V. Chicago, January 18, 2001 (Jan. 16, 2001)
19. Harkema,
J R, Keeler, G J, Wagner, J G, Marsik, F and Barr, E B. Effects Of
Concentrated Airborne Particles on the Lungs of Rats with pre-existing Airway
Disease: Inhalation Toxicology Studies in a Detroit Community Using a Mobile
Air Research Laboratory. Presented at: Health Effects Institute 2001 Annual
Conference, Washington, D.C. (May 1, 2001)
20. Keeler, G.J.
Key Note
– EPA Workshop on the Fate, transport, and transformation
of mercury in aquatic and terrestrial environments. West Palm, FL. (May 8-10,
2001)
21. Keeler, G.J.
Invited to Present Testimony
before the
House Science Committee
,
Hearing on Acid Deposition and Mercury. Washington, D.C. (May 3, 2001)
22. Keeler, G.J.
Key Note
– An Integrated modeling/measurement approach for
development of policies to protect the coastal environment, ELOISE Annual
Conference, Calabria, Italy. (September, 2001)
23. Keeler, G.J. Environmental Measurements and Particulate Matter Exposure of
Asthmatic Children Living in Urban Communities. Invited Seminar Presented at
the Research Conference for the Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
22
Environment, Bloomsberg School of Public Health, John’s Hopkins November 30,
2001.
24. Keeler, G.J. Source Apportionment Methods for Toxicological Studies. Presented
at: Health Effects Institute Annual Meeting, Special Session Honoring Dr. Glenn
Cass, Seattle, Washington. (April 28-May 2, 2002).
25. Keeler, G.J. Long Range Transport of PBTs to the Great Lakes. Presented at: The
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy’s Long-Range Transport Workshop, Ann
Arbor, Michigan (September, 2003).
26. Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric Mercury Deposition at Underhill, VT from 1991-2002.
Presented at: USDA Northeastern Research Station Workshop Portland, Maine
(Dec. 3-5, 2003).
27. Keeler, G.J. Mercury Deposition in the Great Lakes Ragion. Presented at: The
Great Lakes: Assessing Ecosystem Health Through Partnerships. The Institute of
Water Research, Michigan State University (March 11, 2004).
28. Keeler, G.J. Atmospheric Chemistry and Deposition of Mercury in the Great Lakes
Region. Presented at: International Workshop on Harmonization of Mercury
Measurement Methods and Models to Assess Source-Receptor Impact on Air
Quality and Human Health, May 2004. CNR-Institute for Atmospheric Pollution,
Italy.
29. Keeler, G.J. and Dvonch, J.T. Atmospheric Mercury: A decade of observations in
the Great Lakes
.
Presented at: International Conference on Dynamics of Mercury
Pollution on Regional and Global Scales: Atmospheric Processes and Human
Exposure Around the World. Maratea, Italy, May, 2004.
30. Keeler, G.J. and Christianson, M.G. Sources and Fate of Mercury Emissions in
Urban Areas. Presented at: CRC Mobile Source Air Toxics Workshop: Advances
in Field Measurements, Modeling and Data Analysis, Scottsdale, Arizona,
November 30-December 2, 2004.
31. Keeler, G.J. Challenges associated with analysis of complex mixtures in urban
atmospheres
.
Presented at: International Conference on Complex Mixtures:
toxicological effects of inhaled complex mixtures on the respiratory system
feasibility and limitations. Barcelona, Spain, 23-26 April, 2005.
OTHER CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS SINCE 1999
1. Gildemeister, A.E., Graney, J., Keeler, G.J., Atassi, K., and Hufnagel, C.
The
influence of local atmospheric mercury sources on mercury levels measured in
urban runoff
. Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International
conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
2. Iverfeldt, A., Munthe, J., Ferrara, R., Pirrone, N, Berg, T., Costa, P, Ebinghaus, R.,
Kock, H., Sommar, J., Feng, X., Gardefelt, K., Stevens, R., Keeler, G., Mamane,
Y, Tuncel, G., Nicaro, E., Sprovieri, F., Lanzillotta, E., Schmolke, S., Urba, A.,
and Wangberg, I. 1999
. Intercomparison for atmospheric mercury measurement
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
23
in Tuscany, Italy, 27
th
of June to 3
rd
of July.
Presented at Mercury as a Global
Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28.
1999
.
3. Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Graney, J.R., and Marsik, F.J.
Utilization of event
precipitation data to source apportion mercury wet deposited in South Florida
.
Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999
.
4. Landis, M.S., and Keeler, G.J.
Assessing the atmospheric deposition of mercury to
Lake Michigan: The importance of the Chicago/Gary Urban area on wet and dry
deposition
. Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International
conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
5. Prestbo, E.M., Stevens, R.K., Lindberg, S., Schaedlich, F.A., Schneeberger, D.R.,
and Keeler, G.J.
Design and performance of an atmospheric reference standard of
Hg
0
and HgCl
2
and its use to evaluate several state-of-the-art Hg speciation
measurement methods
. Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
6. Lindberg, S.E., Stratton, W.J., Prestbo, E., Keeler, G.J., Stevens, R., Schaedlich,
F., and Atkeson, T.
Concentrations and behavior of reactive gaseous mercury in
ambient air: Initial tests of an automated sampling approach
. Presented at
Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
May 23-28. 1999.
7. Stevens, R.K., Schaedlich, F.H., Schneeberger, D.R., Prestbo, E., Lindberg, S., and
Keeler, G.J.
Automated instruement designed to measure Hg
0
and reactive
gaseous mercury in near real time: Design and operational characteristics
.
Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
8. Malcolm, E.G., and Keeler, G.J.
The potential importance of dew, frost, fog and
cloud water to the environmental mercury cycle
. Presented at Mercury as a Global
Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
9. Graney, J.R., Keeler, G.J., Landis, M.S., Christensen, J.N. and Halliday, A.N.
Environmental applications of novel instrumentation for measurement of lead
isotope ratios in precipitation samples from the Great Lakes region.
42
nd
Conference of the International Association of Great Lakes Research. Cleveland,
Ohio. 1999.
10. Gildemeister, A.E., Graney, J., Keeler, G.J., Atassi, K., and Hufnagel, C.
The
influence of local atmospheric mercury sources on mercury levels measured in
urban runoff
. Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International
conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999.
11. Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Graney, J.R., and Marsik, F.J.
Utilization of event
precipitation data to source apportion mercury wet deposited in South Florida
.
Presented at Mercury as a Global Pollutant: 5
th
International conference. Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, May 23-28. 1999
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
24
12. Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Malcolm, E., Dvonch, J.T., Barres, J., Lindberg, S.E.,
Zhang, H., Stevens, R.K. and Landis, M. Air-Surface Exchange of Mercury Over a
Mixed Sawgrass and Cattail Stand Within the Florida Everglades. Accepted for
Presentation at:
“International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment”
,
August 6-10, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2000.
13. Landis, M.S., Stevens, R.K., Luke, W., and Keeler, G.J. 2000. Investigating the
Influence of Long-range Transport on Mercury Deposition in South Florida. Paper
presented at the
International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment,
Ann Arbor, MI. August 5-7, 2000.
14. Lynam, M.M., Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Landis, M.S. and Stevens, R.K.
Measurement of Particulate and Reactive Gaseous Mercury, RGM, in the Ambient
Air: Methods Development. Accepted for Presentation at:
“International
Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment”
, August 6-10, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 2000.
15. Keeler, G.J., Dvonch, J.T., Barres, J.A, Landis, M.S. and Stevens, R.K. Real-
World Emissions of Mercury from Automobiles: The 1998 Fort McHenry Traffic
Tunnel Study. Accepted for Presentation at:
“International Conference on Heavy
Metals in the Environment”
, August 6-10, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2000.
16. Dvonch, J.T., Keeler, G.J., Barres, J.A., Marsik, F.J., Lynam, M., Malcolm, E.,
Landis, M.S. and Stevens, R.K. Near Real Time Observations of the Removal of
Ambient Reactive Gaseous Mercury by Precipitation. Accepted for Presentation at:
“International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment”
, August 6-10,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2000.
17. Dvonch, J.T., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Robins, T.G., Yip, F. and Morishita, M.
Field Comparison of PM
2.5
TEOM and PM
2.5
Manual Filter-Based Measurement
Methods in Urban Atmospheres. Presented at:
“European Aerosol Conference
2000”
, September 4-8, Dublin, Ireland. 2000.
18. Yip, F.Y., Dvonch, J.T., Robins, T.G., Parker, E., Morishita, M. and Keeler, G.J.
Measurements of Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal Exposure to Particulate Matter
Among Asthmatic Children in Detroit, Michigan. Presented at:
“International
Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and Related Air Pollutants”
, Sept. 12-14,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 2000.
19. Graney, J.R
.,
Keeler, G.J. and Christensen, J.N. Environmental Applications of
MC-ICPMS: Using Lead Isotope Ratios From Precipitation Samples to Help
Constrain Pollutant Source and Fate in the Great Lakes and South Florida
Regions. Presented at:
“International Symposium on Measurement of Toxic and
Related Air Pollutants”
, September 12-14, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 2000.
20. Dvonch, J.T., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Robins, T.G., Yip, F. and Morishita, M.
Field Comparison of PM-2.5 TEOM and PM-2.5
Manual Filter-Based
Measurement Methods in Urban Atmospheres. Presented at: American
Association for Aerosol Research
“AAAR 2000 – Nineteenth Annual Conference”
,
St. Louis, Missouri. Nov. 6-10, 2000.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
25
21. Lynam, M. M. and Keeler, G. J. Speciation of Mercury in the Ambient Air in an
Urban Environment. Presented at: 23
rd
Midwest Environmental Chemistry
Workshop, Kalamazoo, MI. October 7-8, 2000.
22. Dvonch, J.T., Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Robins, T.G., Yip, F. and Morishita, M.
Field Comparison of PM-2.5 TEOM and PM-2.5 Manual Filter-Based
Measurement Methods in Urban Atmospheres. Presented at: American Association
for Aerosol Research "AAAR 2000 - Nineteenth Annual Conference", Nov. 6-10,
St. Louis, Missouri. 2000.
23. Lynam, M. M. and Keeler, G. J. Near Real Time Measurement of Mercury
Species in Ambient Air in an Urban Environment. Presented at the 221
st
American
Chemical Society National Meeting, San Diego, CA. April 1-5, 2001.
24. Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F.J., Al-Wali, K. and Dvonch, J.T. Atmospheric Mercury
Chemistry and Deposition Model Development. Presentation at:
"South Florida
Mercury Science Program Annual Workshop”
, May 7, West Palm, Florida. 2001.
25. Yip, F.Y., Dvonch, J.T., Robins, T.G., Parker, E., Morishita, M., Brakefield-
Caldwell, W., Sam, M. and Keeler, G.J. Assessment of Personal Exposures to
Particulate Matter (PM) Among Asthmatic Children in Detroit, Michigan.
Presentation at: American Public Health Association
“One World – Global
Health: 129
th
APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition”
, October 21-25, Atlanta,
Georgia. 2001.
26. Malcolm, E. G. and Keeler, G.J. The influence of clouds and the marine
environment on atmospheric mercury chemistry and cycling. Poster for
presentation at the US EPA STAR Annual Conference, July 2001.
27. Malcolm, E.G., Keeler, G. J., Landis, M.S., Xu X.H., Sillman, S., Quintal, K.,
Stevens, R.K., Bullock, O. R., Jr. Atmospheric Mercury Chemistry in the Marine
Environment. Paper for presentation at the 6th International Conference on
Mercury as a Global Pollutant, Minamata, Japan, October 2001.
28. Keeler, G.J. Measurements of PM exposures of asthmatic children in Detroit.
International Society of Exposure Analysis Meeting, Charleston, S.C., Nov. 5,
2001.
29. Marsik, F.J., Keeler, G.J., Lindberg, S.E. and Zhang, H. The air-surface exchange
of elemental Hg over a mixed sawgrass-cattail stand with the Florida Everglades.
Presented at: American Chemical Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, April
8-12, 2002.
30. Lynam, M. M. and Keeler, G. J. Atmospheric Mercury Measurements in Detroit.
Abstract submitted for oral presentation at the 34
th
Central Regional Meeting of the
American Chemical Society to be held at Eastern Michigan University, June 2002.
31. Morishita, M., Keeler, G.J., Marsik, F.J., Dvonch, J.T., Young, L.H., Kamal, A.S.,
Wagner, J.G., Harkema, J.R. (2004) Assessment of Source Contributions to Urban
Ambient PM2.5 in Detroit, Michigan. Presented at: American Association for
Aerosol Research
AAAR 2004 – 23rd Annual Conference
, October 4-8, Atlanta,
Georgi.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 1 -
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH RICE, Ph.D.
Qualifications
My name is Deborah Rice. I am providing testimony for the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency as an independent expert.
I have a Ph.D. in toxicology from the University of Rochester in Rochester, NY.
