How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants ... · emissions of mercury, a bioaccumulative neurotoxin that poses serious health hazards even in minute amounts

How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants Off the Hook for their Mercury Emissions

The Fine Print 1

The Fine Print

How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants Off the Hook for Their Mercury Emissions

April 2005

The Fine Print 2

Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with U.S. PIRG. © 2005, U.S. PIRG Cover photos of smokestack and little boy courtesy of clipart.com. Photo of pregnant woman courtesy of Ken Hammond, USDA. Thanks to Martha Keating, Senior Scientist at the Clean Air Task Force; Alison Cassady, Research Director at U.S. PIRG; and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at U.S. PIRG, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website at www.uspirg.org/reports or contact us at: U.S. PIRG 218 D Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 (202) 546-9707

The Fine Print 3

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 4 Background: Reducing Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants............................................... 5 The ‘Clear Skies’ Mercury Loophole ...................................................................................... 8 Findings: More Toxic Mercury Pollution ............................................................................... 10 A Loophole Without Limits? .............................................................................................. 12 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 13 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 13 Appendix A................................................................................................................... 14 Notes .......................................................................................................................... 29

The Fine Print 4

Executive Summary Power plants are the largest source of U.S. emissions of mercury, a bioaccumulative neurotoxin that poses serious health hazards even in minute amounts. Mercury is particularly harmful to the developing brains of infants and young children; mercury exposure can cause vision and hearing difficulties, developmental delays, lowered IQ, problems with memory, and attention deficits. While current law requires steep and swift reductions in power plant mercury emissions, the Bush administration’s “Clear Skies” bill would give power companies until 2018 before requiring specific action to reduce their mercury emissions. Even worse, a loophole in the fine print of the bill would exempt many of the nation’s power plant units from ever having to reduce their mercury emissions. This report uses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data to examine the scope of this loophole and finds that it would allow many of the nation’s power plant units to continue releasing mercury into the air unabated. Specifically, the “Clear Skies” bill (S.131) would exclude from regulation power plant units that emit 30 pounds or less of mercury per year, including units that are part of a multi-unit power plant that collectively emits more than 30 pounds of mercury per year. Moreover, the loophole could create a perverse incentive for power plants to reduce mercury emissions at individual units just enough for those units to fall under the threshold – and thus off the regulatory radar screen. Under the Clean Air Act, every power plant is obligated to cut its mercury emissions within three years to the level achieved by the best performing plants, about a 90 percent emissions reduction. Since EPA has performed no analyses to date on the effects of this loophole on public health or the environment, this report uses the most recent

EPA emissions data to examine the scope of the loophole. Key findings include the following: • The loophole could exempt 39 percent (441 of

1,120) of the nation’s mercury-emitting power plant units from regulation. These 441 units collectively emitted 4,971 pounds of mercury into the air in 1999.

• The loophole could affect power plants in 36 of

the 47 states with mercury-emitting power plants. In 16 states, total emissions from the exempt units could exceed 100 pounds per year. The loophole could exempt the most mercury emissions in Indiana (532 pounds), Pennsylvania (356 pounds), Kentucky (333 pounds), New York (321 pounds), South Carolina (316 pounds), and North Carolina (311 pounds).

• The loophole could have a profound impact on

certain states. For instance, 64 percent of the mercury-emitting power plant units in New York could be exempt from reducing their mercury emissions under the bill. In 1999, these units collectively emitted 321 pounds of mercury into the air, or 31 percent of the state’s total power plant mercury emissions.

• In some cases, the loophole could let entire

plants off the hook for cleaning up their mercury emissions. For instance, Virginia’s Potomac River plant has five units that emitted a total of 83.5 pounds of mercury into the air in 1999, yet the entire plant could get a free pass because none of its units individually emitted more than 30 pounds of mercury.

Rather than let many of the nation’s power plant units continue to emit or even increase their emissions of toxic mercury, Congress should reject the “Clear Skies” bill.

The Fine Print 5

Background: Reducing Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants When power plants burn coal or wastes containing mercury, their smokestacks emit mercury, a persistent bioaccumulative toxin that builds up in body tissue. Rain, snow, and dust particles “wash” mercury out of the air onto land and into waterways, where some of it is converted to methylmercury, a form that is especially toxic to humans and wildlife.1 The primary way that people in the U.S. are exposed to methylmercury is by eating contaminated fish,2 which absorb mercury from water through their gills and from eating plants, organisms, and other fish.3 In addition, mercury can pass through the human placenta to developing fetuses and through breast milk to nursing infants.4 A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses significant human health hazards. Mercury can affect multiple organ systems, including the nervous, cardiovascular, and immune systems, throughout an individual’s lifetime.5 Infants and children are at higher risk of problems associated with mercury exposure because their nervous systems continue to develop until about age 14.6 Exposure to mercury affects the developing brain, causing vision and hearing difficulties, delays in the development of motor skills and language acquisition, lowered IQ, problems with memory, and attention deficits; these developmental deficits may translate into a wide range of learning difficulties once children are in school, resulting in lifelong consequences.7 EPA scientists estimate that one in six women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her body to put her child at risk, should she become pregnant.8 Adults exposed to mercury may experience neurocognitive defects similar to those seen in children exposed prenatally9 as well as adverse effects on fertility and blood pressure

regulation.10 Mercury exposure also is associated with an increased risk of heart attacks.11 Even minute amounts of mercury are significant and go a long way. At Wisconsin’s Little Rock Lake, for instance, researchers found that a single gram of mercury deposition in a single year was enough to account for all of the mercury in the lake’s estimated fish population.12 Moreover, because mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin that is taken in faster than it is eliminated, it biomagnifies up the food chain and builds up in body tissue over time.13 Fish at the top of the aquatic food chain can have mercury levels approximately one to ten million times greater than the levels in surrounding waters.14 Forty-four states have active mercury-related fish consumption advisories.15 Half of these advisories are statewide advisories covering all of the state’s inland lakes and/or rivers.16 In addition, in 2004, the Food and Drug Administration and EPA issued a joint national advisory warning women who might become pregnant, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid or limit their consumption of certain fish and shellfish, including shark, swordfish, and tuna.17 According to EPA, 60 percent of the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from man-made, U.S.-based sources.18 Deposition rates differ by region and locale. For instance, in the southeast, EPA estimates that U.S.-based sources account for 37 percent of total mercury deposition in Georgia, 58 percent in North Carolina, 62 percent in South Carolina, and 68 percent in Florida.19 Power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the U.S., releasing 48 tons of mercury, or 41 percent of the national total, per year.20 According to EPA, about 29 percent of

