SIERRA
ILLINOIS CHAPTER
CLUB
70 East Lake Street • Suite 1500 •
Chicago, IL 60601
tel : 312 .251 .1680
fax : 312 .251 .1780
web : ill
i uois .sierraclub .org
FOU
.ND[[) 181)2
PUBLIC COMMENTS OF SIERRA CLUB
RECEIVIED
R-0625 IRulemakin¢-Air)
~~
SEP 2 0 2006
L
Introduction
`G
Pollution
STATE OF
Control
ILLINOIS
Boaro
Sierra Club strongly supports the proposed mercury rule now before the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (hereinafter "IPCB")
. The record now before the IPCB clearly demonstrates the
public health and environmental benefits to Illinois that will be achieved by deeper, faster
reductions of mercury emissions from Illinois coal-fired power plants than under the federal
CAMR alone
. This record includes the comprehensive case presented by IEPA with the
testimony of a dozen expert witnesses and thousands of pages of other supporting exhibits and
documents, the case presented by other proponents through their expert witness and comments,
and in excess of 6000 public comments
. The record is clear that these additional reductions can
be achieved using available technology and without creating disproportionate costs to electric
generating units ("EGUs") or consumers
; especially in light of the regulatory flexibility
mechanisms of the rule
. The feasibility of achieving these reductions is underscored by the
willingness of Ameren and Dynegy, the second and third largest operators of coal-fired EGUs in
Illinois, to support the proposed rule .
Illinois EPA's rulemaking proposal is consistent with CAMR, which provides an option for
states to develop their own regulatory approaches to control mercury from coal-fired power
plants . 70
Fed. Reg. 28632; see also, 42 U .S.C. § 7416
. At the same time, Illinois EPA's
rulemaking proposal is more advanced and targeted than CAMR in protecting the health, safety
and welfare of Illinois residents, preserving and enhancing Illinois' natural environment for
future generations, and mandating deeper mercury reductions that are nonetheless achievable for
regulated entities operating in this state .
The critical issue in this case is not whether Illinois EPA is justified in regulating mercury
emissions from coal-fired power plants . After all, even CAMR, which the opponents prefer,
does this
. Rather, the remaining issue is whether the Illinois EPA proposal will produce public
health and environmental benefits through deeper, faster reductions than those mandated under
CAMR in a manner that is reasonable for regulated entities to achieve . In these comments, the
Sierra Club focuses on evidence in the record about Illinois-specific factors which provide ample
justification for going beyond CAMR using the Illinois EPA proposal .
It.
Mercury Threatens Illinois Ecosystems, Illinois Residents and Illinois Wildlife .
Long before CAMR and this rulemaking, Illinois specifically identified mercury as a
major threat to the health of Illinois residents and the quality of Illinois ecosystems . The Illinois
Department of Public Health has established mercury advisories for all water bodies in Illinois
due to the levels of methylmercu y in predator fish . (Pre-filed testimony of James Ross, at 5, see
also TR. 6/12 at 57; TR
. 6/14 at 97)
. In addition, there are 61 river segments (1,034 miles) and 8
lakes (6,264 acres) that are listed as impaired waters due to mercury levels, triggering Illinois'
obligations to impose Total Maximum Daily Load requirements that originate in the Clean Water
Act. (Pre-filed testimony of James Ross, at 5 - 6). Up to three-quarters of tested water bodies
have fish with mercury levels that justify a fish consumption advisory . (TR. 6/12 at 67) . This
determination is made using U .S
. Food & Drug Administration Action Levels adapted into the
"Protocol for a Uniform Great Lakes Sport Fish Consumption Advisory" by Illinois and seven
other Great Lake states . (Pre-Filed testimony of Thomas C
. Hornshaw, Ph .D., at 2) . In fish
tissue sampling conducted between 1988 and 2001, two-thirds to three-quarters of all bass and
walleye from Illinois waters have mercury levels that would justify a consumption advisory.
(TR. 6/13 at 71) .