My particular area of expertise is developmental neurotoxicology, which is the study of
the effects of exposure to environmental chemicals on the developing nervous system. I
am currently a toxicologist with the Environmental and Occupational Health Program of
the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In that capacity, I am involved in
making decisions about public health, taking into consideration all the possible
ramifications of regulation or guidance involving exposure to chemicals through food,
water, or air. Prior to moving to Maine, I was a senior risk assessor at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C. In that capacity, I was an
author, along with two colleagues, of the 2001 EPA document for the derivation of the
reference dose (RfD) for methylmercury based on an expert review by the National
Research Council (NRC). An RfD is an allowable daily intake of a chemical that is
believed to be without appreciable risk of harm when ingested over the lifetime of an
individual. Before becoming a risk assessor, I was a research scientist at Health Canada. I
studied the behavioral effects of exposure to methylmercury prenatally or after birth for
over 20 years.
I have published over 125 original research papers and review articles, 30 of them
specifically related to the health effects of methylmercury. I have delivered over 100
invited presentations, with over 30 of them addressing methylmercury neurotoxicity. I
was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 2 -
Works concerning the health effects of methylmercury in 2003. In 2005 and 2006, I
testified as an expert witness for the State of California in a lawsuit brought under
Proposition 65 concerning the dangers of ingesting fish containing methylmercury.
Introduction
In this testimony, I will discuss several issues. First, there is substantial evidence
for deleterious effects on neuropsychological function as a consequence of prenatal
exposure to methylmercury, and this information was used in development of an
acceptable daily intake level for methylmercury by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Second, methylmercury exposure is also associated with adverse cardiovascular
events in men, including heart attack and death. Third, the amount of methylmercury in
the body at which adverse effects have been observed in various studies overlaps the
amount of methylmercury in individuals in the United States. And finally, monetization
of the costs of exposure to methylmercury in the U.S. population has included only some
of the effects of methylmercury exposure.
Neuropsychological Effects of Developmental Methylmercury Exposure
The adverse health consequences to the nervous system of methylmercury
exposure in humans were recognized in the 1950s with the tragic episode of poisoning in
Minamata Bay in Japan, in which it also became clear that the fetus was more sensitive to
the neurotoxic effects of methylmercury than was the adult. A similar pattern of damage
was apparent in subsequent episodes of poisoning in Japan and Iraq. These observations
focused the research community on the question of whether exposure to concentrations of
methylmercury present in the environment might be producing neurotoxic effects that
were not clinically apparent.
Since the outbreaks of fetal methylmercury poisoning, hundreds of studies have
been performed in animals to characterize the effects of methylmercury and elucidate the
mechanisms by which methylmercury impairs the developing brain. Adverse effects in
animals include sensory and motor deficits, memory deficits, and cognitive delays.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 3 -
Methylmercury interferes with multiple neurochemical and physiological processes in the
developing brain, and these effects are well characterized.
Over half a dozen cross-sectional studies have been performed around the world
to explore the effects of environmental methylmercury intake on the development of the
child. In these studies, the hair mercury level of the mother or child was determined at the
time the child was tested for nervous system impairment. Studies in the Philippines,
Poland, the Canadian Arctic, Ecuador, Brazil, French Guiana and Madeira all found
adverse effects related to the methylmercury levels in the children’s bodies. These
included auditory and visual effects, memory deficits, deficits in visuospatial ability, and
changes in motor function.
Analysis by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science
In addition to the above studies, there have been three major longitudinal
prospective studies on the effects of methylmercury exposure to the mother on the
neuropsychological function of the child: in the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, in the
Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean, and in New Zealand. In these studies, mothers
were recruited into the study before giving birth or shortly thereafter. The children were
then tested at multiple times during development. Methylmercury concentrations in the
mothers’ hair or umbilical cord blood were analyzed, providing a measure of prenatal
exposure of the child to methylmercury. Two of these studies reported adverse effects
associated with methylmercury exposure, whereas the Seychelles Islands study did not.
Impairment included decreased IQ and deficits in memory, language processing,
attention, and fine motor coordination. An expert panel was convened in 2000 by the
National Research Council (NRC) National Academy of Sciences to review the
toxicological effects of methylmercury, and to determine whether the RfD derived in
1995 by the US Environmental Protection Agency was scientifically justified. The panel
evaluated all three studies in their expert review, concluding that all three studies were
well designed and executed. They modeled the relationship between the amount of
methylmercury in the mother’s body and the performance of the child on a number of
neuropsychological tests. From this analysis, they calculated a defined adverse effect
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 4 -
level from several types of behavior in each of the three studies. These adverse effect
levels represent a doubling of the number of children that would perform in the
abnormally low range of function. The NRC panel also calculated an overall adverse
effect level of methylmercury in the mother’s body for all three of the studies combined,
including the negative Seychelles study. Thus the results of all three studies were
included in a quantitative manner by the NRC.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used the analyses of the NRC in the
derivation of a reference dose, or RfD, for methylmercury in 2001. The RfD is a daily
intake level designed to be without deleterious effects over a lifetime. The EPA divided
the defined deleterious effect levels calculated by the NRC by a factor of 10 in its RfD
derivation. There are three points that need to be made in this regard. First, the EPA
performed the relevant calculations for a number of measurements for each of the two
studies that found deleterious effects a well as the integrative analysis that included all
three studies modeled by the NRC, including the negative Seychelles study. The RfD is
0.10 ug/kg/day based on the Faroe Islands study alone or the integrative analysis of all
three studies. The RfD would be lower than 0.10 ug/kg/day if only the New Zealand
study had been considered. Second, the factor of 10 does not represent a safety factor of
10, since the starting point was a level that doubled the number of low-performing
children. Third, there is no evidence of a threshold below which there are no adverse
effects. In fact, there is evidence from both the Faroe Islands and New Zealand studies
that the change in adverse effect in the child as a function of maternal methylmercury
level may be greater at lower maternal methylmercury levels than at higher ones.
Therefore, the so-called safety factor almost certainly is less than 10, and may be closer
to non-existent, based on the NRC analyses. Babies born to women above the RfD may
be at actual risk for adverse effects.
Information available since the NRC review and EPA RfD derivation
Several scientific endeavors have provided a fuller understanding of the effects of
developmental exposure to methylmercury on neuropsychological function since the
NRC review in 2000. One of these is a study of infants of women living in western
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 5 -
Massachusetts. Hair of the mothers at the time of birth was analyzed for mercury. When
the babies were six months old, they were assessed on a test of visual short-term memory
that is predictive of IQ at older ages. Higher mercury levels in the hair of the mothers
predicted poorer memory in the infant. For every 1 part per million (ppm) increase in
maternal hair mercury, there was a 7.5 point decrease in the baby’s score. The hair
mercury levels of the mothers were typical of those in the U.S. This study provides
evidence that exposure to methylmercury is having deleterious effects on
neuropsychological function of U.S. children. It also provides further evidence that the
EPA RfD does not include a substantial safety factor, since the majority of the mothers in
the Massachusetts study had hair mercury levels below those associated with the RfD.
An important analysis of the three large epidemiological studies reviewed by the
NRC was performed by Dr. Louise Ryan of Harvard University for the U.S. EPA. She
analyzed the relationship between the amount of methylmercury in the mother’s body at
the time of birth and the IQ of the children. For all three studies, increased hair mercury
in the mother was associated with a decrease in IQ in the child. The results were virtually
identical for all three studies. For each 1 ppm increase in maternal hair mercury, there
was a 0.12 to 0.13 point decrease in IQ. This was true for the study in the Seychelles
Islands, which was reported to identify no deleterious effects of methylmercury, as well
as the studies in the Faroe Islands and New Zealand, which found adverse effects. It is
important to recognize that the modeling performed by Dr. Ryan, which determined the
relationship between the mothers’ mercury level and IQ of the child, is different from
simply determining whether results are statistically significant, which was the focus of
the original publications by the investigators of the studies. This analysis provides
evidence that the effects in the three large epidemiological studies are not discordant, but
rather reveal deficits in IQ of the same magnitude.
Finally, a recent analysis of the benefits of fish consumption was performed by
the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, funded by the fishing industry. As part of that
exercise, the loss of children’s IQ related to methylmercury intake through consumption
of fish by mothers during pregnancy in the U.S. was estimated. The loss of IQ due to
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 6 -
methylmercury intake was greater than any potential benefit from the omega-3 fatty acids
in fish under several theoretical patterns of fish intake.
Cardiovascular Effects of Methylmercury
There is evidence from several studies that the body burden of methylmercury is
associated with cardiovascular or coronary heart disease, including heart attack and
death. Studies in Finnish men found an association between hair mercury levels and
myocardial infarction, cardiovascular disease, and death. In addition, there was a
relationship in these men between increased hair mercury levels and increased thickness
of the carotid artery, a risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events. A large multicenter
study in eight European countries and Israel also found an association between
myocardial infarction and the body burden of methylmercury in men. In a study of male
health professionals in the U.S., a non-statistically significant relationship was found
between coronary heart disease and toenail mercury levels after dentists were excluded
from the analysis. A large percentage of the study participants were dentists who were
exposed to mercury vapor in their dental practice and had high levels of mercury in their
bodies. The results of this last study suggest that methylmercury but not other forms of
mercury produces effects on cardiovascular function.
There is also evidence that methylmercury affects cardiovascular function in
children. In the study in the Faroe Islands, prenatal exposure to methylmercury was
associated with increased systolic and diastolic blood pressure and decreased heart rate
variability when the children were seven years old. At 14 years of age, the effects on
blood pressure were no longer apparent, but the effect on heart rate variability was still
present. Increased blood pressure and decreased variability in heart rate in response to
changes in activity or postural position are both predictors of adverse cardiac events in
adults.
Methylmercury Levels in the U.S.
The RfD for methylmercury derived by the U.S. EPA is associated with a
methylmercury concentration in cord blood of 5.8 ug in a liter of blood (5.8 ug/L). The
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 7 -
corresponding methylmercury concentration in the mother’s blood would be 3.4 ug/L,
since the fetal blood has 70% more mercury than that of the mother. In the overall U.S.
population of women of childbearing age, about 16% have blood levels greater than that
associated with the RfD. For women identifying themselves as Asian, Pacific Islander, or
Native American, 27% have blood mercury levels above the RfD. These women eat at
least twice as many fish meals as other ethnic groups. The percentage of women with
levels of mercury higher than the RfD may be even greater for groups that eat large
amounts of fish. Numerous studies have documented that the amount of methylmercury
in the bodies of individuals is dependent upon the amount of fish consumed.
The average body burdens of mercury in the mothers in the three large
epidemiological studies is higher than the average in the U.S. population. However, there
is overlap between body burdens in those studies and women of childbearing age in the
U.S. Moreover, there is no evidence of a threshold in those studies: that is, no level of
methylmercury in the mother’s body below which there are no adverse effects in the
children. In addition, the recent study in Massachusetts found adverse effects in infants
associated with mercury levels in the mother in the general U.S. population. For
cardiovascular effects, the body burdens at which adverse effects were found are within
the range of those in the U.S. These comparisons suggest that adverse effects on
neuropsychological function in children and cardiovascular effects in adults are occurring
in the U.S. population as a consequence of ingestion of methylmercury.
Societal Cost
The cost associated with the loss of IQ produced by methylmercury have been
estimated based on lost wages associated with decreased IQ. There is an established
correlation between IQ and lifetime earnings, so that lost wages resulting from a lowered
IQ can be calculated. In addition, a downward shift in the distribution of IQs in the U.S.
population would also result in an increase in the number of individuals defined as being
mentally retarded. This would incur costs including increased education and medical
costs.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 8 -
However, lost wages are only a portion of the costs associated with decreased IQ
associated with exposure to methylmercury. The IQ of an individual is predictive of
many life outcomes in addition to lifetime earning. Such an analysis was performed for a
number of adverse societal outcomes. This analysis relied on a national database in which
the IQ of over 12,000 individuals, along with multiple demographic variables, were
measured in 1979 in individuals between 14-22 years of age by the U.S. Department of
Labor. Individuals were then interviewed each year. A 3% increase in IQ was associated
with a 12% reduction in low-birth-weight births, a 15% reduction in out-of-wedlock
births, an 18% reduction in welfare dependency, a 28% reduction in the high school
dropout rate, a 25% reduction in the poverty rate, and a 25% reduction in the number of
males who were interviewed in jail in a yearly interview. These effects are of enormous
importance to society as well as to the individuals. These effects of IQ could be readily
monetized, but to my knowledge they have not been in the context of exposure to
environmental chemicals.
Developmental exposure to methylmercury has neuropsychological effects in
addition to those on IQ. Adverse effects on language, memory and attention are also
related to methylmercury exposure. These abilities are not assessed in IQ tests, and yet
deficits in these abilities would have important consequences for the child in a classroom
setting as well as later in life. These consequences of methylmercury exposure have not
been monetized.
The cost of cardiovascular effects of methylmercury exposure have also not been
addressed. In an estimate of monetary costs of lead exposure performed by EPA in the
mid 1980s, the cost of cardiovascular disease was greater than that for lost wages
associated with the IQ decremement produced by lead. Whether that is also the case for
methylmercury is unclear. However, this cost could add significantly to the monetary
burden produced by methylmercury exposure.