The Fine Print 6

the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from U.S. power plants; mercury deposition can be much higher near individual sources.21 For instance, a 2003 analysis of EPA data found that in-state sources of mercury can account for 50 to 80 percent of mercury deposition at hotspots,22 areas within the state with the highest level of mercury deposition. Fortunately, studies show that reducing industrial mercury emissions leads to rapid, substantial reductions of mercury in wildlife. The state of

Florida, EPA, and the U.S. Geological Survey recently issued a study concluding that the levels of mercury found in largemouth bass and other wildlife in the Everglades have declined by 80 percent since state and federal agencies required municipal and medical-waste incinerators to cut their mercury emissions.23 Similarly, in Wisconsin, a decrease in mercury deposition of 10 percent per year was accompanied by a five percent per year decline in mercury levels in yellow perch.24

The Fine Print 7

The Long Road to Reducing Mercury Emissions from Power Plants

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act’s air toxics provisions. With regard to power plants, Congress required EPA to complete a study on the health hazards from power plant emissions of hazardous air pollutants.25 Congress directed EPA, after considering the results of the study, to determine whether regulation of utilities was “appropriate and necessary” under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, which governs hazardous air pollutants.26 EPA released the study in 1998, finding mercury to be the hazardous air pollutant emitted by utilities of greatest concern.27 Later that year, EPA agreed to a consent decree setting several deadlines for regulatory action.28 In December 2000, EPA issued a regulatory determination, finding that power plants were a major source of hazardous air pollutants and that it was appropriate and necessary to regulate mercury and other air toxics from utilities.29 The agency noted in announcing its decision that “mercury emissions from power plants pose significant hazards to public health and must be reduced.”30 EPA’s determination triggered the regulatory process for setting stringent limits on mercury emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, hazardous air pollutants, including mercury,31 are regulated using a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard, and controls are required no later than three years after EPA finalizes the applicable MACT standard by regulation.32 In 2001, during a presentation to the Edison Electric Institute, the trade association for electric utilities, EPA informed industry that a MACT standard – depending on how the standard was designed – would require national reductions in mercury emissions of 89, 90, or 98 percent by December 2007.33 Such a rule would reduce national power plant mercury emissions to about five tons per year34 – consistent with reductions achieved in other industries, such as medical and municipal waste incinerators. These industrial sources reduced their mercury emissions by about 90 percent following issuance of MACT standards in the mid-1990s.35 In 2004, EPA backpedaled and proposed reversing its prior determination in order to establish a national “cap-and-trade” system that treats mercury like a conventional air pollutant rather than a hazardous air pollutant.36 Press reports revealed that entire sections of the proposed rule were lifted from memos written by utility representatives37 and also exposed White House manipulation of the rulemaking process.38 EPA’s own Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee warned that the proposal “does not sufficiently protect our nation’s children,”39 and both the EPA Inspector General40 and the Government Accountability Office41 sharply criticized the proposal. Despite these criticisms and a record of more than 600,000 public comments against the proposed rule,42 EPA issued a final rule on March 15, 2005 that discarded the MACT approach43 and embraced a “cap-and-trade” system even weaker than the proposed one. The rule establishes a two-phase, nationwide cap on mercury emissions – 38 tons per year in 2010, then 15 tons in 2018 – and permits mercury emissions trading among power plants.44 The 15-ton cap is illusory, however, for EPA’s projections show that U.S. power plants will emit 24 tons of mercury in 2020 and that the 15-ton “cap” will not be met even in 2026.45 On March 29, nine states filed a lawsuit challenging EPA’s mercury rule.46

The Fine Print 8

The ‘Clear Skies’ Mercury Loophole This year’s version of the Bush administration’s “Clear Skies” bill (S.131), introduced by Senators James Inhofe and George Voinovich in January 2005, is even weaker than previous versions of the bill. S.131 would eliminate cornerstones of the Clean Air Act that have worked to reduce air pollution for decades. In place of these protections, the bill establishes pollution caps that take effect many years in the future and are inadequate to protect public health. Specifically, “Clear Skies” would delay until well after 2018 reductions in power plant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that the Clean Air Act calls for by the end of the decade; repeal the New Source Review program, which requires the oldest and dirtiest plants to eventually meet modern pollution standards; prohibit states from taking action to crack down on pollution from out-of-state sources; and force residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait longer for clean air than under current law, among other harmful things. With respect to mercury, the bill attempts to codify virtually the same mercury regulation for power plants embodied in EPA’s March 15 rulemaking (see box on page 7). Specifically, the bill would repeal requirements that every power plant reduce mercury and other toxic air pollutants to levels achieved by the best performing plants – about a 90 percent mercury reduction – within three years. In place of these requirements, the “Clear Skies” bill would institute a two-phase “cap-and-trade” system, with national caps of 34 tons of mercury per year in 2010 and 15 tons in 2018,47 and allow some power plants to continue to emit high levels of mercury by buying pollution “credits” from cleaner facilities. Power plants would comply with the 2010 mercury cap simply by meeting requirements to reduce smog- and soot-forming pollutants; the accompanying mercury reductions would be purely incidental. In addition, the Bush

administration’s own analysis shows that the “caps” would not actually be achieved until 2013 and some unspecified time after 2025, respectively, because of the structure of the trading program.48 Moreover, as introduced, the bill contained a loophole that would exclude power plant units emitting 50 pounds or less of mercury annually from regulation – a so-called “de minimis” exclusion. In early March 2005, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee amended the bill to limit the exemption to power plant units emitting 30 pounds or less of mercury per year.a,b Under this loophole, any power plant unit emitting 30 pounds or less of mercury per year would be exempt from having to take action to reduce its mercury emissions. Indeed, the loophole covers even units that are part of a multi-unit power plant that, as a whole, emits more than 30 pounds of mercury per year. It also could create a perverse incentive for power plants to reduce mercury emissions of individual

a The provision reads: (B) EXCLUSION—Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) (sic), the term “affected EGU” does not include…(iii) a unit that commenced commercial operation before January 1, 2006, and has de minimis mercury emissions equal to or less than 30 pounds on an average annual basis, calculated by the Administrator as follows—(I) to determine the exclusion status of a unit for 2010, the Administrator shall calculate the average of annual emissions for 2005 through 2007; and (II) to determine the exclusion status of a unit for a year after 2010, the Administrator shall calculate, before each such year, the average of annual emissions for the fourth, third and second year before such year, and if the average of annual emissions for such 3-year period exceeds 30 pounds, the unit shall become an affected unit as of January 1 of the year for which the exclusion status if (sic) being determined and remain an affected unit each year thereafter. Clear Skies Act of 2005, S.131, §471(2)(B)(iii) (as amended March 9, 2005). b The Committee also amended the bill to move the second phase of the mercury cap to 2016 instead of 2018.