A fish consumption advisory cautions against eating more than one fish meal per week
. (TR.
6/13 at 31)
. However, because this is only an advisory, there is no legal mechanism actually
preventing people from eating any amount of mercury-containing fish from Illinois waters
.
Indeed, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources issues approximately 700,000 fishing
licenses annually. (TR. 6/12 at 61)
. One sub-population that is especially susceptible to mercury,
children, can fish without obtaining a license
. (TR . 6/16 at 63) . In his testimony, Dr . Thomas
Hornshaw identifies several studies of the fish consumption patterns of anglers, including a study
of Illinois anglers conducted between 1987 to 1993, which demonstrate anglers will consume
unhealthy quantities of fish even though advisories exist
. (Pre-Filed testimony of Thomas C .
Hornshaw, Ph .D., 4-5). Dr
. Hornshaw concludes, "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." Id. at 5.
Even if no consumer ate mercury-contaminated fish caught in an Illinois waterway, there
would still be a basis for regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants
. In his
testimony, Dr
. Michael Murray identified emerging research on the destructive impacts of
mercury on a variety of animal species
. Of course, unlike human receptors, animals cannot
attempt to avoid intake of mercury-containing food sources. Dr
. Murray identified a Noah's Ark
of species for which research suggested a risk from mercury exposure, including mallard ducks,
loons, belted kingfishers, blue herons, ring-necked pheasants, thrush, insectivorous passerines,
13 species of freshwater fish, many insect consuming mammals, mink, otters and aquatic insects
.
(TR. 8/14 at 71-75)
. Notably, this is the list for which research exists
; it is not the list of all
potentially harmed animal receptors
.
Because of well-documented conditions in Illinois waterbodies and fish, and the associated
risks to Illinois anglers, fish consumers and wildlife, there is a strong justification to develop an
Illinois-specific regulatory approach to control mercury
.
III.
Mercury Deposition in Illinois Will Be Substantially Reduced Under the Proposed
Illinois Rule at a Rate Much Faster and Greater Than What Would Be Achieved
Under CAMR Alone
.
Before considering the contribution of Illinois coal-fired power plants to mercury loading in
Illinois, it is important to emphasize that the IPCB is authorized to, and frequently will, issue
regulations that
:
•
control only one source category among several that are sources of a pollutant
;
•
control emissions into only one medium like air
;
•
control emissions because
of
a potential threat to human health or the environment,
without any showing of
actual damage that has already occurred
;
•
control emissions from a source category even
if this may not lead to a direct or one-
to-one reduction in the exposure rate of any receptor or group of receptors
;
•
control emissions from a source category even if its relative contribution to
cumulative emissions of a pollutant is comparatively small
; and/or
•
implement requirements that originate under one statute, even if other statutes could
also address other aspects of controlling a pollutant
.
When measured next to the facts in the record, the Illinois EPA's mercury pollution reduction
proposal greatly exceeds the threshold for regulatory activity
.
Illinois' coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated anthropogenic source of mercury
emissions in the state
. According to the National Emissions Inventory, as much of 71 % of
Illinois mercury emissions are from Illinois coal-fired power plants, significantly in excess of the
U.S. average of44% (TR
. 6/12 at 47, Technical Support Document, at 33-34)
. Illinois' next
largest source of mercury emissions is the commercial/industrial boiler category, which accounts
for 11 % of the total . Id. at 33
. By comparison to the national average and other contributing
sources within the state, Illinois coal-fired EGUs are a hugely disproportionate contributor of
mercury air emissions
. This fact alone, largely uncontested in this rulemaking, provides a
powerful justification for the development of an Illinois-specific rule mandating deeper, faster
reductions from this source category than required under CAMR
.
Concomitantly, reducing mercury emissions from Illinois coal-fired power plants in a manner
consistent with the proposed Illinois rule will substantially reduce mercury deposition in Illinois
.