Summary
In summary, there are four points I would like the Board to keep in mind. First,
there is compelling evidence that methylmercury exposure produces neuropsycholgical
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
- 9 -
deficits in children as a result of prenatal exposure. Second, several studies have also
found an association between the amount of methylmercury in the body and adverse
cardiac events in men. Third, the body burdens of methylmercury at which adverse
effects occur include those of individuals in the United States. Fourth, the societal costs
of methylmercury exposure include lost wages and other adverse social consequences of
decreased IQ, independent costs associated with other adverse effects on cognition, and
costs associated with cardiovascular disease and death in men.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF CHRISTOPHER ROMAINE
Qualifications
My name is Christopher Romaine. I am here today for the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency), where I am the Manager of the Construction Unit in the Permit Section in the
Bureau of Air.
I have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Brown University and have completed
coursework towards a Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering from Southern Illinois
University. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois.
I joined the Agency in June 1976, at a junior level in the Permit Section in the Division of Air
Pollution Control. I am currently the Manager of the Construction Unit in the Permit Section. I
previously served as the Manager of the New Source Review Unit, Manager of the Utility Unit,
and Manager of the Joint Utility/Construction Unit, all in the Permit Section.
In particular, in 1999, I became Manager of the Utility Unit in the Permit Section, after about a
year and a half serving as the Acting Manager. As the Manager of the Utility Unit, I supervised
the staff of engineers who reviewed air pollution control permit applications involving electric
power plants, including applications for proposed new power plants, construction permit
applications for projects at existing power plants, and applications for operating permits for
power plants. My involvement in the permitting of coal-fired power plants has continued to the
present day. When the Joint Utility/Construction Unit was formed in 2001, consolidating the
separate Utility and Construction Units, I continued to supervise the engineers who worked on
power plant applications. It is only recently, with the issuance of the Clean Air Act Permit
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
Program (CAAPP) Permits to Illinois’ coal-fired power plants, that formal responsibility for
future work on CAAPP applications for power plants has bunitn to be transferred over to the
CAAPP Unit in the Permit Section. However, the Construction Unit continues to process
construction permit applications involving power plants.
In addition to my duties related to permitting, in my tenure with the Agency, I have assisted in
developing a number of runitlatory programs for stationary sources. These programs include
Nonattainment New Source Review (NA NSR) for proposed construction projects in
nonattainment areas, Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for volatile organic
material emissions for certain categories of emissions units, the Clean Air Act Permit Program
(CAAPP), and the Emissions Reduction Market System (ERMS).
The purpose of my testimony on the proposed rule is to provide additional explanation for
various provisions of the proposed rules.
Definitions
Many of the definitions in proposed 35 IAC 225.130 are transferred over from CAMR. The
proposed rule also includes definitions for five terms that are not found in CAMR: Averaging
Demonstration, Gross Electrical Output, Input Mercury, Output-Based Emission Standard, and
Rolling 12-Month Basis. Definitions of these terms were developed by the Agency to facilitate
the understanding and implementation of the proposed rules. With the exception of the
definition of “Rolling 12-Month Basis,” these definitions are self-explanatory.
The definition of “Rolling 12-Month Basis” is less apparent, especially as it also addresses two
exceptions to the general approach to the compliance time periods associated with the proposed
emission standards. The general approach to the compliance time period for the emission
standards in the proposed rules is use of 12 successive months of data, that is, compliance is
determined on a rolling 12-month basis. The data from the particular month for which a
compliance determination is being made and the data for the previous 11 months are combined
to make the determination of compliance. The first exception to this approach is for months in
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
which a unit does not operate when compliance is being determined for an individual unit. The
proposed rule would not include a month in which such a unit does not operate in the compliance
determination. Instead, the compliance determination in subsequent months would “skip” a
month in which the unit did not operate and would be based on data from 12 months in which the
unit actually operated. This is consistent with the approach taken by USEPA to compliance
determinations for mercury emissions under the New Source Performance Standards for Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units, which are also made on a 12-month rolling basis. (Refer to 40
CFR 60.50Da(h)(2)(iii).) The second exception is the approach to a month in which a unit does
not operate when compliance is being determined for a group of units on an aggregate basis.
When compliance is being determined on an aggregate basis, the proposed rule would only skip
a month in which all
units covered by the compliance demonstration do not operate. Compliance
determinations would include months in which any of the units covered by a demonstration is
operated, as is necessary so that a compliance determination is made for each month in which
any unit in the group is operated.
Incidentally, one consequence of applying the emission standards in the proposed rules on a
rolling 12-month basis is that compliance with the numerical emission standards will not be able
to be determined for the first 11 months after July 1, 2009, when the standards become
“effective.” The earliest date that the first formal determinations of compliance with these
standards can occur is July 1, 2010. This is the earliest date on which a total 12 months of data
will be available for an existing unit or group of units, from which compliance with the emission
standards can be numerically determined.
Compliance Requirements
The compliance requirements set forth in proposed 35 IAC 225.210 summarize the obligations
that would apply to the operation of a unit under the proposed rules. This Section reflects the
approach to such matters in CAMR, with the specific provisions paralleling the relevant
provisions in CAMR.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
Permitting Provisions
The permitting requirements set forth in proposed 35 IAC 225.220 address the implications of
the proposed rules for permitting. Like the compliance requirements in proposed 35 IAC
225.210, this Section is based on provision found in CAMR. However, unlike CAMR, proposed
35 IAC 225.220 would not require sources to obtain separate mercury budget permits for units
subject to the proposed rules. The requirements of the proposed rules would be addressed in
other required permits for the units, most commonly CAAPP Permits, along with the other
applicable emission standards and requirements that apply to the units. As related to control of
mercury emissions, those permits and the applications for such permits would have to address
the informational and procedural requirements that USEPA has determined are appropriate for
these application and permit under CAMR. For example, the applications such permits must
include the Identification Number assigned to the source by the federal office of Runitlatory
Information Systems, the identification of the units at the source, the intended approach to
required monitoring under the rules, and the intended approach to compliance with the emissions
standards under the rules.
Emission Standards for Units at Existing Sources
Proposed 35 IAC 225.230 sets forth the mercury emission standards for units at existing sources.
At a basic level, these standards require that mercury emissions from an existing unit either not
exceed 0.0080 lb mercury/GWh gross electrical output or be controlled by a minimum of 90-
percent reduction from input mercury. The proposed rules have an emission standard expressed
in terms of electrical output, as well as an emission standard expressed in terms of the reduction
in input mercury, to specifically address units that are burning washed Illinois basin coal, as has
been discussed in detail in the testimony of other Agency witnesses. These standards take effect
beginning July 1, 2009. However, as already explained, because the standards apply on a rolling
12-month basis, the earliest that a formal determination of compliance could be made with these
standards would be July 1, 2010.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
Proposed 35 IAC 225.230 becomes complicated because it addressed how these basic standards
would actually be applied to a unit or units at source under difference circumstances. It also
includes specific equations setting forth how relevant data is to be handled for the purpose of
determining compliance with the applicable emission standards.
The simplest circumstance is that compliance with the emission standards is demonstrated for an
individual unit and
the applicable emission standard does not change during the particular 12-
month rolling period. In such case, as addressed by proposed 35 IAC 225.230(a), compliance
can be directly determined in the terms of the applicable standard. If the unit is complying with
the output based standard, the total emissions of mercury during the 12-month long compliance
time period would be divided by the total gross electrical output during the same period. The
result would be the actual mercury emission of the unit, in lbs per GWh, which would then be
compared to the applicable standard, 0.0080 lb/GWh. If the unit is complying with the emission
reduction standard, the total emissions of mercury during the 12-month long compliance time
period would be compared to the total amount of input mercury during the same period. The
result would be expressed as the reduction efficiency for input mercury, in percent, which would
then be compared to the applicable standard, 90 percent.
The next circumstance, as addressed by proposed 35 IAC 225.230(b), is that compliance with the
emission standards is demonstrated for an individual unit and the applicable emission standard
does change during the particular 12-month rolling period. This circumstance must be
considered since a source could switch the coal supply to a unit during a 12-month period, going
to Illinois basin coal from western coal or vice versa. In this circumstance, it is not possible to
directly determine compliance in terms of an applicable emission standard, since both standards
applied during the 12-month period. To address this circumstance, the actual performance of the
unit is evaluated by comparing the actual emissions of mercury for the 12-month period to the
allowable emission of mercury during the same period. If the actual emissions for the 12-month
period are equal to or less than the allowable emissions for the 12-month period, a unit would be
in compliance. This restructuring of the compliance demonstration does not effect the
determination of actual emissions. However, the allowable emissions must be calculated. For a
month in which the source elected to comply with the output based standard, the allowable
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
emissions are calculated as the product of the gross electrical output for the month and the output
based standard, i.e., 0.008 lb/GWh. For a month in which the source elected to comply with the
reduction standard, the allowable emissions are calculated as the product of the input mercury
and the allowed emissions after the required reduction, i.e., 0.10. The allowable emissions for
the 12-month long rolling period are the sum of the allowable emissions for each month.
The next circumstance, as addressed by proposed 35 IAC 225.230(c), is that compliance with the
emission standards must be demonstrated for two or more units at a plant as a group
because
mercury emission data is only available for the units as a group. This circumstance occurs
because certain units share common stacks. For these units, mercury emission monitoring will
be most reliably and economically conducted with a single emissions monitoring system in the
common stack. This is the approach to emissions monitoring that is already being used for such
units for sulfur dioxide (SO
2
) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions under the Acid Rain and NOx
Trading Programs. In this circumstance, it will be necessary to approach the units for the
purpose of demonstrating compliance as if they were a single unit. Given the need to combine
data for gross electrical output or input mercury from two or more units, it will likely be easiest
if the compliance demonstration is carried out by comparing the actual and allowable emissions
of mercury during each 12-month long compliance time period.
The last circumstance, as addressed by proposed 35 IAC 225.230(d), is that a source elects to
demonstrate compliance on a source-wide basis. In this circumstance, the compliance
demonstration must be carried out by comparing the total actual and allowable emissions of
mercury of all the units at the source for each 12-month long compliance time period. The
proposed rules further specify that if a source has elected to show compliance on a source-wide
basis and fails to show compliance, all units shall be considered to be out of compliance for the
final month of the 12-month rolling period. This approach was taken because a single source
will be responsible for all units covered by the compliance demonstration. It is not necessary to
specifically assign culpabity for noncompliance to a particular unit, and indeed noncompliance
can be broadly attributed to the collective performance of the units.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
7
Averaging Demonstrations for Existing Units
Proposed 35 IAC 225.232 provides the additional flexibility that is present in the proposed rules
for Phase 1, through December 31, 2013. (In fact, when one considers the consequences of the
12-month rolling compliance time period, this additional flexibility is really only available
through January 31, 2013.) This additional flexibility is present during Phase 1 as companies
with existing sources can also show compliance with the proposed standards using system-wide
compliance demonstrations or “averaging demonstrations.” These compliance demonstration
would include units at more than one source. Under these compliance demonstrations,
compliance would be determined by comparing the total actual and allowable emissions of
mercury of all the units covered by the averaging demonstration for each 12-month long
compliance time period.
In order for a source to be included in an averaging demonstration, the source by itself must also
comply with one of the following emission standards on a source-wide basis for the period
covered by the demonstration: (1) An emission standard of 0.020 lb mercury/GWh gross
electrical output; or (2) A minimum 75-percent reduction of input mercury. This assures that
technology for control of mercury emissions is utilized on each source, and most likely each unit,
that is covered by a multi-source compliance demonstration. In addition, while averaging
demonstrations can be used through December 31, 2013, companies will have to be taking any
actions that are needed to show compliance on a source-wide basis, without reliance on an
averaging demonstration, well before December 31, 2013. This is because the first 12-month
rolling period after averaging demonstrations cease to be available will actually cover the 12-
month period from February 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013.
Companies with more than one plant can only participate in averaging demonstrations that
include other plants that they own or operate. Companies or organizations with only a single
plant subject toe the proposed rules (i.e., City, Water, Light & Power, City of Springfield;
Electric Energy, Inc.; Kincaid Generating Station; and Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative/Marion Generating Station) can only participate in demonstrations with other
companies or organizations that only have a single plant. In addition, for a company or
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
8
organization with only a single plant, participation in averaging demonstrations must be
authorized through federally enforceable permit conditions for each plant participating in the
demonstration. This is intended to assure that the role and the responsibilities of the different
entities involved in the averaging demonstration are well defined.
If averaging is used to demonstrate compliance, the effect of a failure to demonstrate compliance
will be that the compliance status of each plant will be determined as if the plant were not
covered by an averaging demonstration.
Existing Units Scheduled for Permanent Shutdown
Proposed 35 IAC 225.235 contains provisions that would allow a source to obtain an exemption
from the proposed emission standards for an existing unit that will be permanently shut down
soon after July 1, 2009. This exemption was included in the rules because the cost for
installation of activated carbon injection systems were not believed to be warranted for units that
would shortly be permanently shut down. An unit for which such an exemption had been
obtained could not be included when determining whether any other units at a plant or other
plants are in compliance with the proposed emission standards.