The Fine Print 9

units just enough for those units to qualify for the loophole. EPA has performed no analyses to date on the effects of this loophole on public health or the environment. Notably, EPA rejected a proposed exclusion for power plant units emitting less than 25 pounds of mercury per year in its March 2005 final rule regulating power plant mercury emissions.49 In addition, in 2000 EPA lowered the reporting threshold for mercury and other persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs) under the Toxics Release Inventory program to 10 pounds per year and also eliminated a de minimis exemption that

had allowed facilities to disregard small concentrations of mercury when making threshold determinations and certain other calculations.50 As EPA explained, “These PBT chemicals are of particular concern not only because they are toxic but also because they remain in the environment for long periods of time, are not readily destroyed, and build up or accumulate in body tissue. Relatively small releases of PBT chemicals can pose human and environmental health threats and consequently releases of these chemicals warrant recognition by communities.”51

The Fine Print 10

Findings: More Toxic Mercury Pollution This report uses EPA data on power plant mercury emissions in 1999 to examine the potential effects of the mercury loophole in the “Clear Skies” bill. The 1999 data is based on mercury emission tests and is considered the best estimate of power plant mercury emissions. We determined which mercury-emitting power plant units could qualify for the loophole and thus be exempt from reducing their mercury emissions under the bill. Specifically, the loophole could exempt 39 percent (441 of 1,120) of the nation’s mercury-emitting power plant units from regulation (see Appendix A for a complete list). These 441 units collectively emitted 4,971 pounds of mercury into the air in 1999. The loophole could affect power plants in 36 of the 47 states with mercury-emitting power plants (see Table 1). In 16 of the 36 states, total emissions from the exempt units could exceed 100 pounds per year. In 27 of the 36 states, total emissions from the exempt units could exceed 30 pounds per year, the de minimis threshold set by the “Clear Skies” bill. The loophole could exempt the most mercury emissions in Indiana (532 pounds), Pennsylvania (356 pounds), Kentucky (333 pounds), New York (321 pounds), South Carolina (316 pounds), and North Carolina (311 pounds). In 17 of the affected states, at least 10 units could qualify for the loophole. In North Carolina, 38 units would qualify, which is more than 58 percent of the state’s mercury-emitting power plant units. About 62 percent of Wisconsin’s mercury-emitting power plant units could qualify for the loophole; similarly, almost two-thirds of Minnesota’s mercury-emitting power plant units could benefit from the exemption. The loophole could have a profound impact on certain states. For instance, 64 percent of the

mercury-emitting power plant units in New York could be exempt from reducing their mercury emissions (see box). Similarly, 62 percent of the mercury-emitting power plant units in South Carolina could be exempt; these units released 316 pounds – 30 percent – of the state’s total power plant mercury emissions in 1999. In some cases, the loophole could let entire plants off the hook for cleaning up their mercury emissions. For instance, Virginia’s Potomac River plant contains five units that collectively emitted 83.5 pounds of mercury into the air in 1999, yet the entire plant could get a free pass on mercury controls because none of its units individually emitted more than 30 pounds of mercury.

New York: A Case Study

In 1999, 23 of New York’s 36 mercury-emitting power plant units (64 percent) individually emitted 30 pounds or less of mercury and thus could be exempt from having to reduce their mercury emissions. Collectively, these units emitted 321 pounds of mercury in 1999, or 31 percent of the state’s total power plant mercury emissions. In some cases, the loophole could let entire plants off the hook for cleaning up their mercury emissions, since eligibility for the exemption is determined by unit rather than by plant. For example, although the Rochester 7 power plant has four units that collectively emitted more than 79 pounds of mercury in 1999, the plant could get a free pass because none of its units individually emitted more than 30 pounds of mercury. Similarly, the C.R. Huntley plant could only have to take action on two of its six units – the other four fall under the 30-pound threshold.

The Fine Print 11

Table 1. Mercury-Emitting Power Plant Units That Could Be Exempt Under the ‘Clear Skies’ Loophole

State

Number of Units That Could Be Exempt

% of Mercury-Emitting Units That Could Be

Exempt

1999 Mercury Emissions from

Units That Could Be Exempt (lbs.)

% of Total Mercury

Emissions That Could Be Exempt

AK 1 100% 15 100%

AL 5 13% 135 3%

AZ 2 14% 16 1%

CA 6 100% 9 100%

CO 17 68% 77 15%

DE 2 33% 16 8%

FL 10 28% 85 4%

GA 17 46% 180 6%

HI 2 100% 16 100%

IA 14 50% 154 8%

IL 22 37% 236 4%

IN 30 42% 532 11%

KS 6 38% 93 6%

KY 26 49% 333 10%

MA 4 50% 11 4%

MD 4 22% 66 4%

ME 1 100% 4 100%

MI 30 51% 282 9%

MN 15 65% 167 13%

MO 11 32% 175 6%

MT 2 29% 40 4%

NC 38 58% 311 10%

ND 1 8% 30 1%

NE 3 23% 64 8%

NH 5 100% 37 100%

NJ 7 78% 35 18%

NV 5 63% 64 19%

NY 23 64% 321 31%

OH 23 29% 208 3%

PA 34 49% 356 4%

SC 16 62% 316 30%

TX 2 6% 27 0.3%

UT 7 64% 57 20%

VA 18 50% 126 10%

WI 24 62% 295 13%

WV 8 22% 86 2%

Total 441 39% 4,971 5%

The Fine Print 12

A Loophole Without Limits? Significantly, the mercury loophole in the “Clear Skies” bill may be even larger than the figures above suggest. The bill does not limit either the total number of units that may qualify for the exemption or the total amount of mercury that may be released pursuant to it. Thus, mercury emissions under the loophole could increase significantly over the 4,971 pounds estimated in this report. Nor does the bill require that units subject to mercury controls make compensatory reductions that would offset any exempted emissions. With approximately 39 percent of the nation’s mercury-emitting power plant units qualifying for the loophole, only the remaining 61 percent would have to take any action with regard to mercury emissions, and they would have no obligation to reduce their emissions to compensate for the added emissions of exempt units. In addition, the units emitting less than 30 pounds of mercury per year could increase their mercury emissions to as much as 30 pounds per year without triggering any regulation. The loophole also could give power plants a perverse incentive to reduce mercury emissions of individual units just enough for those units to fall under the 30-pound threshold – and thus off the regulatory radar screen. Take, for example, plants with units close to the 30-pound threshold, which might have an especially strong incentive to make only the minimum reductions needed to qualify for the loophole. In 1999, 45 units in 24 states emitted between 30 and 35 pounds of mercury.