According to the opponents' own expert on mercury deposition, Krish Vijayaraghavan, the
Illinois rule will result in lower mercury deposition in Illinois than under the federal approach
alone. This additional reduction will occur throughout Illinois,
will occur very soon after the
Illinois rule becomes effective, and can be quantified
. More specifically, Mr . Vijayaraghavan
testified:
•
from 2006 to 2010, if the 2010 CAIR/CAMR rule alone, is implemented there will be
a 5
.3 percent decrease in mercury deposition in Illinois (TR
. 8/21 p.m . at 1422) ;
•
from 2006 to 2010, if the proposed Illinois rule is implemented, there will be a 9
.5
percent decrease in mercury deposition, which is an additional 4
.2 percent decrease in
deposition as compared to 2010 CAIR/CAMR (TR
. 8/21 p.m
. at 1422, 1433) ;
•
the deeper reductions under the Illinois rule will occur throughout the entire state of
Illinois (TR . 8/21 p
.m . at 1462);
•
under the CAIR/CAMR rule alone, Illinois will have to wait 10 additional years to
experience reductions roughly equivalent to the reductions achieved under the
proposed Illinois rule in 2010 (TR . 8/21 p .m . at 1432)
; and
•
the TEAM model predicts that, in the single year of 2010 alone, there will be 321
fewer pounds of mercury deposited in Illinois under the proposed Illinois rule than
under 2010 CAIR/CAMR alone (TR
. 8/21 p .m. at 1497).
Mr
. Vijayaraghavan's estimate that, in the year 2010, there will be 321 fewer pounds of mercury
deposition under the Illinois rule than under CAMR/CAIR alone is significant confirmation that
Illinois-specific benefits will be achieved
. Although CAIR/CAMR eventually produces roughly
equivalent reductions by 2020, there would be ten years during which the Illinois rule would
generate greater reductions than CAIR/CAMR alone
. The cumulative effect over a period of ten
years would be thousands fewer pounds of mercury deposited in the environment under the
Illinois rule
. This is especially significant because mercury is persistent, bioaccumulative and
toxic in the environment .
Illinois EPA developed a comparison between the available mercury allowances under
CAIR/CAMR until 2018 and the anticipated mercury emissions under the Illinois rule starting in
2009
. This comparison is necessary to demonstrate to U
.S . EPA that the proposed Illinois rule
will meet the CAMR reduction target for Illinois
. Illinois estimates that under CAMR, Illinois
would have a 3,000-pound-per-year emissions cap that could be used or traded by Illinois coal-
fired EGUs
. Under the proposed Illinois rule, mercury emissions are expected to be roughly
1,000 lbs . per year
. (TR . 6/19 at 46)
.
Just as importantly, reducing mercury from Illinois coal-fired EGUs is likely to have a local
impact in reducing mercury deposition . Dr. Gerald Keeler testified that mercury deposition
attributable to coal-fired EGUs can occur in close proximity to the plants themselves . These
close-in mercury deposition levels are particularly elevated during periods of intense
precipitation, but routinely occur as dry deposition as well
. Dr. Keeler's testimony was based
upon the report analyzing of mercury wet deposition in Steubenville, Ohio, of which he was one
author .
Since the conclusion of the public hearings, the Illinois EPA filed Dr . Keeler's peer-
reviewed paper, "Sources of Wet Deposition in Eastern Ohio, USA", by Keeler, Landis, Norris,
Christianson and Dvonch, as published in Environmental Science & Technology on the web on
09/08/2006 . In keeping with Dr . Keeler's testimony before the IPCB, this paper concludes that a
multi-year, multi-faceted analysis of mercury wet deposition in Steubenville " . . .consistently
point[s] toward the dominant influence by local and regional coal burning sources
." Id. at G.
The Steubenville study employs a receptor-based model that measures actual mercury
concentrations in precipitation, and then attributes these concentrations to source categories
using two different techniques (PMF and Unmix) that do not rely on source profiles or emission
inventories, but instead rely on sample concentrations of analytes that are closely associated with
emissions from different categories of sources .