This exemption specifically responds to the circumstances of City Water, Light and Power
(CWLP), the municipally owned and operated power supply for the residents of the City of
Springfield. CWLP has submitted a construction permit application to build a new coal-fired
generating unit, Dallman Unit 4, at its existing power plant adjacent to Lake Springfield. The
new unit is being developed to meet the future power needs of Springfield. The new unit would
also replace the two Lakeside Units at the plant, which are the oldest units now at the plant and
would be permanently shut down after new Dallman 4 is constructed and operational. As part of
the air pollution control permitting for new Dallman Unit 4, CWLP is relying upon decreases in
emissions from the shut down of the Lakeside Units
Different dates are proposed for when existing units must be scheduled to be shut down to
qualify for exemption from the emission standards, depending on the circumstances of the shut
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
9
down. For existing units for which the owner operator is constructing a new unit or other
generating units to specifically replace the existing units, like CWLP’s two Lakeside Units, the
existing units must be scheduled to be shut down by December 31, 2011. For existing units for
which the owner or operator is not constructing a new unit or other generating units to
specifically replace the existing units, the existing units must be scheduled to be shut down a
year earlier, by December 31, 2010 to qualify for the exemption. This distinction was made
because construction of a new generating unit is a challenging and lengthy undertaking. The
source that is replacing a unit should be provided more time to carry out the construction of a
replacement unit than the source that is only retiring a unit and relying on other existing units,
which are already operating, to make up for the shut down unit. This distinction also recognizes
the significant efforts and commitment of a source that is actively engaged in developing a
replacement unit.
The exemption does include a provision for unforeseen events that would delay the scheduled
shut down of an exempted unit. A source must permanently shut down the unit by the applicable
date, unless the source submits a demonstration to Agency before such date showing that
circumstances beyond its reasonable control (such as protracted delays in construction activity
for the new replacement units, unanticipated outage of another unit, or protracted shakedown of a
replacement unit) have occurred that interfere with the plan for permanent shut down of the
existing unit. In such circumstances, the deadline for shut down of the existing unit may be
extended for up to one year if the unit is not being replaced or up to 18 months if the unit is being
replaced, provided, however, that after December 31, 2012, the existing unit shall only operate as
a back-up unit.
Procedural requirements accompany the exemption to ensure that reliance upon the exemption is
carefully considered by sources and occurs in a timely manner. These requirements also ensure
that the exemption is not abused by sources. By the effective date of the proposed emission
standards, June 30, 2009, a source must notify the Agency that it is planning to permanently shut
down the unit. In addition, the source must have applied for a construction permit or be actively
pursuing a federally enforceable agreement that requires the unit to be permanently shut down as
required to qualify for the exemption. The source must also have applied for revisions to the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
10
operating permit(s) for the unit to include provisions that terminate the authorization to operate
the unit in a manner consistent with the exemption. By July 1, 2010, the earliest date that
compliance with the proposed emission standards can be shown, the requirement to permanently
shut down a source must be embodied in a federally enforceable permit or other enforceable
agreement.
Lastly, the exemption specifies that if unit for which the exemption is relied upon is not shut
down in a timely manner, the unit shall thereafter be considered a new unit for the purposes of
the proposed rules. This is a final measure to prevent abuse of the exemption.
Emission Standards for New Sources
Proposed 35 IAC 225.237 sets forth the mercury emission standards for units at new sources.
While the standards are numerically identical to those for units at existing source, units at new
sources must comply with applicable emission standards on an individual, unit-by-unit basis.
Unlike the provisions for units at existing sources, compliance cannot be shown on a source-
wide basis or, as allowed during Phase 1 of the proposed rules, with an averaging demonstration.
This is appropriate because the units at new sources will be controlled with Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) under the federal rules for Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) 40 CFR 52.21. As a result, control of mercury emissions through co-benefit will be
maximized. Activated carbon injection systems can also be installed on these units as original
equipment, so as to maximize the capabilities of this technology to control mercury emissions.
The effective date of the emission standards for new units is set to match the effective date of the
mercury emission standard that also applies to new units under the federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, 40 CFR 60.45Da.
This was done for administrative convenience, so that the compliance determinations under the
NSPS and proposed rules for new units start at the same time and continue on the same schedule.
Since the emission standard of the NSPS does not immediately become effective upon initial
startup of a new unit, this approach also allows time for the shakedown of the new unit as related
to the control of mercury emissions and the orderly shakedown and certification of the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
11
continuous emissions monitoring system for mercury. During the period before the emission
standards take effect, a source is under the general obligation to operate a unit in accordance with
good air pollution control practices to minimize emissions.
Emissions Monitoring
As explained in the Technical Support Document, the requirements in the proposed rule for
monitoring of mercury emissions are essentially identical to the monitoring that would be
required under CAMR. Accordingly, the proposed rule refers to the provisions for emissions
monitoring adopted by USEPA at 40 CFR Part 75, Subpart I, Hg Mass Emission Provisions, and
40 CFR Part 75, Appendix K, Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap
Monitoring Systems. The proposed rule also allows use of the excepted “low mass” monitoring
methodology, as adopted by USEPA at 40 CFR 75.81(b), for units that have annual emissions of
no more than 29.0 pounds of mercury. Other aspects of the proposed rule related to emissions
monitoring are also consistent with provisions of the CAMR. For example, the owner or
operator of an existing unit must begin monitoring for mercury emissions no later than January 1,
2009, as would be required under CAMR. Emissions monitors must be certified and generally
operated as would be required under CAMR. Any alternative emission monitoring methods
must be approved by USEPA. The technical feasibility of the required monitoring for mercury
emissions was addressed by USEPA as part of its rulemaking to adopt the CAMR. (For
example, refer to 70 FR 28633, May 18, 2005.)
Other Monitoring Requirements
The proposed rule also includes requirements for monitoring that is not directly related to
mercury emissions but is necessary to determine compliance with the proposed emission
standards. The owner or operator of a unit complying with the output-based emission standard
would be “required” to conduct operational monitoring for the electrical output from the unit, as
measured at the generator. Since accurate information on electrical output is already needed by a
source for operational reasons and this data is readily collected by wattmeters designed for this
specific purpose, the proposed rule does not specify particular monitoring methodology that must
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
12
be used for the collection of this data. The rule also does not require that this data be collected
until this data is needed to determine compliance.
The owner or operator of a unit complying with the 90 percent reduction standard would be
required to conduct analyses of the coal being burned in the unit to determine its mercury
content. This information would then be used to determine the amount of mercury in the coal
going into the unit so that the mercury removal efficiency achieved by the control devices on the
unit could be calculated, as necessary to determine compliance with the 90 percent reduction
standard. While most sources that will be subject to this proposed rule already collect and
analyze coal samples on a routine basis for operational reasons, this activity does not extend to
analysis for mercury content. The provisions for coal sampling in the proposed rule are intended
to ensure an accurate determination of the input mercury to the subject units. Since the mercury
content of coal varies, even when coming from a single mine and coal seam, and the amount of
coal consumed by an UNIT can vary from day to day, daily sampling of the coal supply to units
is necessary. The coal supply must be sampled at a point after long-term storage, where the
sample will be representative of the coal being burned in the unit on the day that the sample is
taken. This location for coal sampling was selected after consultation with industry
representatives to provide flexibility in the point at which samples are collected while ensuring
that the resulting data accurately reflects the coal that is actually being burned in a unit. Certain
ASTM Methods were selected for the required analyses of coal. For mercury, these are ASTM
D6414-01, “Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal and Coal Combustion Residues by
Acid Extraction or Wet Oxidation/Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption,” and ASTM D3684-01,
“Standard Test Method for Total Mercury in Coal by the Oxygen Bomb Combustion/Atomic
Absorption Method.” These methods were chosen by the Agency after consultation with
industry representatives and experts on coal analysis because these methods are accurate, sources
and commercial laboratories are familiar with these methods, and the costs of these methods are
reasonable.
The proposed rule would require that a source begin collecting and analyzing coal
samples at least 30 days before data is needed to determine compliance, if it is reasonably
possible to do so. This approach was taken to reasonably ensure that data is being properly
collected when it is finally needed for the purpose of determining compliance. However, if a
unit has been out of service, such that meaningful sampling and analysis of the coal supply could
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
13
not be conducted in advance of the time at which data is needed, a source must begin to conduct
this monitoring when the unit is returned to service.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I hope that my testimony shows that the provisions of the proposed rules have
been carefully considered and developed to carry out the objectives for the proposed rulemaking.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF JIM ROSS
Qualifications
My name is Jim Ross and I am here today representing the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA) where I am the Division of Air Pollution Control
Manager in the Bureau of Air.
I have a Bachelors of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale. I have completed numerous environmental courses over the
years including the study of emissions and controls of each of the criteria air pollutants,
many hazardous air pollutants, as well as several courses on the background and
implementation of environmental regulations. I have also provided training on air
pollution permitting and regulations to Illinois EPA and United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U. S. EPA) staff, and persons from industry, environmental
consulting firms, environmental organizations, and the general public.
I joined the Illinois EPA in May of 1988 as a permit engineer in the Permit Section of the
Division of Air Pollution Control. I became manager of the Clean Air Act Permit
Program (CAAPP) Unit in May of 1997, after about a year and a half as acting CAAPP
Unit manager. The CAAPP is Illinois’ version of the federal mandated Title V program
of the Clean Air Act that requires permits for all major sources of air pollution. In
January of 2003 I became acting manager of the Permit Section and remained so until
March of 2004. A short time after this I transferred over to the Illinois EPA’s Office of
Emergency Response where I was manager of the Emergency Operations Unit. I
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
remained in this position until October of 2005 when I returned to the Bureau of Air in
my current position.
In addition to currently being the Division of Air Pollution Control Manager, I am also an
Illinois EPA Duty Officer which requires me to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a
week during several periods throughout the year. In this capacity, I am responsible for
ensuring Illinois EPA’s response to emergencies incidents anywhere in the State,
especially those involving hazardous materials, oil spills, disasters, and issues of
homeland security.
In my 18 years with the Illinois EPA I have been involved with detailed review of
Illinois’ industrial processes and their emissions of air pollutants and the measures and
controls used to mitigate these emissions. This review has included on-site visits to a
wide-variety of processes, including steel mills, large chemical plants, refineries, and
several coal-fired power plants. I have helped develop and implement several major
programs and rules since their inception including the CAAPP and Illinois’ volatile
organic material trading program for the greater Chicago area, i.e., the Emissions
Reduction Market System. As Permit Section Manager I oversaw the permitting of over
6,000 facilities in the State. Of note is that I was deeply involved in the CAAPP
permitting of Illinois’ 22 coal-fired power plants, including representing the Illinois EPA
at several of the public hearings on the proposed permits.
In my current position as Division Manager, I supervise a large staff of over 150
engineers, specialists, and administrative support personnel in developing, monitoring,
and enforcing the State and Federal air pollution control requirements. In particular, and
more recently, I have been overseeing the Illinois EPA’s efforts in the development of
several rulemaking efforts, including the proposed Illinois mercury rule.
My testimony will provide background information and a broad overview of the
development of Illinois’ proposed mercury rule. I will address some of the measures the
Illinois EPA took during rule development to ensure that we relied on accurate and
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
current information as we crafted the rule. In my testimony I will often refer to the
Technical Support Document (TSD) that accompanied the proposed rule and therefore
request that its contents be incorporated herein by reference. I would like to note that the
Illinois EPA performed significant outreach to stakeholders on the proposed rule,
including holding five weekly stakeholder outreach meetings where we presented
information on our findings, updated stakeholders on the rule, requested feedback on
issues, and held question and answer sessions. We also provided regular mail and e-mail
addresses to allow interested parties to submit comments and questions that were
answered at the stakeholder meetings. In addition, we repeatedly offered to meet with
any stakeholders in smaller groups to discuss the rule and related issues, and in fact held
several such meetings.
Introduction
On January 5, 2006, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich announced an aggressive
proposal to reduce mercury emissions from Illinois coal-fired power plants by 90 percent
beginning mid 2009. The Governor’s proposal is intended to require coal-fired power
plants in Illinois to achieve greater reductions of mercury more quickly than that
proposed in May 2005 by the U. S. EPA under the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule
(CAMR). The Governor’s proposal is now characterized in the proposed mercury rule
that the Illinois EPA filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) in March and
which is the subject of this hearing.
Illinois is not alone in seeking to go beyond the federal CAMR. Other states have made
similar decisions. At least five states have adopted mercury reduction programs that “go
beyond” CAMR in their reduction target or timeframe for obtaining reductions, and a
number of other states have announced their intentions to do so as well.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
Mercury
Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative neurotoxin that presents a serious threat to the
health and welfare to the citizens of Illinois and nationwide.
Mercury is a naturally occurring trace element found in the environment, and a pollutant
that is released to the environment by both natural and man-made (anthropogenic)
activities, including the combustion of coal to produce electricity. Mercury is contained
in small amounts in all forms of coal that are burned at Illinois power plants. The
combustion of coal at power plants represents the largest source category of
anthropogenic mercury emissions in the U.S. As the coal is burned in a boiler at a power
plant, the mercury is released into the exhaust flue stream and travels through existing
ductwork and control devices until it is finally emitted through a stack into the
atmosphere.
Various natural processes, including volcanic eruptions, the weathering of rocks, and
under sea vents can release mercury from the Earth's crust into water bodies, soils, and
the atmosphere.