For example, one large plant, the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Alabama, has eight units that collectively emitted 405 pounds of mercury in 1999. Two of the plant’s units emitted 29 pounds of mercury and thus could qualify for the loophole, and four others emitted between 30 and 34 pounds of mercury and could be subject to regulation. Were this plant to reduce its mercury emissions to 30 pounds for each of the four units just over the threshold – a total reduction of less than 10 pounds – it would not have to take any further action to reduce mercury emissions from any of these units even though they could emit 120 pounds of mercury per year. Indeed, the plant could have six units collectively emitting almost 180 pounds of mercury per year, yet all six of these units could be exempt because all would individually qualify for the loophole. By comparison, under the Clean Air Act, all power plants are subject to the same standard, and every power plant must take responsibility for reducing its mercury emissions by the maximum achievable amount. Compliance with existing law would result in mercury emissions reductions from power plants on the order of 90 percent nationally within three years. It is long past time for power plants to join in reducing their mercury emissions to MACT levels, just as other major sources of mercury have already done.

The Fine Print 13

Conclusion The Bush administration’s “Clear Skies” bill is rife with provisions that weaken or eliminate critical protections in the Clean Air Act, including the mercury loophole. Given its persistent, bioaccumulative nature, even small amounts of

mercury pose a serious threat to public health. Rather than let many of the nation’s power plant units continue to emit or even increase their emissions of toxic mercury, Congress should reject the “Clear Skies” bill.

Methodology To estimate the power plant units that would qualify for the “Clear Skies” mercury loophole as well as how much mercury such units emit, we used data from EPA’s 1999 Information Collection Request, which is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html#TECR. We excluded inactive

units from our calculations. The 1999 dataset is based on mercury emission tests and is considered the best estimate of power plant mercury emissions. EPA uses the 1999 dataset as “baseline emissions” against which future reductions are compared.

The Fine Print 14

Appendix A. Power Plant Unit Mercury Emissions, 1999 (Units Qualifying for the Mercury Loophole Are Shaded)