Id. at B. Both the PMF and Unmix statistical
analyses determined that approximately 70% (69% and 73%, respectively) of mercury wet
deposition in Steubenville was attributable to the coal combustion source category
. Id. at D and
F. By correlating mercury concentrations in precipitation with local meteorological conditions,
for example stagnant conditions that minimized any influence by distant sources, the authors
were able to conclude the data indicate ". . .a
strong local and regional source influence ." Id. at
G. Mr
. Vijayaraghavan testified that the results of the Steubenville study were consistent with
the results of his own modeling exercise for Steubenville
. (TR . 8/21 p .m. at 1404) .
Using very different methods, both the proponents through Dr
. Keeler and the opponents
through Mr. Vijayaraghavan respectively, have provided important evidence that reducing
mercury emissions from Illinois coal plants is likely to result in a reduction in mercury
deposition in Illinois itself
IV.
The Proposed Rule is Technically Achievable, Economically Feasible, and
Reasonable.
As an initial matter, it is extremely difficult for the remaining opponents to this rule to argue
that the rule is not technically or economically feasible when Ameren and Dynegy, the second
and third largest operators of Illinois coal-fired power plants, now support the rule and are
committed to complying with its terms
. Moreover, during the pendency of these proceedings, on
August 10, 2006, the operator of a single facility, Springfield City, Water, Light and Power,
agreed to a negotiated PSD permit which included a requirement to comply with the output-
based or percentage reduction numeric standard in the proposed rule
. (Construction Permit, PSD
Approval, NSPS Emission Units, issued to City of Springfield by the Illinois EPA, at 4-12
(August 10, 2006), available online at
http ;//yosemite epa
eov/r5/il permit ns.)
It is also notable
that despite the opportunity to do so, the remaining opponents have presented no facility-specific
or companywide information about the projected costs of compliance
. This was made very clear
during the testimony of Midwest Generation's witness, William DePriest, when he testified that
he had prepared cost estimates, but was not at liberty to share this analysis (this information is
"kind of off bounds", TR . 08/17 p.m
. at 1058
; witness unwilling to provide information about
specific companies, Id. at 1069
; witness refuses to provide cost estimate information that exists
in work done for utilities in the state of Illinois,
Id. at 1065) .
Perhaps just as importantly, there are at least nine features in the Illinois EPA proposal
which provide substantial flexibility to regulated entities
. These mechanisms are :
1
. allowing a regulated entity to choose to comply using an output-based standard,
.008
lbs/gwh, or a percentage reduction, 90% ;
2
. allowing a regulated entity to elect to comply using any combination of techniques and
technologies to meet an output-based or reduction standard, ranging from coal selection
and preparation techniques, to mercury-specific pollution control devices and sorbents,
to pollution control equipment that will reduce an array of pollutants including mercury,
to achieving compliance under multiple regulatory initiatives (proposed Section
225.233)
;
3
. providing regulated entities with almost three years before compliance is required ;
4 . allowing compliance to be determined on a 12-month rolling average
;
5
. allowing owners of multiple EGUs to choose to comply by averaging among units during
the first phase or the regulatory program (through 2013), and allowing owners of single
EGUs to average with other similarly situated operators ;
6. allowing a complete opt-out for units the regulated entity decides to shutdown
;
7
. allowing a regulated entity to choose to use the Temporary Technology Based Standard
("TTBS") to set aside 25% of its units from meeting a numeric standard until 2015, upon
a showing that these units are optimizing ACI mercury control equipment and meeting
other operational requirements ;
8. allowing a regulated to choose an integrated pollution control strategy which will control
mercury and other pollutants through the Multi-Pollutant Standard ("MPS"),
thus
complying with the proposed Illinois rule and other near-tern regulatory requirements
;
and,
9
. providing for the same alternative mercury monitoring requirements contained in the
federal CAMR, including the use sorbent trap monitoring devices as well as newer CEM
systems.