Fate of Mercury in the Environment
Mercury is released into the atmosphere from anthropogenic emission sources such as
coal-fired power plants as either a gas or attached to minute solid particles. These
emissions can contaminate the environment both locally near the point of release and
many miles away. Mercury emissions in the air are transferred to the earth’s surface via
wet or dry deposition processes. Deposition is the process where mercury is transferred
from the atmosphere and deposited onto the earth in either wet or dry form. The wet
forms can fall to earth as rain, snow, or fog whereas the dry forms are particulates.
Mercury that is directly deposited or finds its way into the aquatic systems transforms
into methylmercury through a series of chemical reactions involving microbial activity.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
Methylmercury is toxic and is the most common organic form of mercury found in the
environment. It is very soluble and bioaccumulates within the tissues of wildlife (fish,
aquatic invertebrates, mammals) as well as humans. Bioaccumulation occurs when an
organism’s rate of uptake of a substance exceeds its rate of elimination. Fish become
contaminated as they feed on contaminated food sources such as plankton or smaller fish.
Humans are contaminated as a result of eating contaminated fish.
A key concept in understanding the need and methods for mercury control is that
although mercury air emissions are the target for reductions, the ultimate goal is to reduce
methylmercury levels in waterbodies and hence, fish tissue.
The Illinois EPA retained the services of Dr. Gerald Keeler to assist us with
understanding mercury deposition and to provide technical information on deposition
issues. Dr. Keeler will be providing testimony as the hearing proceeds.
Health and Environmental Impacts of Mercury Contamination
Unborn children, infants and young children are at greatest risk from mercury. Fetal
exposure to excessive levels of mercury has been linked to mental retardation, cerebral
palsy, lower IQ, slowed motor function, deafness, blindness, cardiovascular disease, and
other health problems. Recent studies indicate that as many as 10 percent of children
born in the United States have been exposed to excessive levels of mercury in the womb.
Because of the risk mercury poses to unborn children and infants, mercury exposure is of
particular concern for pregnant women and women of childbearing age who may become
pregnant. Section 3 of the TSD for the proposed mercury rule provides a detailed
discussion that further addresses the mercury impacts on human health.
Fish consumption advisories are issued when concentrations above human health-based
limits of one or more of contaminants such as PCBs, chlordane, and mercury are detected
in fish tissue. There is a statewide advisory for predator fish in Illinois waters due to
methylmercury. Fish consumption use is associated with all waterbodies in the state and
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
therefore it is commonly stated that all waterbodies in the State have a fish consumption
advisory in place for mercury. When fish in a particular lake, river or stream are not safe
for unlimited consumption because of mercury, a State is obligated to list that waterbody
as impaired. According to the latest (2004) Illinois list of impaired waters, there are 61
river segments (1,034 miles) and 8 lakes (6,264 acres) that have mercury listed as a
potential cause of impairment due to restrictions on fish consumption.
Our review of fish consumption literature provides convincing evidence that sport anglers
currently consume amounts of sport-caught fish that could cause them and their families
to exceed health-based limits for mercury contamination. The literature regarding
anglers’ consumption of their catch strongly suggests that a subset of these anglers have
meal frequencies that exceed the state-wide fish consumption advisory for mercury,
putting them well above the recommended rates for even fairly low levels of
contamination.
Mercury contamination and the associated harmful effects are logically not limited to
humans. Detrimental effects from suspected mercury poisoning have been observed in
wildlife such as eagles, hawks, loon chicks, foxes, raccoons, opossums, and otters.
Wildlife that feed on contaminated fish are likely to become contaminated. Likewise, the
fish themselves are subject to mercury ‘s harmful effects.
The Illinois EPA retained the services of Dr. Deborah Rice, a toxicologist with a
background in the health effects of mercury, to assist us with understanding the human
health effects of mercury and to provide technical information on such effects. Dr. Rice
will be providing testimony in the hearing.
Illinois Coal-Fired Power Plants and Mercury
Today, around 40% of Illinois’ electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. Illinois is
home to 21 coal-fired power plants that would be affected by the proposed rule, most of
which are over 25 years old. There are a total of 59 electric generating units operating at
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
7
these 21 plants. These coal-fired power plants emit an estimated 7,022 pounds per year
of mercury into the atmosphere in 2002. We estimate that these power plants make up
around 71% of Illinois’ man-made mercury emissions. The State’s fleet of power plants
are scattered throughout Illinois, with many located near major bodies of water.
The TSD, Section 5 in particular, discusses the relationship of mercury emissions from
sources like power plants on such issues as local and downwind environmental impacts.
Illinois EPA believes that the reduction in mercury emissions proposed by the rule will
result in significant reductions of mercury deposition and methylmercury levels in Illinois
waters and fish. This belief is reinforced by actual measured reductions in
methylmercury fish tissue contents in Florida and Massachusetts that directly coincide
with measures taken to reduce mercury emissions from nearby sources.
Dr. Keeler assisted the Illinois EPA in understanding the potential for local impacts from
power plants and will be providing testimony on this issue.
Because mercury is of such a significant concern to human health and the environment,
Illinois has adopted legislation and/or implemented a number of programs to reduce
mercury emissions to the environment from sources other than coal-fired power plants
(see Section 6.3 of the TSD). Illinois’ coal-fired power plants constitute the largest
source of uncontrolled mercury emissions in the State.
Regulatory Background of Mercury Control
The 1970 federal Clean Air Act (CAA) called for federal regulation of Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs). The United States Congress revised the HAPs program in 1990 to
mandate the U. S. EPA to establish technology-based emissions limitations for sources of
HAPs. Congress targeted 180 HAPs, including mercury, and required the development
of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for sources of these
HAPs. The source category that includes coal-fired power plants (i.e., electric utility
steam generating units) received special treatment in that instead of imposing MACT
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
8
standards immediately, U. S. EPA was tasked with performing a study on emissions from
these sources. The study results were then to be used to determine if regulating these
sources under Section 112 of the CAA was “appropriate and necessary”.
The final report on the study was given to Congress in February of 1998 and concluded
that mercury emissions were the HAP of greatest concern, but the report deferred making
a determination on whether controlling such emissions was “appropriate and necessary”
until further research could be done. Around two years later in 2000, following a large
information collection effort on mercury emissions from power plants, the U. S. EPA
issued a finding that regulation of HAP emissions from coal-fired power plants is
“appropriate and necessary” under Section 112 of the CAA. This finding was significant
in that it required MACT standards for mercury emissions from power plants. The
finding was also controversial and unsuccessful court challenges followed.
In August 2001, U.S. EPA sponsored a one-and-a–half year stakeholder process under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) tasked with providing guidance on the
MACT for power plants to the U. S. EPA. The workgroup was comprised of federal,
state and local officials and representatives of industry and environmental organizations
and was commonly referred to as the Utility MACT Working Group. This workgroup
issued a final report on October 2002 that outlined the various positions of the
stakeholders. Of note is that state and local agency representatives reiterated the need for
a mercury control program that incorporated the most stringent control of mercury that is
technically feasible, no trading of toxics, and enhanced ability for states to implement the
standards.
On January 30, 2004, U. S. EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth
three alternative regulatory approaches to reducing emissions of mercury from coal-fired
power plants. In two of the three alternatives, U. S. EPA proposed to rescind its
regulatory finding, which would require MACT-level control of mercury emissions, and
instead impose statewide mercury emissions budgets to regulate power plants that could
be met through a cap and trade program.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
9
In response to the proposed rules, the Illinois EPA submitted comments, making the
following key points:
•
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that needs to be regulated under Section 112
of the CAA and as such, the mercury emissions from power plants must be
subject to a MACT standard;
•
Mercury limits must be more stringent than set forth in the proposed U. S.
EPA rule;
•
Any mercury rule for power plants must be fuel neutral, without favoring coal
from any particular region of the country, and thus there should be a common
standard for bituminous and subbituminous coal;
•
Illinois EPA opposes emissions trading of mercury allowances unless the units
involved in trading can demonstrate that mercury hot spots are prevented; and
•
Mercury emission reductions can and should occur by 2010.
The comments also stated that U. S. EPA gave insufficient support for its extended
compliance deadline of 2018, which U. S. EPA acknowledged could extend compliance
out to 2025 or 2030 due to banking elements of the trading program.
In April 2004, U. S. EPA reversed the regulatory course it established in 2000 for
regulation of mercury emissions under 112 and announced two key proposals: (1) to
remove the source category containing coal-fired power plants from the list of HAP
emitters under section 112 of the CAA, and, (2) to adopt a cap-and-trade program under
Section 111 of the CAA instead of MACT standards under Section 112 of the CAA. This
regulatory approach adopted none of Illinois EPA’s key points on mercury control.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
10
On March 15, 2005, U. S. EPA issued the CAMR to permanently cap and reduce
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Notably, CAMR did not apply a
MACT standard to mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, and instead created a
market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce nationwide power plant emissions of
mercury in two separate phases. The first phase sets an emissions cap of 38 tons in 2010
that is to be achieved by mercury reductions occurring as a “co-benefit” of requirements
for reducing sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions under the federal
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). No mercury specific controls are required in this first
phase. The second phase begins in 2018 and requires coal-fired power plants to meet a
reduced cap of 15 tons. Illinois’ budget, or cap, under CAMR is 1.594 tons per year of
mercury for Phase I and 0.629 tons per year for Phase II. U. S. EPA estimates that
CAMR provides mercury emission reductions from Illinois coal-fired power plants of
approximately 47 percent by 2010 and 79 percent by 2018.
After review of CAMR, the Illinois EPA determined that CAMR will not result in timely
and sufficient reductions of mercury and that the rule contained biased allocation
methods that favored non-Illinois coals and thus impeded Illinois’ efforts to encourage
use of clean-coal technologies involving Illinois coal. Illinois EPA requested that the
Illinois Attorney General’s Office file an appeal of CAMR and the related U. S. EPA
actions. On May 27, 2005, the State of Illinois filed Petitions for Review with the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging both CAMR.
Thirteen other states also filed one or more appeals of the CAMR and related actions.
These appeals are pending.
Illinois is not required to adopt the CAMR, but must submit a state plan to achieve the
statewide mercury emissions budget called for in the rule and must demonstrate that
Illinois’ plan will require achieve at least as much reduction as CAMR. Illinois’ plan is
afforded the ability to forego trading and the other aspects of a cap-and-trade program.
However, if Illinois’ submittal is not timely and deemed acceptable by the U. S. EPA,
then CAMR will be imposed upon Illinois. Illinois’ plan is due to the U. S. EPA by no
later than November 17, 2006.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
11
In addition to, but separate from, the above actions, the Illinois General Assembly
adopted Section 9.10 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) which required
the Illinois EPA to study and issue findings on the potential need for mercury reductions,
along with other pollutants from fossil-fuel fired electric generating units like those at
coal-fired power plants. Accordingly, in September 2004, the Illinois EPA published the
Section 9.10 Report
entitled "
Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants: Report to the House and
Senate Environment and Energy Committees
." The
Section 9.10 Report
indicated that
control of mercury emissions was necessary; however, the specific level of control was
not delineated. The report also concluded that certainty was needed at the federal level
before Illinois could reasonably determine how it should proceed. Federal direction on
mercury control became clear only upon the issuance of CAMR in March of 2005 and
hence only then could Illinois proceed to form its strategy and move forward in the
development of the current proposed mercury rule.
The Illinois EPA determined that the appropriate method to protect the public health and
environment while meeting federal requirements was to adopt reasonable state-specific
mercury reduction requirements for Illinois’ coal-fired power plants.
The Illinois EPA retained the services of Richard Ayres of the Ayres Law Group to assist
with regulatory background issues. Mr. Ayres will be providing testimony in the hearing.
Rule Development Considerations
In developing the proposed mercury rule, Illinois EPA took several steps, including
consulting recognized experts, holding discussions with stakeholders and interested
parties, conducting research and literature reviews, and utilizing internal experts and
staff.
A key finding was that mercury control technologies have advanced significantly over the
last several years (e.g., use of halogenated sorbents) resulting in both a reduction in costs
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
12
and increased effectiveness. The trend is one where technological advances and vendor
expansion should continue to lead to decreasing costs and increasing control efficiencies
and options.
The Illinois EPA relied on several basic principles as guidance in developing the
proposed rule:
•
The need to protect human health, fish and wildlife, and the environment
from the harmful effects of mercury and methylmercury;
•
The need to control the unregulated mercury emissions from Illinois’ coal-
fired power plants to the greatest level possible and as quickly as possible in a
cost-effective manner;
•
Must consider the latest control technology that has been shown effective in
controlling mercury emissions and which can be reasonably employed, in a
cost effective manner, across the full fleet of Illinois power plants and coal
types;
•
Must ensure that the required mercury reductions occur both in Illinois and at
every power plant in Illinois to address local impacts;
•
The rule needs to incorporate flexibility in complying with the proposed
standards to assist in widespread compliance and to help reduce compliance
costs; and
•
The proposed rule must be consistent with the Governor’s proposal to reduce
mercury emissions in Illinois by 90 percent.