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

AK Healy 2 14.9

AL Barry 2 52.4

AL Barry 1 52.9

AL Barry 3 64.8

AL Barry 4 105.4

AL Barry 5 190.3

AL Charles R. Lowman 1 21.5



AL Colbert Fossil Plant 4 25.0





AL Gadsden 1 48.9

AL Gadsden 2 49.6

AL Gaston 2 101.6

AL Gaston 4 121.5

AL Gaston 3 128.5

AL Gaston 1 136.1

AL Gaston 5 391.3

AL Gorgas 7 90.3

AL Gorgas 6 92.5

AL Gorgas 8 161.4

AL Gorgas 9 179.3

AL Gorgas 10 383.0

AL Greene County 1 95.9

AL Greene County 2 109.3

AL Miller 1 339.8

AL Miller 2 362.2

AL Miller 3 437.4

AL Miller 4 449.6

AL Widows Creek Fossil Plant 1 29.2



State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds






AR Flint Creek 1 139.9

AR Independence 1 154.8

AR Independence 2 219.8

AR White Bluff 2 242.5

AR White Bluff 1 254.9

AZ Apache Station 2 55.9

AZ Apache Station 3 64.9

AZ Cholla 1 13.2

AZ Cholla 3 66.8

AZ Cholla 2 74.1

AZ Cholla 4 101.9

AZ Coronado U2B 111.2

AZ Coronado U1B 138.9

AZ Irvington 4 2.6

AZ Navajo 1 89.1

AZ Navajo 3 95.0

AZ Navajo 2 119.4

AZ Springerville 2 154.6

AZ Springerville 1 167.0

CA ACE Cogeneration Plant 10002 1.7

CA Mt. Poso Cogeneration Plant

27805-89 2.7

CA Port of Stockton District Energy Facility STG 1.1

CA Rio Bravo Jasmin Gen 1 0.9

CA Rio Bravo Poso Gen 1 0.9

CA Stockton Cogen Company GEN1 1.4

CO Arapahoe 2 2.9

CO Arapahoe 3 4.7

CO Arapahoe 1 15.0

The Fine Print 15

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

CO Arapahoe 4 30.3

CO Cameo 2 2.0

CO Cherokee 1 0.2

CO Cherokee 4 0.7

CO Cherokee 2 2.0

CO Cherokee 3 2.9

CO Comanche 2 42.0

CO Comanche 1 42.0

CO Craig C3 36.0

CO Craig C1 60.2

CO Craig C2 63.4

CO Hayden H2 after

5/99 0.5

CO Hayden H1 0.5

CO Hayden

H2 before 6/99 7.8

CO Martin Drake 5 1.6



CO Nucla 1 20.0

CO Pawnee 1 97.5

CO Rawhide 101 62.3

CO Ray D. Nixon 1 6.4

CO Valmont 5 2.3

CT AES Thames, Inc. Gen 1 Unit A 34.3

CT AES Thames, Inc. Gen 1 Unit B 36.8

DE Edge Moor 3 0.4

DE Edge Moor 4 62.1

DE Indian River 3 15.5




FL Big Bend BB03 36.8




FL C.D. McIntosh Jr. 3 37.7

FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1B 4.7

FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1C 4.8

FL Cedar Bay Generating Co 1A 4.8

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

FL Central Power and Lime GEN 1 0.5

FL Crist 5 13.0

FL Crist 4 16.6

FL Crist 6 68.6

FL Crist 7 121.6

FL Crystal River 1 76.2




FL Deerhaven B2 25.7

FL F.J. Gannon GB01 30.4






FL Indiantown Cogeneration Facility GEN 1 1.3

FL Lansing Smith 1 58.0

FL Lansing Smith 2 89.2

FL Polk Power 1 92.5

FL Scholz 1 6.6

FL Scholz 2 7.7

FL Seminole 1 57.0

FL Seminole 2 57.4

FL St. Johns River Power Park 1 59.6

FL St. Johns River Power Park 2 68.6

FL Stanton Energy 1 52.8

FL Stanton Energy 2 56.0

GA Arkwright 2 0.1

GA Arkwright 3 6.2

GA Arkwright 4 6.9

GA Bowen 1BLR 147.6

GA Bowen 3BLR 169.5

GA Bowen 2BLR 170.0

GA Bowen 4BLR 195.6

GA Hammond 3 9.5

GA Hammond 2 11.0

GA Hammond 1 12.3

GA Hammond 4 61.3

The Fine Print 16

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

GA Harllee Branch 2 55.8




GA Jack McDonough MB1 32.6

GA Jack McDonough MB2 34.1

GA Kraft 1 7.0

GA Kraft 2 8.9

GA Kraft 3 17.5

GA McIntosh 1 40.2

GA Mitchell (GA) 2 2.9



GA Scherer 1 116.3

GA Scherer 2 135.1

GA Scherer 3 475.3

GA Scherer 4 476.5

GA Wansley 2 167.8

GA Wansley 1 183.6

GA Yates Y1BR 4.6

GA Yates Y3BR 13.9

GA Yates Y2BR 17.6

GA Yates Y4BR 17.8

GA Yates Y5BR 20.1

GA Yates Y6BR 39.5

GA Yates Y7BR 51.6

HI AES Hawaii, Inc. B 7.7

HI AES Hawaii, Inc. A 7.8

IA Ames 7 3.3

IA Ames 8 14.6

IA Burlington 1 51.7

IA Council Bluffs 1 13.7



IA Dubuque 5 7.9

IA Dubuque 1 13.0

IA Earl F. Wisdom Unit 1 1.3

IA Fair Station #2 11.9

IA George Neal North 1 58.8



State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

IA George Neal South 4 290.1

IA Lansing 3 9.1

IA Lansing 4 118.7

IA Louisa 101 280.6

IA Milton L. Kapp 2 53.3

IA Muscatine 8 30.1

IA Muscatine 9 111.6

IA Ottumwa 1 116.3

IA Prairie Creek 3 13.7

IA Prairie Creek 4 46.0

IA Riverside 9 33.1

IA Streeter Station 7 3.2

IA Sutherland 2 8.5

IA Sutherland 1 8.8

IA Sutherland 3 16.7

IL Baldwin 1 90.6

IL Baldwin 3 103.9

IL Baldwin 2 117.9

IL Coffeen 1 51.2

IL Coffeen 2 81.7

IL Crawford 8 101.9

IL Crawford 7 117.7

IL Dallman 33 14.6

IL Dallman 32 19.5

IL Dallman 31 21.8

IL Duck Creek 1 34.7

IL E. D. Edwards 1 28.1



IL Fisk 19 164.0

IL Grand Tower 8 7.3



IL Havana 6 59.4

IL Hennepin 1 14.3

IL Hennepin 2 41.7

IL Hutsonville 6 11.9

IL Hutsonville 5 11.9

IL Joliet 29 71, 72 414.1

IL Joliet 29 81, 82 450.7

IL Joliet 9 5 280.4

The Fine Print 17

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

IL Joppa Steam 1 89.7






IL Kincaid Generation 2 146.3

IL Kincaid Generation 1 188.4

IL Lakeside 7 4.5

IL Lakeside 8 4.5

IL Meredosia 4 2.5

IL Meredosia 3 2.5

IL Meredosia 2 2.5

IL Meredosia 1 2.5

IL Meredosia 5 41.9

IL Newton 2 111.7

IL Newton 1 149.4

IL Powerton 61 & 62 482.6

IL Powerton 51 & 52 644.7

IL Southern Illinois Power Cooperative 2 6.8




IL Vermilion 1 8.7

IL Vermilion 2 15.3

IL Waukegan 17 93.9

IL Waukegan 8 239.9

IL Waukegan 7 274.5

IL Will County 1 75.5




IL Wood River 4 16.3

IL Wood River 5 53.1

IN A. B. Brown 1 21.3

IN A. B. Brown 2 24.8

IN Bailly 7 23.4

IN Bailly 8 42.0

IN Cayuga (IN) 1 92.2

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

IN Cayuga (IN) 2 119.0

IN Clifty Creek 6 75.5






IN Dean H. Mitchell 4 9.1




IN E. W. Stout 60 24.1

IN E. W. Stout 50 27.1

IN E. W. Stout 70 105.4

IN Edwardsport 8 5.7

IN Edwardsport 7*1 8.1

IN Edwardsport 7*2 9.0

IN F. B. Culley 2 9.8