Notably, very few of the opponents' experts included any evaluation of these flexibility
mechanisms as part of their testimony
. For example, James Marcetti's testimony on economic
modeling did not account for either the TTBS or the MPS (TR
. 8/18 p .m
. at 1308-1309) .
The Illinois proposal also provides practical flexibility to regulated entities to decide how
to achieve mercury reductions
. Appropriately, the IPCB now has a very complete record on
activated carbon injection systems
. These units can be relatively inexpensive ($1-3 million in
initial installation costs), can be installed quickly (six months from order to installation, TR
. 6/22
a.m
. at 137), can be installed while the plant operates
(Id.),
are easily integrated with existing
pollution control equipment (often requiring only a port in the ductwork between the boiler and
existing pollution control equipment, TR
. 6/23 p
.m
. at 470-71) and have relatively low operating
costs (advanced halogenated sorbents cost 90 cents/lb, TR
. 6/22 a.m
. at 85).
Activated carbon injection units are designed to achieve in excess of 90% mercury
removal once optimized consistent with operations at specific facilities
. (Pre-filed Testimony of
James Staudt, Ph .D. at 6-7) .
There is a great deal of testimony before the Board regarding the
actual removal efficiency of ACI systems
. However, the technical feasibility of this rule is not
dependent on use of ACI alone to meet the standards imposed by the rule
. The record contains
several other examples of practical, existing technologies and techniques to reduce mercury that
can be used alone or in combination with ACI systems
. Ultimately, the proposed rule allows the
operator to decide how to combine options to meet mercury removal requirements (TR
. 6/22
a.m. at 196)
. These technologies and techniques include :
•
Using a very low mercury coal that, coupled with a .008 lbs./gwh
emission standard, can
achieve 50-80% of the required reduction. (TR. 6/23 at 452-452)
. Another, related
possibility is to blend with lower mercury coals
. Id. It is already common for facilities to
use coal selection, preparation (washing, for example) and blending techniques
; these
techniques could be applied in order to minimize emissions of a new pollutant, mercury
.
(Pre-filed Testimony of James Staudt, Ph
.D. at 3) .
•
Employing/enhancing existing pollution control technologies
. For facilities using or
planning to install scrubbers, it is likely no additional mercury-specific controls will be
required (TR . 6/21 a.m. at 134)
. Fabric filters, ESPs, FGD systems, and SCR systems
can remove or enable the removal of mercury
as a co-benefit of controlling other
regulated pollutants (Pre-filed testimony of James Staudt, Ph
.D. at 3-4). ACI systems
would work in combination with these existing systems to provide additional mercury
removal efficiency .
•
Monitoring existing facility performance
. At every facility, there is already unmeasured
mercury removal using existing pollution control equipment
. The actual rate of removal
or emission rate has not been determined because there has been no regulatory
requirement to do so .
Because of this flexibility and the relatively low cost of installing and operating ACI
systems, it is not surprising that Dr
. Ezra Hauzman characterized the cost to owners of Illinois
coal plants as almost negligible
. According Dr
. Hauzman, the total additional annual control
costs associated with the Illinois rule are $33 million . (Dr
. Ezra D . Hausman, Pre-Filed
Testimony, at 8)
. In order to provide a context, Dr
. Hausman points out that the total cost to fuel
electric power plants in Illinois is almost 2 billion dollars per year
. Id. at 12 . Also by point of
comparison, the average cost increase for Illinois coal plants under the Illinois EPA proposal is
$0.375/MWh,
a trivial amount when compared to the current retail price of electricity in Illinois,
roughly $65
.00/MWh
. There is reason to believe the impact on consumers would be close to
zero
. Because Illinois utilities do not own the coal plants and the EGU's are competing in an
auction process with other generators, there is no existing means by which Illinois consumers
could be directly charged even the
de minimus
additional costs that would result from adopting
this rule . Consequently, Dr
. Hausman estimates the total additional cost to consumers to be
between $0 and $11 million
. Id. at 8 .