We also sought to ensure that the rule would not encourage the use of non-Illinois coal
and interfere with actions to promote the use of Illinois coal in clean-coal technology
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
13
applications. Therefore, the rule does not treat sources differently or establish different
requirements based on the type of coal being used. This is contrary to CAMR, which
established State mercury budgets, as well as proposes a baseline allocation scheme, that
provides higher allowances for units burning coal types other than bituminous.
Furthermore, credit for mercury removal from coal washing was given by establishing an
output-based limit that accounts for mercury removal during pre-combustion processes
such as coal washing. This attribute of the rule is consistent with Illinois’ mercury
reduction goals and also benefits users of Illinois coal since washing of coal is currently
only practiced for bituminous coals.
Careful consideration was given to the effect mercury control requirements will have on
Illinois’ economy, including consumers, jobs, and the power sector. Illinois carefully
selected an achievable, reasonable, and cost-effective mercury reduction target. Section 8
of the TSD provides a detailed discussion of data supporting 90 percent reduction as an
achievable and reasonable level of mercury control for Illinois power plants. Section 8
also shows that the costs of controlling mercury are consistent with Illinois’ goals. In
addition, we looked into the amount of mercury reduction in fish tissue levels needed to
get below fish consumption advisory levels (see Section 4.3 of the TSD). The mercury
reduction amount required for a selected species (i.e., largemouth bass) in order to reach
unlimited consumption levels by childbearing age women and children less than 15 years
of age, the most sensitive and restrictive sub-population, is about 90%. Moreover, a
November 2005 mercury control model rule proposed by State and Territorial Air
Pollution Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (ALAPCO) provided two options, both of which had initial phase 1 compliance
dates set at the end of 2008 and required final cuts in mercury equivalent to 90-95% by
the end of 2012. Illinois also reviewed the actions of several States that have selected
compliance dates earlier than 2009 as well as mercury reduction requirements of 90% or
greater (see Section 6.2 of TSD).
The Illinois EPA retained the service of Dr. James Staudt of Andover Technology
Partners to assist us in understanding the state-of-the-art in mercury controls, levels of
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
14
mercury reductions obtainable under different control configurations, and associated
costs. Dr. Staudt will be providing testimony in the hearing.
In addition to the detailed mercury control and cost analysis performed in Section 8 of the
TSD document by Illinois’ technical expert, Dr. Staudt, Illinois utilized the services of
ICF Resources Incorporated (ICF) to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed rule
on Illinois’ electricity rates and affected power plants. While there are some additional
costs predicted from the proposed rule when compared to CAMR, the costs are deemed
to be reasonable in light of the concerns presented by mercury pollution and the potential
benefits of mercury control.
Illinois EPA determined that it can achieve the required mercury reductions proposed by
Governor Blagojevich and give compliance flexibility to sources. Giving flexibility
serves to reduce compliance costs and increase the probability of widespread compliance.
Flexibility provided by the proposed rule includes the following:
•
The source has the option of complying with either a mercury reduction
efficiency or an output based emission rate;
•
The proposed rule does not prescribe how compliance with the selected
standard is to be achieved, instead, the affected source makes the ultimate
decision on how compliance is obtained;
•
The proposed rule phases in standards over a period of 3 ½ years, with a less
restrictive standard in phase one;
•
The rule allows a source to demonstrate compliance by both system-wide and
plant-wide averaging in phase 1, and plant-wide averaging in phase 2; and
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
15
•
The rule allows for sources that commit to shutdown within a certain
timetable to avoid installing controls.
We also addressed the issue of “hot spots” by not allowing trading, or the banking or
purchase of emissions allowances, and by requiring mercury reductions at all power
plants. Ensuring emission reductions take place in Illinois and at all locations where
power plants exists should reduce local impacts and hot spots.
Finally, we addressed the issue of units targeted for permanent shutdown or replacement
within a relatively short timeframe after the initial compliance date. These units are able
to apply for an extension that provides extra time in the case of circumstances beyond
control that cause delay. During the extension period, such units are not required to
comply with the control requirements and are likewise excluded from compliance
calculations. This provision is intended to allow sources to avoid unnecessary costs and
expenditure of resources. Once such units are permanently shutdown they will obviously
emit no mercury and any interim level of control achieved between the compliance
period and final shutdown would likely have been minimal.
Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
The proposed rule requires mercury reductions from Illinois’ coal-fired power plants in
two phases. During phase I, which begins on July 1, 2009, coal-fired power plants must
comply with either an output-based emission standard of 0.0080 lbs mercury/GWh, or a
minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury, both on a rolling 12-month basis.
However, plants with the same owner/operator may elect to comply with the limit on a
system-wide basis by averaging across their entire fleet of plants in Illinois, provided that
each plant meets a minimum output-based emission standard of 0.020 lbs mercury/GWh
or a minimum 75-percent reduction of input mercury. In Phase II, beginning January 1,
2013, plants must comply with either an output-based emission standard of 0.0080 lbs
mercury/GWh or a minimum 90-percent reduction of input mercury, both on a rolling 12-
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
16
month basis. The rule does not allow for the trading, purchasing or the banking of
allowances.
The proposed rule has provisions for an extension from compliance with the standards for
units that will be permanently shutdown or replaced within a relatively short timeframe
after the initial compliance date.
The monitoring requirements of the proposed rule are essentially the same as those
outlined in the model federal CAMR. However, in addition to monitoring outlet mercury
emissions, the proposed Illinois mercury rule also requires sources complying with the
rule via the 90 percent reduction option to measure the input mercury in order to
determine the removal efficiency. This is accomplished through coal analysis.
Effect of the Proposed Illinois Mercury Rule
The mercury reductions obtained from Illinois’ proposed rule will be beyond those of the
federal CAMR and will occur more quickly. Whereas CAMR would cap Illinois’ annual
mercury emissions at 3,188 pounds by 2010 through 2017, the proposed Illinois rule
results in annual mercury emissions of only around 770 pounds beginning mid-2009.
Therefore, the proposed rule is anticipated to eliminate approximately 2,418 additional
pounds per year of harmful mercury pollution, and do so six months earlier than the
federal CAMR. The reductions obtained under the proposed Illinois rule will likewise be
greater than those required in Phase II of CAMR, which does not go into effect until
2018. The CAMR budget for Illinois in Phase II is 1,258 pounds per year, but with
banking allowed under CAMR, it is not expected that actual emission reductions will
occur until 2020 or later. Compared to CAMR, the proposed Illinois rule should result in
488 fewer pounds of mercury emissions per year about seven years sooner. It is
important to note that CAMR is a cap and trade program and therefore, under CAMR,
Illinois power plants could postpone or avoid some mercury reductions through the
purchase or banking of allowances, an option not allowed under Illinois’ proposed rule.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
17
Over time, Illinois expects to see reductions in mercury water deposition to Illinois’ lakes
and streams and corresponding methylmercury decreases in Illinois fish tissues, making
fish caught in Illinois waters safer to eat.
We also expect to see significant benefits to human health, although it is difficult to
estimate a dollar value for such things as improvements in IQ and less cardiovascular
disease. There could also be several recognized benefits to Illinois beyond the expected
public health benefits that come with a reduction in water and fish methylmercury levels.
Such benefits include support for existing and the potential for additional jobs resulting
from the installation and operating requirements of additional pollution control devices.
There also exists a potential for an increase in tourism and recreational fishing as mercury
levels drop in fish, bringing an associated positive impact to local economies and the
State overall. With a possible increase in the use of bituminous coal, there should be a
positive economic impact on the Illinois coal industry and Illinois coal mining jobs.
Economic Considerations
In evaluating the economic impacts of the proposed rule, Illinois EPA consulted and
retained the services of experts, stakeholders and interested parties, conducted literature
reviews, and utilized internal staff.
In order to better understand the economic effects of the proposed mercury rule, Illinois
retained the services of ICF. ICF conducted a study evaluating the economic impacts of
the proposed mercury rule using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM
®
). This study
focused on the impacts of the proposed mercury rule in terms of costs to the power sector
and costs to electricity consumers.
Of significant importance is that a “more stringent” rule than that being proposed was
modeled and therefore the results are considered conservative. Illinois EPA discussed
modeling parameters with ICF prior to the modeling and it was determined that where the
modeling inputs allowed discretion, we would err on the side of being conservative.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
18
Some examples of this are that the IPM was unable to reflect the mid-year phase 1
compliance date of July 1, 2009 and therefore for modeling we moved the compliance
date up to January 1, 2009, 6 months sooner than what the proposed Illinois rule requires.
Also, the IPM model assumed a mass emissions cap on each and every unit where the
rule does not cap emissions but requires compliance with a standard that allows for
growth in electricity generation. Emission caps as used in the IPM Model are more
stringent than a percent reduction control requirement or emissions rate since they also
limit growth. As a result, the plant output might be severely limited depending upon the
cap. This implicit limit to the plant output could create a situation where the modeling
forecasts the plant is no longer economically viable whereas it might be viable under a
90% reduction requirement or 0.0080 lbs Hg/GWh emissions rate that allows output
growth. For accurate assessment of what the modeling predicts, it is critical that the
modeling results be viewed in context, i.e., taking the above into consideration.
ICF prepared a comprehensive report for the Illinois EPA in which it provides a summary
of the modeling results and identifies what it feels are the principal findings of the study.
Of note is that modeling shows only a 1 - 3.5% increase in retail electricity prices and
costs across all sectors (i.e., residential, industrial and commercial) from the proposed
rule relative to the CAMR. On an average bill basis, residential customers in Illinois
would pay less than $1.50 per month more under the proposed Illinois rule relative to
CAMR across the study horizon.
IPM modeling predicts that two power plants may be adversely impacted to the extent
that some small, older coal-fired units are retired, potentially resulting in some
corresponding job loss. Note that economic experts consulted by the Illinois EPA who
have reviewed the IPM modeling believe that the modeling is not accurate in predicting
the retirement of these plants as a result of the proposed rule. The modeling also
forecasts an increase in the use of bituminous coal as a direct result of the proposed
mercury rule. This increase should have a positive impact on Illinois coal related
operations, such as Illinois coal mines and jobs, since most of the bituminous coal fired in
Illinois is mined in Illinois. The modeling further shows a corresponding decrease in the
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
19
use of subbituminous coal, which is mined in western states. Of particular interest is that
were Illinois to implement CAMR instead of the proposed mercury rule, IPM modeling
shows a decrease in bituminous coal use.
I would also like to mention some of the other issues reviewed and discussed in the TSD,
specifically in section 10. The Illinois EPA found that there would be no significant
adverse impact to the safety and reliability of the electricity distribution grid as a result of
the proposed rule. We also found that there could be significant economic benefits as a
result of the proposed rule in the form of support for existing jobs and potential for new
jobs in the pollution control device installation industry, fishing industry, and Illinois’
coal industry.
The Illinois EPA retained the services of Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (Synapse) to
review the modeling performed and to testify before the Board on issues related to the
IPM modeling. In addition, Synapse was asked to assist the Illinois EPA in
understanding a wide range of economic issues related to the proposed rule and to
provide testimony on these issues where needed. These include the potential effect of the
proposed rule on the reliability of the electricity grid, Illinois jobs, consumer electric
rates, competitiveness of coal-fired power plants, potential for retirement of coal-fired
units, and costs to the power sector. In particular, due to the serious nature of any
potential unit retirements and loss of competitiveness of Illinois’ coal-fired owner plants
in comparison to other states, the Illinois EPA requested further review of these issues by
its economic experts, i.e., Synapse. The Illinois EPA also believed that these issues
warranted further review due to the conservative representation of the proposed rule by
the modeling and the corresponding potential for the modeling results to overestimate any
negative impacts. Synapse will be providing testimony in the hearing.
The above considerations focus on the economic impacts associated with issues outside
of public health benefits. However, when evaluating the appropriateness of the potential
costs of any rule, the costs associated with the rule must be measured against the costs to
society of continued contamination from the targeted pollutant and the intimately related
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
20
monetized health benefits expected from reduced emissions. Illinois reviewed the
numerous studies on the monetized health benefits of mercury control of coal-fired power
plants nationwide and found that the annual benefits are conservatively estimated in the
range of $10.4 to $288 million. Notably, in the rule development process of the federal
CAMR, the U. S. EPA may not have recognized the full societal cost benefit of
controlling mercury emissions. This is highlighted by the fact that U. S. EPA did not
consider the results of the Harvard/NESCAUM study as well as other recent studies in its
analysis of the full benefits of mercury control. Illinois’ expert on the health effects of
mercury, Dr. Rice, found that the costs to society from cognitive deficits in adults,
accelerated aging, and impairment of elderly to live independently due to methylmercury
exposure have not been monetized. Therefore, the costs to society from mercury
pollution from coal-fired power plants, although extremely large, may be substantially
underestimated. The preponderance of available information indicates potentially huge
monetized health benefits from mercury control.