IN Frank E. Ratts 1SG1 22.4

IN Frank E. Ratts 2SG1 39.2

IN Gibson Generating Station 5 51.9





IN H.T. Pritchard 3 9.9




IN Merom 2SG1 56.1

IN Merom 1SG1 61.1

IN Michigan City 12 113.1

IN Noblesville 2 5.2



IN Petersburg 1 28.1




The Fine Print 18

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

IN R. Gallagher Station 3 52.2




IN R.M. Schahfer 17 29.2




IN Rockport MB1 473.4

IN Rockport MB2 547.1

IN State Line 3 24.2

IN State Line 4 106.5

IN Tanners Creek U1 45.1




IN Wabash River Generating Stn 3 14.2




IN Wabash River Generating Stn 1 + 1A 45.6


IN Warrick Power Plant 4 167.3

IN Whitewater Valley 1 14.0

IN Whitewater Valley 2 27.4

KS Holcomb SGU1 63.1

KS Jeffrey Energy Center 1 278.4



KS La Cygne 2 193.9

KS La Cygne 1 219.9

KS Lawrence 3 12.4

KS Lawrence 4 33.8

KS Lawrence 5 100.3

KS Nearman Creek N1 50.2

KS Quindaro 1 19.9

KS Quindaro 2 23.2

KS Riverton 39 7.2

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

KS Riverton 40 11.5

KS Tecumseh 9 19.0

KS Tecumseh 10 45.2

KY Big Sandy BSU1 151.2

KY Big Sandy BSU2 407.8

KY Cane Run 4 11.3

KY Cane Run 5 14.2

KY Cane Run 6 16.8

KY Coleman C1 75.3

KY Coleman C3 87.1

KY Coleman C2 89.0

KY Cooper 1 48.2

KY Cooper 2 92.7

KY D. B. Wilson W1 29.7

KY Dale 3 17.5

KY Dale 4 20.1

KY E. W. Brown 1 28.7



KY East Bend Station 2 252.3

KY Elmer Smith 2 34.4

KY Elmer Smith 1 38.1

KY Ghent 1 41.9

KY Ghent 2 138.2

KY Ghent 4 141.1

KY Ghent 3 147.2

KY Green River 4 22.9

KY Green River 5 32.0

KY H.L. Spurlock 1 122.2

KY H.L. Spurlock 2 210.3

KY Henderson 1 6 1.6

KY HMP&L Station 2 H1 14.7

KY HMP&L Station 2 H2 16.9

KY Mill Creek 1 41.0




KY Paradise Fossil Plant 2 69.6



KY Pineville 3 3.8

The Fine Print 19

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

KY R. D. Green Unit 1 20.6

KY R. D. Green Unit 2 22.2

KY Robert Reid R1 19.3

KY Shawnee Fossil Plant 6 5.1










KY Trimble County 1 97.0

KY Tyrone 5 7.9

LA Big Cajun 2 2B2 164.7



LA Dolet Hills Power Station 1 159.4

LA R.S. Nelson 6 213.1

LA Rodemacher Power Station Unit #2 2 97.9

MA Brayton Point 2 54.9



MA Mount Tom 1 37.5

MA Salem Harbor 1 2.1



MA Somerset 8 2.0

MD Brandon Shores 2 265.5

MD Brandon Shores 1 267.6

MD C.P. Crane 1 11.3

MD C.P. Crane 2 25.7

MD Chalk Point 2 195.4

MD Chalk Point 1 201.7

MD Dickerson 3S 45.6

MD Dickerson 3 48.1


MD Dickerson 2 51.2


MD Dickerson 1 58.4

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

MD H.A. Wagner 2 44.9

MD H.A. Wagner 3 85.1

MD Morgantown 2 173.3

MD Morgantown 1 213.0

MD R. Paul Smith 9 1.4

MD R. Paul Smith 11 27.9

ME S.D. Warren Company #2 #21 4.1

MI B.C. Cobb 5 60.1

MI B.C. Cobb 4 60.5

MI Belle River Power Plant 1 112.6

MI Belle River Power Plant 2 130.2

MI Dan E. Karn 2 101.7

MI Dan E. Karn 1 112.4

MI Eckert Station 1 4.9






MI Endicott 1 6.4

MI Erikcson 1 50.7

MI Harbor Beach Power Plant 1 9.0

MI J. B. Sims 3 6.0

MI J.C. Weadock 7 51.8

MI J.C. Weadock 8 70.2

MI J.H. Campbell 1 93.1



MI J.R. Whiting 1 38.0



MI James De Young 5 6.9

MI Marysville Power Plant 12 0.6




MI Monroe Power Plant 2 160.5




MI Presque Isle 2 after 5/99 0.1

The Fine Print 20

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

MI Presque Isle 2 before

6/99 0.3




6/99 1.3


6/99 1.4

MI Presque Isle 6 4.7





MI River Rouge Power Plant 2 62.4

MI River Rouge Power Plant 3 77.2

MI Shiras 3 20.2

MI St Clair Power Plant 1 17.0






MI TES Filer City Station GEN 1 2.3

MI Trenton Channel Power Plant 17 12.1





MN Allen S. King Generating Plant #1 102.5

MN Black Dog Generating Plt #2 0.1



MN Clay Boswell 1 6.5




MN High Bridge Generating #5 17.4

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

MN High Bridge Generating #6 24.3

MN Hoot Lake 2 20.1

MN Hoot Lake 3 23.6

MN Laskin Energy Center 1 11.1

MN Laskin Energy Center 2 11.5

MN Minnesota Valley #4 0.1

MN NE Station NEPP 9.4

MN Riverside Generating Plant #7 4.9



MN Sherburne County Generating Plant #1 179.2



MN Silver Lake 4 5.4

MO Asbury 1 63.4

MO Blue Valley 3 8.7

MO Chamois 2 3.4

MO Hawthorn 5 17.8

MO Iatan 1 191.1

MO James River Power Station 3 11.8



MO Labadie 4 137.3

MO Labadie 3 150.6

MO Labadie 1 177.7

MO Labadie 2 194.1

MO Lake Road Plant 6 15.8

MO Meramec 2 24.9

MO Meramec 1 25.7

MO Meramec 3 37.8

MO Meramec 4 38.2

MO Montrose 1 31.5

MO Montrose 3 34.0

MO Montrose 2 38.5

MO New Madrid 2 108.2

MO New Madrid 1 145.6

MO Rush Island 1 249.0

MO Rush Island 2 269.1

MO Sibley 1 12.4

The Fine Print 21

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

MO Sibley 2 12.7

MO Sibley 3 85.7

MO Sikeston 1 87.6

MO Sioux 2 86.4

MO Sioux 1 116.6

MO Southwest Power Station 1 49.4

MO Thomas Hill MB1 42.9



MS Jack Watson 4 90.3

MS Jack Watson 5 185.9

MS R. D. Morrow Sr. Generating plant 2 93.9

MS R. D. Morrow Sr. Generating plant 1 106.4

MS Victor J. Daniel 2 93.6

MS Victor J. Daniel 1 109.0

MT Colstrip 1 109.4

MT Colstrip 2 119.9

MT Colstrip 3 289.2

MT Colstrip 4 353.0

MT Colstrip Energy GEN 1 21.5

MT J.E. Corette 2 30.9

MT Lewis & Clark B1 18.0

NC Asheville 1 64.7

NC Asheville 2 74.0

NC Belews Creek 2 222.2

NC Belews Creek 1 297.7

NC Buck 6 5.2

NC Buck 5 5.2

NC Buck 7 6.3

NC Buck 8 38.0

NC Buck 9 38.7

NC Cape Fear 5 37.7

NC Cape Fear 6 51.4

NC Cliffside 1 2.9

NC Cliffside 2 3.0

NC Cliffside 3 5.8

NC Cliffside 4 6.5

NC Cliffside 5 85.7

NC Cogentrix of Richmond 4B 0.6


State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

NC Cogentrix of Richmond 4A 0.6






NC Dan River 1 8.2

NC Dan River 2 8.4

NC Dan River 3 15.8

NC Dwayne Collier Battle Cogeneration Facility 1B 0.9