V.
The Proposed Rule Will
Not Impact the Integrity of the CAIR Proceedings
Ameren and Dynegy proposals contain a Multi-Pollutant Standard, involving reductions
of pollutants, NOx and S02, that would not be otherwise regulated under the mercury rule at
issue in this proceeding
. These reductions are obviously being proposed with an eye toward
future possible regulations of such pollutants, including proposed regulations being considered in
the upcoming CAIR rulemaking before the Board
. We would support the mercury rule before
the board with the MPS included as agreed to by Ameren, Dynegy, and Illinois EPA, because we
believe the mercury reductions achieved by entities choosing the MPS avenue of compliance will
meet the goals of the original mercury proposal
.
The Hearing Officer requested guidance on how the MPS and the inclusion of it in a final
mercury rule would affect the CAIR rulemaking
. First, the MPS is one avenue of compliance in
the proposed mercury rule
. Therefore, selection of the MPS avenue of compliance is voluntary,
as regulated entities may select any one of the proposed avenues of compliance in the mercury
rule
. Therefore, the mercury rule contains no mandatory NOx or S02 reductions that must be
made by any entities not selecting the MPS avenue of compliance .
Second, while the MPS anticipates that NOx and S02 reductions would be consistent
with or in excess of the requirements that will be imposed under CAIR, the MPS does not dictate
that companies undertaking the MPS be viewed as in compliance with CAIR
. Once the CAIR
limits are set, it is certainly possible that utilization of the MPS will result in compliance with
CAIR, but that is not mandated in the MPS .
Third, while the goal of the MPS is to begin to address CAIR requirements in addition to
mercury reductions, that does not predetermine the outcome of the CAIR proceedings
. The MPS
can certainly be informative as to what those reductions might be
. In the joint statement, the
parties "anticipate[d] that the installation and operation of pollution control equipment required
to achieve the NOx and S02 standards under the revised Proposed New Section 225
.233 will
achieve more reductions in NOx and S02 emissions than are required under the Clean Air
Interstate Rule or 'CAIR'
." But, once again, that is only anticipated and the outcome is not
mandated in the MPS or in any way binding
on the CAIR rulemaking
. Through the CAIR
rulemaking, the Board is at free to make a determination as to what reductions will be required of
regulated entities
. The MPS places no restrictions on the Board as to what the reductions must
be.
Regulated entities that elect to utilize the MPS would need to comply with both the
requirements of the MPS and the proposed CAIR
. Such entities would be required to comply
with both the CAIR cap and trade requirements and the numeric emission limits of the MPS
.
Regulated entities will need to both hold sufficient allowances each year under CAIR and emit
NOx and SO2 at a rate equal to or less than the numeric emission limits of the MPS
. Obtaining
additional CAIR allowances would be required when necessary to comply with CAIR even if
actual emissions rates meet the requirements of the MPS . Finally, in order for the MPS to
protect air quality in fact, it does not allow the trading of allowances that are generated as a result
of measures taken to comply with the NOx and SO2 emission standards .
In sum, the MPS can inform the CAIR rulemaking and would appropriately be
considered in the CAIR rulemaking but does not predetermine any outcome of the CAIR
rulemaking . Additionally, the MPS proposal is designed to work within the CAIR requirements
and regulated entities will need to comply with both, especially since different limits will be set
under both .
VI.
Conclusion
In sum, the Sierra Club strongly supports the proposed rule now before the Illinois
Pollution Control Board
. The record before the IPCB amply supports the rule and demonstrates
the public health and environmental benefits to Illinois of the deeper, faster reductions of
mercury emissions resulting from the proposed rule compared to those under the federal CAMR
alone. The record is clear, especially in light of Ameren's and Dynegy's support of the proposed
rule, that these reductions can be achieved with available technology, at reasonable cost, and
through utilization of the regulatory flexibility mechanisms built into the rule .
On Behalf of the Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter :
Jack Darin, Director