Conclusion
Recent advances in mercury control technology have improved control efficiencies and
reduced the costs to control mercury. The federal CAMR does not account for these
advances and does not go far enough, fast enough in reducing the emissions of this highly
toxic pollutant. Illinois coal-fired power plants are the largest source of man-made
mercury emissions in the State and as such, the proposed rule aims to eliminate as much
of the mercury emissions from these sources as is reasonably possible, and to do so as
quickly as possible. The Illinois EPA used several avenues, including the retention of
services of nationally recognized mercury and economic experts, in order to obtain the
latest, most accurate information on mercury and mercury controls, as well as to assist in
rule development and impact analyses. We feel that the proposed rule provides for deep,
attainable cuts in mercury emissions while providing compliance flexibility and other
measures designed to minimize costs to affected sources. The non-public health
economic implications of the proposed rule, although difficult to forecast, are variable
with some potential benefits provided in the area of jobs and increased recreational
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
21
activity and possible negative impacts such as increased costs to the power sector and the
potential for the retirement of some coal-fired units. The impact to Illinois consumer
electricity bills should be minimal. The potential benefits to the public health of Illinois
citizens from the proposed rule are substantial, as the harmful effects from mercury to IQ
and cardiovascular systems, to name a few, are lessened. We expect to see lower
mercury deposition to Illinois waterbodies and corresponding decreases in
methylmercury fish levels, making fish caught in Illinois safer to eat. In summary, the
need has been identified, the technology is available, and the costs are reasonable and
therefore we urge the Illinois Pollution Control Board to adopt the proposed rule for
mercury control. Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the Illinois EPA.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D.
I, James E. Staudt, am testifying on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency ("Illinois EPA") as an expert in this electric power plant mercury emissions rule
development.
My testimony addresses the current state-of-the-art of mercury emissions control
technology for coal-fired power plants and the potential use of these control technologies by
Illinois coal-fired power plants to comply with the rule that has been proposed by Illinois EPA.
I.
BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
I am currently the president of Andover Technology Partners (“ATP”). As president of
ATP, I have advised power plants, equipment suppliers and government agencies on ways to
comply with emissions regulations in cost-effective ways. For nearly twenty years, I have
focused on pollutant control technologies, including mercury emissions control. For the past
nine years (since 1997) I have been a consultant with my own business – Andover Technology
Partners. My primary area of business as a consultant is associated with my expertise relating to
the performance and cost of air pollution control on power plants. Clients have included the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"), power plant owners, technology
suppliers, and others. I have published several papers and reports, including papers in peer-
reviewed journals and reports issued by USEPA, on mercury control technology and the cost of
controlling mercury on power plants. Several of these papers have been coauthored with staff of
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
the USEPA. For most of the period from 1988 to 1997 I was employed by companies that
provided air pollution control technology (Research Cottrell and Fuel Tech) or power plant and
refinery gas analyzers (Spectrum Diagnostix, a subsidiary of Physical Sciences that was acquired
by Western Research). Over this period, as an employee of these companies I sold, designed,
and commissioned air pollution control technology at numerous power plants and industrial
facilities.
I received my M.S. (1986) and Ph.D. (1987) in Mechanical Engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I received my B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the
U.S. Naval Academy in 1979. From 1979 to 1984 I served as a commissioned officer in the U.S.
Navy in the Engineering Department of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
II.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
My testimony addresses how mercury emissions from coal power plants can be controlled and
what those controls are expected to cost for Illinois power plants to comply with the proposed
mercury control rule. By reference, my testimony includes Section 8 of the Technical Support
Document (TSD): Technological Feasibility of Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired
Power Plants in Illinois.
Mercury Emissions From Coal Fired Power Plants
The mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant are the result of the mercury content in the
coal that is burned and the extent that processes in the boiler prevent the mercury from being
released with the exhaust gases of the power plant. Mercury may be removed from the coal prior
to combustion of the coal. This may be achieved by coal cleaning or by some other treatment of
the coal. Or, mercury may be removed from the boiler flue gases by Air Pollution Control
(APC) equipment. Sometimes the APC equipment that removes the mercury is equipment that is
installed primarily to remove other pollutants, such as Particle Matter (PM) or acid gases in a
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
Flue Gas Desulfurization system (FGD, also called SO
2
scrubbers). Mercury removal in this
manner is called co-benefit mercury removal. Mercury may also be removed by air pollution
control systems that are specifically designed to remove mercury from the flue gases.
Mercury Removal from Coal
Run of mine (ROM) bituminous coal is frequently cleaned for the following purposes:
•
Removal of impurities to improve the heating value of the coal
•
Reduction of transportation costs for coal to the power plant and ash from the power
plant
•
Maintenance of ash content in coal supply within contract requirements
•
Removal of sulfur, mainly as pyrites, lowering SO
2
emissions when the coal is burned.
However, cleaning ROM coal will provide the added benefit of removing mercury from the coal.
This is because mercury in the coal is preferentially associated with pyrites and other non-
combustible materials that are removed in coal washing.
Illinois bituminous coal is washed and some of the mercury is removed in the washing.
However, most of the coal burned in Illinois is subbituminous coal from the western US that is
not washed because it is naturally low in sulfur and ash. For this reason and because of the
higher energy content of bituminous coal, mercury content of bituminous coal as fired in Illinois
power plants is typically below that of subbituminous coals on a heating-value equivalent basis.
Mercury Behavior In the Furnace and Cobenefit Capture
Mercury that is present in trace amounts in the coal is released from the coal during combustion.
At furnace conditions, the released mercury is present in a gaseous state in the elemental form
that is denoted as Hg
o
. As the combustion exhaust gases cool in the boiler, chemistry shifts to
favor an oxidized, or ionic, form of mercury, denoted as Hg
2+
. Some of the Hg
2+
is adsorbed
onto particles to form Hg
p.
The Hg
p
is readily captured in PM emission control devices that all
IL coal power plants are equipped with – ESPs or fabric filters. Hg
2+
is water soluble and can be
captured by FGD systems if they are installed. However, not all of the Hg
o
becomes Hg
2+
or Hg
p
due to limitations on the chemistry that result from several factors, such as concentration of
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
chlorine (the most common form of Hg
2+
is HgCl
2
), flue gas temperature, and other factors. As a
result of this, the level of cobenefit mercury capture in the PM emission control devices or SO
2
scrubbers may vary based upon the type of equipment, the constituents in the coal, and other
factors. NOx controls, such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and combustion staging, can
enhance the capture that is achieved in PM or SO
2
controls. Results of measurements of co-
benefit mercury removal rates taken in response to the U.S. EPA’s Information Collection
Request (ICR) as part of the development of the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule and subsequent
test programs since the ICR program showed that:
•
For pulverized-coal boilers firing bituminous coal and equipped with SCR, and ESP, and
wet FGD, co-benefit mercury capture is about 90%.
•
For pulverized-coal boilers firing bituminous coal and equipped with an ESP co-benefit
mercury capture will usually be in the range of about 30%-50%.
•
For boilers firing bituminous coal in a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) arrangement with
a fabric filter, co-benefit mercury capture over 90% is achieved.
•
For pulverized-coal boilers firing subbituminous coal and equipped with only an ESP,
low co-benefit mercury capture is likely.
•
For pulverized-coal boilers firing any kind of coal and equipped with only a hot-side
ESP, co-benefit mercury capture is likely to be low.
Cobenefit controls may be optimized through a variety of techniques that are described in more
detail in the TSD. Depending upon the fuel being fired and the boiler’s configuration,
optimization methods can significantly improve cobenefit mercury removal.
Mercury-Specific Controls, Especially Sorbent Injection
The previous section addressed the important factors impacting mercury capture by co-benefit
from NOx, PM or SO
2
control technologies. As discussed, boilers that fire subbituminous coal –
which there currently are many of in Illinois – are not likely to achieve high levels of mercury
removal from co-benefits alone. Some of the bituminous coal fired boilers may not achieve
adequately low mercury emissions by co-benefits alone. Therefore, these plants may need
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
additional controls to achieve the levels of mercury removal that are being required in the
proposed rule.
Although many mercury control methods are under development, sorbent injection is clearly the
most developed. It is the only approach that has been tested on several coal-fired boilers firing a
wide range of fuels. Power companies have entered contracts for commercial systems.
Moreover, injection of sorbent, particularly Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC), has been used
for mercury control on hundreds of municipal waste combustors for several years. The
equipment is fairly simple, relatively easy to install, relatively inexpensive in capital cost, and it
is well understood. The sorbent, PAC, is widely available from several suppliers.
There are three ways that the sorbent can be admitted to the gas stream:
•
Normal sorbent injection – upstream of the existing ESP or fabric filter and the most
inexpensive approach. Typical capital cost is around $2/KW
•
TOXECON – An acronym for TOXic Emission CONtrol device. This entails retrofitting
a fabric filter downstream of the existing ESP and injecting the sorbent into the gas
stream between the ESP and the fabric filter with the fabric filter capturing the sorbent.
This approach has been shown to work very effectively to provide over 90% removal for
any fuel. It also keeps captured fly ash segregated from captured sorbent, an advantage
for plants that market their fly ash. However, this is a more costly approach, with higher
capital cost than normal sorbent injection.
•
TOXECON-II. This is a newer approach that entails injecting the sorbent between fields
of the ESP. Upstream ESP fields capture most of the fly ash and downstream ESP fields
capture the sorbent and a small amount of fly ash. This approach can have advantages
for power plants that sell their fly ash.
Sorbent injection technology for mercury control from coal-fired boilers has been a very active
area of research because the low capital cost of the technology and ease of retrofit make it an
attractive retrofit control method. The Technical Support Document lists over three dozen full
scale field trials on operating electric utility boilers that I am aware of – all but a few having
been completed. These tests have been on a wide range of coals and boiler configurations.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
6
Some tests have lasted only a few days, some for over 30 days of continuous operation and at
least one for over a year. Virtually all of this testing has been in the last five years and most in
the last 2-3 years. So, the technology has advanced rapidly over the last few years and
experience from just a few years ago may be obsolete. This is especially true when considering
the new sorbents that have been developed specifically for use on coal-fired boilers.
Although untreated PAC, as is used in municipal waste incinerators, has been tested and shown
to be effective in some coal-fired boiler applications, experience has shown that for most coal-
fired boiler applications PAC sorbents that are treated with halogens on the surface of the PAC
are much more effective. Unlike untreated PACs, which have a wide range of industrial
applications, halogenated PAC sorbents were specifically formulated to address the mercury
capture needs of coal-fired boilers. As a result, halogenated PAC sorbents are the current state-
of-the-art for most applications and few users would consider untreated PAC for high removal
rates except possibly where a fabric filter was installed.
Controlling Mercury from IL Units
It is my opinion that all of the coal-fired units in the state of Illinois are capable of meeting the
requirements of the proposed mercury control rule. Because of the different coal types and
boiler configurations, not all units will use the same approach.
Most of the boilers in IL fire subbituminous coal. For subbituminous coals, such as Powder
River Basin coals that are used widely in Illinois, halogenated PAC has been shown to be very
effective at several full-scale coal-fired boiler installations providing 90% or more removal. At
several sites injection of the halogenated PAC has shown that it provides over 90% mercury
removal at treatment rates of about 3 pounds of sorbent per million actual cubic feet of flue gas
(lb/MMacf) when injected upstream of a cold-side ESP. This testing includes at least two 30-day
continuous trials. This treatment rate for 90% or more removal is equivalent to about 200
pounds per hour of sorbent on a 300 MW plant at full load, or about $160/hour in sorbent cost
with sorbent priced at about $0.80/lb. When injected upstream of a fabric filter, as will be
possible on a few units that plan to retrofit fabric filters, the sorbent requirements are far less and
the mercury removal is even higher. For subbituminous coal, the results of the field trials with
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
7
halogenated PAC sorbent at various sites have been remarkably consistent from site to site. The
consistency of these results from site to site suggests high confidence in the performance on
other units firing similar fuels, such as many of the PRB fired units in Illinois.
For those bituminous coal units that are equipped with SCR and FGD, they are likely already
achieving close to 90% removal or the output based limit of 0.008 lb/GWhr. Those that are not
already at these levels of control are close enough that they can achieve the remainder through an
optimization method, such as a scrubber chemical additive, which will be a modest cost. Or,
these units may use sorbent injection to achieve the very modest incremental reduction needed.
Those pulverized coal units firing bituminous coal that are not equipped with SCR and FGD are
firing medium sulfur coal or will be equipped with fabric filters. Full-scale tests have shown that
halogenated sorbents can achieve high removal rates on medium sulfur coal, albeit at slightly
higher injection concentrations than for PRB fuels. Combined with some cobenefit removal,
over 90% mercury removal with halogenated sorbent injection in the range of 6-7 lb/MMacf has
been shown at several units. In the case of Vermillion, they are under consent decree to install a
fabric filter. With the fabric filter they will have very high cobenefit mercury removal – close to
90% - and will readily achieve over 90% removal with sorbent injection. There is also a
bituminous unit at Marion that uses CFB technology and a fabric filter. Most likely, this unit
already achieves over 90% mercury removal. But, it could easily add sorbent injection to
achieve over 90% removal if needed.
There are two units in Illinois – Waukegan 7 and Will County 3 - that are equipped with hot-side
ESPs and have not announced plans to install fabric filters. Using a TOXECON system, these
units can readily achieve 90% or more mercury removal. Although TOXECON is more costly
than a normal sorbent injection system, a TOXECON system offers advantages with regard to
PM emissions control and also segregates the fly ash from the collected sorbent.