NC Dwayne Collier Battle Cogeneration Facility 2A 0.9

NC Dwayne Collier Battle Cogeneration Facility 2B 0.9

NC Dwayne Collier Battle Cogeneration Facility 1A 0.9

NC G.G. Allen 2 14.2





NC L V Sutton 2 27.7



NC Lee 1 17.9

NC Lee 2 21.1

NC Lee 3 62.9

NC Marshall 1 84.1

NC Marshall 2 93.2

NC Marshall 3 122.2

NC Marshall 4 155.2

NC Mayo 1B 114.6

NC Mayo 1A 114.6

NC Riverbend 7 9.9

NC Riverbend 8 10.2

NC Riverbend 9 27.1

NC Riverbend 10 28.3

NC Roxboro 3B 115.3

NC Roxboro 3A 115.3

NC Roxboro 4B 117.9

NC Roxboro 4A 117.9

NC Roxboro 1 121.2

The Fine Print 22

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

NC Roxboro 2 209.5

NC Tobaccoville Utility Plant GEN 2 4.7

NC Tobaccoville Utility Plant GEN 1 4.7

NC W H Weatherspoon 1 10.7



NC Westmoreland-LG&E Partners Roanoke Valley I GEN 1 0.9

NC Westmoreland-LG&E Partners Roanoke Valley II GEN 2 0.3

ND Antelope Valley Station B1 175.3

ND Antelope Valley Station B2 200.7

ND Coal Creek 2 256.2

ND Coal Creek 1 256.2

ND Coyote 1 260.3

ND Leland Olds Station 1 110.8

ND Leland Olds Station 2 199.2

ND Milton R. Young B1 214.3

ND Milton R. Young B2 233.1

ND R.M. Heskett Station B2 29.5

ND Stanton Station 10 30.3

ND Stanton Station 1 82.6

NE Gerald Gentlemen Station 2 146.5

NE Gerald Gentlemen Station 1 159.3

NE Lon Wright 8 13.0

NE Nebraska City 1 210.8

NE North Omaha 1 26.1





NE Platte 1 31.7

NE Sheldon 1 32.5

NE Sheldon 2 35.6

NE Whelan Energy Center 1 24.7

NH Merrimack 1 4.7

NH Merrimack 2 11.1

NH Schiller 6 6.9

NH Schiller 4 7.0

NH Schiller 5 7.3

NJ B L England 1 10.8

NJ B L England 2 53.3

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

NJ Carneys Point Generating Plt 2001 0.9

NJ Carneys Point Generating Plt 1001 1.1

NJ Deepwater 8 3.9

NJ Hudson 2 107.5

NJ Logan Generating Plant Gen 1 3.2

NJ Mercer 1 7.1

NJ Mercer 2 8.1

NM Escalante 1 86.9

NM Four Corners 2 99.3





NM San Juan 2 196.9

NM San Juan 1 207.9

NM San Juan 4 293.5

NM San Juan 3 343.3

NV Mohave 2 110.6

NV Mohave 1 118.7

NV North Valmy Generating Stn 2 0.8

NV North Valmy Generating Stn 1 7.8

NV Reid Gardner 4 2.5




NY AES Cayuga 2 50.4

NY AES Cayuga 1 50.4

NY AES Greenidge 5 10.4



NY AES Hickling 1 6.2




NY AES Jennison 2 2.9




NY AES Sommerset 1 75.3

The Fine Print 23

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

NY AES Westover 11,12 13.9

NY AES Westover 13 34.6

NY C. R. Huntley 63 8.8






NY Danskammer 3 45.3

NY Danskammer 4 77.2

NY Dunkirk 1 32.6

NY Dunkirk 2 37.0

NY Dunkirk 3 67.6

NY Dunkirk 4 71.0

NY Fort Drum H.T.W. Cogeneration Facility Gen 1 5.8

NY Lovett 5 18.0

NY Lovett 4 22.5

NY Rochester 3 12 25.5





OH Ashtabula 8 3.6

OH Ashtabula 11 6.0

OH Ashtabula 10 7.1

OH Ashtabula 7 96.0

OH Avon Lake 10 20.8

OH Avon Lake 12 388.8

OH Bay Shore 2 40.1

OH Bay Shore 1 58.1

OH Bay Shore 3 66.1

OH Bay Shore 4 98.0

OH Cardinal 1 175.3

OH Cardinal 2 186.9

OH Cardinal 3 267.3

OH Conesville 3 69.6






State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

OH Eastlake 1 54.5

OH Eastlake 2 63.9

OH Eastlake 3 66.3

OH Eastlake 4 110.2

OH Eastlake 5 286.0

OH Gen J. M. Gavin 2 210.4

OH Gen J. M. Gavin 1 290.5

OH Hamilton 9 1.6

OH J. M. Stuart 2 146.0




OH Killen 2 191.0

OH Kyger Creek 3 94.8





OH Lake Shore 18 6.1

OH Miami Fort Station 5*2 9.0

OH Miami Fort Station 5*1 9.0

OH Miami Fort Station 6 9.3



OH Muskingum River 1 19.6





OH Niles 1 77.2

OH Niles 2 82.6

OH O. H. Hutchings H-1 2.0






OH Picway 9 58.8

OH R. E. Burger 6 4.3



The Fine Print 24

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds


OH Richard H. Gorsuch 1 32.8




OH W. H. Sammis 2 9.7







OH W. H. Zimmer Station 1 175.3

OH Walter C. Beckjord 1 37.5






OK AES Shady Point, Inc. Gen 2 201.5

OK AES Shady Point, Inc. Gen 1 209.1

OK GRDA 1 136.2

OK GRDA 2 146.7

OK Hugo 1 154.9

OK Muskogee 4 119.3

OK Muskogee 5 137.4

OK Muskogee 6 142.4

OK Northeastern 3313 82.5

OK Northeastern 3314 105.6

OK Sooner 1 131.3

OK Sooner 2 155.1

OR Boardman 1SG 168.3

PA AES BV Partners Beaver Valley 35 4.5




PA Armstrong 1 143.3

PA Armstrong 2 163.4

PA Bruce Mansfield 3 305.5

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds



PA Brunner Island 1 16.5



PA Cambria CoGen GEN1 70.0

PA Cheswick 1 237.2

PA Colver Power Project COLV 69.2

PA Conemaugh 2 214.6

PA Conemaugh 1 280.0

PA Cromby Generating Station #1 1.7

PA Ebensburg Power Company GEN1 0.6

PA Eddystone 1 20.2

PA Eddystone 2 24.4

PA Elrama 3 7.5

PA Elrama 2 12.6

PA Elrama 1 13.0

PA Elrama 4 24.9

PA Foster Wheeler Mt. Carmel TG1 0.4

PA Hatfield's Ferry 2 106.4



PA Homer City 3 475.6



PA Hunlock Power Station 6 51.6

PA John B. Rich Memorial Power Station GEN 1 0.6

PA Johnsonburg Mill 54638 93.6

PA Keystone 1 823.2

PA Keystone 2 1028.3

PA Kline Township Cogen Facility GEN 1 0.5

PA Martins Creek 2 25.5

PA Martins Creek 1 26.6

PA Mitchell (PA) 33 30.3

PA Montour 1 566.9

PA Montour 2 651.6

PA New Castle 3 59.6


The Fine Print 25

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds


PA Northampton Generating Co. GEN 1 1.0

PA Panther Creek Energy Facility GEN 1 0.5

PA Piney Creek Project GEN 1 0.2

PA Portland 1 55.7

PA Portland 2 75.9

PA Scrubgrass Generating Co. GEN1 0.9

PA Seward* 12 16.1

PA Seward* 14 16.9

PA Seward* 15 19.6

PA Shawville 1 182.5




PA St. Nicholas Cogeneration Project SNCP 0.6

PA Sunbury 2A 4.4

PA Sunbury 1B 4.5

PA Sunbury 1A 4.6

PA Sunbury 2B 4.8

PA Sunbury 3 95.9

PA Sunbury 4 122.0

PA Titus 1 24.3

PA Titus 3 24.9

PA Titus 2 27.2

PA Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Co. GEN 1 0.4