Cost of the IL Rule Compared to USEPA’s CAMR
USEPA’s CAMR rule sets a 2010 allowance cap that requires IL plants to remove about 70% of
the mercury in the coal or purchase the equivalent number of mercury allowances. A stricter cap
is required in 2018. Because a mercury allowance market does not exist yet and prices are very
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
8
uncertain, relying on allowances for compliance with CAMR in 2010 is very risky. Moreover,
subbituminous units are among the least expensive units to control with sorbent injection. As a
result, I expect that most or all of the subbituminous units in IL will install sorbent injection
regardless of an IL mercury rule. Therefore, the cost of the IL rule over that of CAMR during
the period from 2010 to 2018 is only the incremental cost from 70% control to 90% control and
is mainly the cost of additional sorbent. When comparing the cost of complying with the
proposed IL rule with the cost of complying with CAMR, I determined that the state-wide
incremental cost of the IL rule over CAMR was roughly $32-$37 million per year spread across
all of the Illinois units for the period 2010-2018.
In 2018 the CAMR allowance cap is such that it will require about 90% or more mercury
removal from the coal or purchase of an equivalent number of allowances. Therefore, in 2018
the IL rule incurs little or no additional cost of compliance over CAMR.
Costs are Likely to Be Less in the Future
The state-of-the-art of mercury sorbent technology is improving. As discussed in the TSD, there
are several emerging sorbent technologies that may improve mercury capture performance
beyond what is possible with the currently available halogenated PACs and thereby reduce the
cost of control. Most of these sorbents are designed to work with the same PAC injection
systems that utilities would install for compliance with the IL rule. So, investments in hardware
will not be wasted if utilities switch to newer, improved sorbents in the future. Therefore, it is
likely that in 2009 and beyond the mercury removal technology performance will be greater than
it is now and the cost will be less than what I have estimated with today’s state-of-the-art.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
R06-25
PROPOSED NEW 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 225
)
(Rulemaking – Air)
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM
)
LARGE COMBUSTION SOURCES (MERCURY) )
TESTIMONY OF MARCIA WILLHITE
My name is Marcia Willhite. I have been employed by the Illinois EPA as the Chief of
the Bureau of Water for 5 years. In my capacity as Bureau Chief, I oversee water
pollution control, drinking water, groundwater, watershed management and state
revolving fund programs for the State. Prior to coming to Illinois, I worked for 13 years
in air quality including program management at the state level in Texas and at the local
level in Lincoln, Nebraska. I have a Bachelor of Science in Wildlife Biology from
Eastern Kentucky University and Master of Science in Toxicology from the University of
Kentucky.
My testimony today will describe how mercury-impaired waters are identified in Illinois,
what the federal Clean Water Act requires for addressing impaired waters and related
information.
Clean Water Act Requirements
High mercury levels in fish tissue pose a public health risk, but their presence also
imposes a regulatory requirement for Illinois under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
The CWA has a goal that all waters be “fishable and swimmable.” Arguably, if the fish
that are caught are not safe to eat, the “fishable”goal is not being met.
In addition, the CWA establishes a framework designed to protect the “beneficial uses”
of the water resources of the state. Each state has the responsibility to set water quality
standards that protect these beneficial uses. Fish consumption is one type of beneficial
use and all rivers, lakes and streams in Illinois have been designated for this use. Illinois
has established a water quality standard of 0.12 micrograms total mercury per liter of
water for protection of human health due to accumulation of mercury in fish tissue. In
addition, the Illinois EPA and its partner agencies that comprise the Illinois Fish
Contaminant Monitoring Program have established levels for mercury in fish tissue that
define various types of fish consumption advisories. More information on this will be
provided in other testimony.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that states report the resource quality of
their waters in terms of the degree to which the designated beneficial uses of those waters
are attained. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to USEPA a
list of water quality-limited waters (i.e. waters where uses are impaired), the pollutants
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
2
causing impairment to those waters and a priority ranking for the development of Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) calculation.
The Clean Water Act requires that a TMDL be developed for each pollutant causing
impairment of a 303(d)-listed waterbody. The establishment of a TMDL sets the
pollutant reduction goal necessary to improve impaired waters. TMDL calculations
determine the amount of a pollutant a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding the
state’s water quality standards or impairing the waterbody’s designated uses. It
determines the load (i.e., quantity) of any given pollutant that can be allowed in a
particular water body. A TMDL, in general, must consider all potential sources of
pollutants, whether point or nonpoint. It also takes into account a margin of safety, which
reflects scientific uncertainty, as well as the effects of seasonal variation.
Impairment of Fish Consumption Use/Identification of Impaired Waters
The assessment of whether a waterbody is supporting the fish consumption use is based
on water body-specific fish-tissue data and resulting fish-consumption advisories issued
by the Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program. If it is determined that a
waterbody is “not supporting” the fish consumption use, then that waterbody is identified
as impaired and is placed on the 303(d) list. The Illinois Fish Contaminant Monitoring
Program has issued a statewide general fish-consumption advisory of "no more than one
meal per week of predator fish" for pregnant or nursing women, women of childbearing
age, and children less than 15 years of age attributable to mercury. This statewide
advisory is based on methyl mercury being found routinely at levels of concern in
predator fish tissues collected from throughout the state. However, Illinois EPA does not
assess fish-consumption use as impaired in all waters of the state based on the statewide
fish-consumption advisory for mercury
.
Only those waterbodies where fish tissue data
have been collected and analysis shows mercury levels of concern are identified as
impaired.
When fish in a particular lake, river or stream are not safe for unlimited consumption
because of contamination levels, a state is obligated to list that waterbody as impaired
due to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. According to
the latest (2004) Illinois list of impaired waters, there are 61 river segments (1034 miles)
and 8 lakes (6264 acres) that have mercury listed as a potential cause of impairment due
to restrictions on fish consumption.
The listing of a number of Illinois rivers and lakes as being impaired for fish
consumption use due to mercury triggers a requirement that the state develop a TMDL to
address the impairment for each river or lake. As discussed previously, Illinois EPA will
need to determine what is the maximum amount of mercury loading from point sources
(such as wastewater treatment plants) and from nonpoint sources (such as atmospheric
deposition), in consideration of a margin of safety and seasonal variation, that can be
introduced into each impaired river or lake and still prevent mercury accumulation in fish
tissue to unsafe levels.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
3
Amount of Reduction In Fish Tissue Needed
Illinois EPA has identified what amount of reduction in fish tissue levels of mercury that
would be needed to get below advisory levels, i.e. what is the “target” for eliminating the
impairment. An analysis of fish tissue data collected statewide over the last 20 years was
conducted. We selected the target concentration for mercury at the 95
th
percentile of the
largemouth bass data and calculated the necessary reduction in mercury needed to
achieve 0.05 mg/kg, the highest acceptable level of mercury in fish tissue for unlimited
consumption (i.e., the percent reduction needed to guarantee that 95% of all largemouth
bass can be eaten in unlimited quantities by even the most sensitive sub-population.) At
this level of protection, fish consumption would no longer be an impaired use, currently
impaired waters would not be identified in under Section 303(d) as such and the need to
develop mercury TMDLs will have been eliminated. It was determined that a 90 %
reduction in fish tissue levels of mercury is required for unlimited consumption by
childbearing age women and children under 15 years of age, the most sensitive and
restrictive sub-population.
Contribution from Point Sources
In order to evaluate the loading of mercury, particularly to impaired waters, Illinois EPA
conducted an analysis of existing Agency data. Discharge monitoring information from
regulated point sources (NPDES permit holders) for the period of September 1986
through July 2005 was obtained from the Illinois EPA Permit Compliance System (PCS).
It was determined that the total of all wastewater discharges to receiving streams and
rivers in Illinois provide an average annual loading of 45 pounds of mercury per year.
This, in comparison, was only 0.64 % of the total annual emissions (2002) of mercury
(7022 pounds per year) from coal-fired power plants in Illinois. Of note, several of the
lakes in Illinois that are listed for fish consumption impairment due to mercury, and that
have the highest fish tissue levels of mercury detected in the state, have no point source
discharges into the water at all.
Contribution from Atmospheric Deposition
Loading from atmospheric deposition of mercury to any impaired Illinois lake, river or
stream has not yet been determined. The single Illinois site that is part of the national
Mercury Deposition Monitoring Network is not located close enough to an impaired
waterbody to be useful. Other testimony will be provided on what is known about
atmospheric deposition. However, other states that have drafted TMDLs on mercury-
impaired waters (i.e., Georgia, Minnesota, Maryland) have allocated a high percentage of
loading as coming from atmospheric deposition.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
4
Response of Fish Tissue Mercury Levels in Key Waterbodies in Other States to Local
Reductions in Mercury Emissions
Even without developing a TMDL for mercury, some states have found significant
reductions in fish tissue levels in key impaired waters following large reductions in air
emissions of mercury from sources within the state.
Florida
The State of Florida recognized in the late 1980’s that mercury was a problem in the
Everglades and it set about to resolve that problem. It was determined that atmospheric
deposition of mercury was contributing 98% of mercury loading to the Everglades. State
and federal requirements reduced total emissions by about 70% in the 1990’s. From its
experience over the last decade, Florida has concluded that reduction in local atmospheric
emissions of mercury has led to >75% declines in the tissues of fish and wildlife in less
than 15 years since peak deposition.
Massachusetts
Like most states in the Eastern United States, Massachusetts has a statewide fish
consumption advisory due to mercury. However, modeling and monitoring identified a
deposition “hotspot” in northeastern Massachusetts. Atmospheric deposition of mercury
from fossil fuel combustion and medical waste incineration were identified as significant
contributors of mercury loading to northeastern Massachusetts.
Medical waste incinerator controls were implemented in the late 1990’s. Between 2000
and 2003, mercury air emissions from incinerator sources in the state were reduced by
approximately 90%. Followup sampling of fish tissue from waters in northeastern
Massachusetts revealed that between 1999 and 2004, levels of mercury in yellow perch
and largemouth bass declined by 32% and 25% respectively.
Summary
In summary, Illinois has mercury-contaminated fish in many lakes and rivers to the
degree that the public is advised to limit consumption. Illinois is obligated to address this
situation under the Clean Water Act. In order to assure that 95% of largemouth bass in
Illinois waters may be consumed in unlimited quantities by sensitive subpopulations, a
90% reduction of mercury in fish tissue is needed. Direct discharges of mercury to water
comprise a small amount of loading. Atmospheric deposition of mercury can be an
important source of loading to impaired waters and Illinois air emission sources may
contribute a notable portion of deposition within Illinois. Other testimony has noted that
coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the state. Other
states have documented significant decreases in fish tissue levels of mercury shortly
following substantial reductions in air emissions of mercury that were depositing in
impaired waterbodies within their borders.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
5
To the extent that mercury emissions from Illinois coal-fired power plants are being
deposited in impaired lakes and rivers, a key strategy is to reduce those emissions to the
greatest extent possible. The federal Clean Air Mercury Rule may only accomplish a
70% reduction in mercury emissions overall in the region, and there will likely be some
coal-fired units that are not required to control at all if Illinois were to implement a
trading program. Failure to control particular units that significantly contribute to local
deposition means that that source of loading will remain and elevated levels of mercury
in fish tissue will continue. The proposed Illinois rule would require across-the-board
reductions of mercury emissions to the greatest degree possible and will hence address
those emissions that are depositing locally to impaired waters in the State.
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
)
SS
COUNTY OF SANGAMON
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, an attorney, state that I have served electronically the attached
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD E. AYRES, THOMAS C. HORNSHAW, Ph.D., GERALD
KEELER, Ph.D., DEBORAH RICE, Ph.D., CHRISTOPHER ROMAINE, JIM ROSS,
JAMES E. STAUDT, Ph.D., and MARCIA WILLHITE, upon the following person:
Dorothy Gunn
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
and mailing it by first-class mail from Springfield, Illinois, with sufficient postage affixed
to the following persons:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
__________________________
Gina Roccaforte
Assistant Counsel
Division of Legal Counsel
Dated: April 27, 2006
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
(217) 782-5544
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
SERVICE LIST 06-25
Marie Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
James T. Harrington
David L. Rieser
McGuire Woods LLP
77 West Wacker, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Bill S. Forcade
Jenner & Block LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
William A. Murray
Special Assistant Corporation Counsel
Office of Public Utilities
800 East Monroe
Springfield, IL 62757
S. David Farris
Environmental, Health and Safety
Manager
Office of Public Utilities
City of Springfield
201 East Lake Shore Drive
Springfield, IL 62757
Faith E. Bugel
Howard A. Lerner
Meleah Geertsma
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive
Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60601
Keith I. Harley
Chicago Legal Clinic
205 West Monroe Street, 4th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Christopher W. Newcomb
Karaganis, White & Magel, Ltd.
414 North Orleans Street
Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60610
Katherine D. Hodge
N. LaDonna Driver
Hodge Dwyer Zeman
3150 Roland Avenue
Post Office Box 5776
Springfield, IL 62705-5776
Kathleen C. Bassi
Sheldon A. Zabel
Stephen J. Bonebrake
Joshua R. More
Glenna L. Gilbert
Schiff Hardin LLP
6600 Sears Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Bruce Nilles
Attorney
Sierra Club
214 N. Henry Street, Suite 203
Madison, WI 53703
ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK'S OFFICE, APRIL 27, 2006