SC Canadys Steam 1 12.4



SC Cope 1 2.4

SC Cross Generating Station 2 44.9

SC Cross Generating Station 1 60.4

SC Grainger Generating Station 2 27.6

SC Grainger Generating Station 1 28.2

SC H B Robinson 1 54.2

SC Jefferies Generating Station 3 46.7

SC Jefferies Generating Station 4 60.4

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

SC McMeekin 1 7.0

SC McMeekin 2 7.4

SC Urquhart 2 25.1

SC Urquhart 1 25.3

SC Urquhart 3 28.7

SC W. S. Lee 1 13.4

SC W. S. Lee 2 18.3

SC W. S. Lee 3 34.3

SC Wateree 1 121.2

SC Wateree 2 123.1

SC Williams 1 107.3

SC Winyah Generating Station 2 22.9




SD Big Stone 1 111.3

TN Allen Fossil Plant 2 34.4



TN Bull Run Fossil Plant 1 267.0

TN Cumberland Fossil Plant 1 120.2

TN Cumberland Fossil Plant 2 146.4

TN Gallatin Fossil Plant 2 81.1




TN John Sevier Fossil Plant 1 62.1




TN Johnsonville Fossil Plant 3 34.3










TN Kingston Fossil Plant 3 45.6

* Reliant Energy closed this plant in 2003 and built a new 521-megawatt power plant on the same site. The new plant burns waste coal; data on the new plant’s mercury emissions are not available.

The Fine Print 26

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds









TX Big Brown 1 392.0

TX Big Brown 2 477.1

TX Coleto Creek 1 143.9

TX Gibbons Creek 1 264.2

TX Harrington Station 062B 46.2



TX J.K. Spruce BLR1 240.9

TX J.T. Deely 2 247.5

TX J.T. Deely 1 254.4

TX Limestone LIM1 480.7

TX Limestone LIM2 485.4

TX Martin Lake 1 422.3



TX Monticello 3 536.4



TX Oklaunion 1 176.8

TX Pirkey 1 812.5

TX Sam Seymour 3 200.2



TX San Miguel 1 133.9

TX Sandow 4 289.4

TX TNP-One U2 12.7

TX TNP-One U1 13.9

TX Tolk Station 172B 76.7

TX Tolk Station 171B 83.3

TX W A Parish WAP7 69.1




TX Welsh 1 128.5

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

TX Welsh 3 141.8

TX Welsh 2 168.5

UT Bonanza 1*1 3.1

UT Carbon 1 17.6

UT Carbon 2 22.0

UT Hunter 3 4.6

UT Hunter 1 36.2

UT Hunter 2 41.8

UT Huntington 1 35.4

UT Huntington 2 113.3

UT Intermountain 1SGA 4.1

UT Intermountain 2SGA 4.9

UT Sunnyside Cogeneration Associates GEN 1 0.1

VA AES Warrior Run GN1 1.6

VA Bremo Power Station 3 37.7

VA Bremo Power Station 4 89.3

VA Chesapeake Energy Center 2 36.2




VA Chesterfield Power Station 3 37.7




VA Clinch River 3 49.8



VA Clover Power Station 1 5.6

VA Clover Power Station 2 5.8

VA Glen Lyn 51 12.4

VA Glen Lyn 52 13.2

VA Glen Lyn 6 61.4

VA LG&E - Westmoreland Altavista GEN 1B 0.1

VA LG&E - Westmoreland Altavista GEN 1A 0.1

VA LG&E - Westmoreland Hopewell GEN 1 0.1

VA LG&E - Westmoreland Southampton GEN 1A 0.1

VA LG&E - Westmoreland Southampton GEN 1B 0.1

The Fine Print 27

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

VA Mecklenburg Cogeneration Facility GEN 1 0.3

VA Mecklenburg Cogeneration Facility GEN 2 0.3

VA Possum Point Power Station 3 40.8

VA Possum Point Power Station 4 88.8

VA Potomac River 1 11.2





VA SEI - Birchwood Power Facility 1 2.9

VA Yorktown Power Station 1 48.8

VA Yorktown Power Station 2 65.9

WA Centralia BW 22 260.1

WA Centralia BW 21 269.6

WI Alma B4 7.0

WI Alma B5 8.6

WI Bay Front Plant Generating 5 2.8

WI Blount Street 9 2.9

WI Blount Street 8 3.5

WI Columbia 1 154.8

WI Columbia 2 167.8

WI Edgewater (WI) 3 15.3



WI Genoa 1 64.6

WI J P Madgett B1 117.6

WI Nelson Dewey 2 35.9

WI Nelson Dewey 1 37.2

WI Pleasant Prairie 2 390.8

WI Pleasant Prairie 1 426.1

WI Port Washington 4 9.6




WI Pulliam 3 3.8

WI Pulliam 4 4.2

WI Pulliam 5 11.1

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

WI Pulliam 7 14.7

WI Pulliam 6 15.8

WI Pulliam 8 27.4

WI Rock River 1 9.1

WI Rock River 2 11.1

WI South Oak Creek 6 56.4




WI Valley 2 13.2

WI Valley 1 13.2

WI Valley 4 14.4

WI Valley 3 14.4

WI Weston 1 19.6

WI Weston 2 27.1

WI Weston 3 112.6

WV Albright 1 18.5

WV Albright 2 19.0

WV Albright 3 81.2

WV Fort Martin 1 223.6

WV Fort Martin 2 226.5

WV Grant Town Power Plant GEN1 0.3

WV Harrison 2 95.9

WV Harrison 3 102.4

WV Harrison 1 105.4

WV John E Amos 1 238.9



WV Kammer 1 83.1

WV Kammer 3 90.1

WV Kammer 2 104.8

WV Kanawha River 1 58.9

WV Kanawha River 2 70.7

WV Mitchell (WV) 1 221.5

WV Mitchell (WV) 2 228.3

WV Morgantown Energy Facility GEN1 17.5

WV Mountaineer 1 413.8

WV Mt. Storm Power Station 3 129.2



WV North Branch Power Stn 1B 0.0

The Fine Print 28

State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds

WV North Branch Power Stn 1A 0.1

WV Philip Sporn 31 74.9





WV Pleasants 1 62.9

WV Pleasants 2 79.2

WV Rivesville 7 5.6

WV Rivesville 8 30.6

WV Willow Island 1 24.8

WV Willow Island 2 74.2

WY Dave Johnston BW 41 46.4


State Plant Unit

Mercury Emissions,

Pounds



WY Jim Bridger BW 73 144.6




WY Laramie River Station 3 159.0



WY Naughton 1 48.7

WY Naughton 2 61.1

WY Naughton 3 68.0

WY Neil Simpson 2 2 48.2

WY Wyodak BW 91 182.3

The Fine Print 29

Notes 1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 2 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 3 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 4 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 5 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000); U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 6 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 7 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000); U.S. EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997. 8 Kathryn Mahaffey, Robert P. Cliffner, and Catherine Bodurow, “Blood Organic Mercury and Dietary Mercury Intake: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999 and 2000,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(5) 562-570, April 2004; Kathryn R. Mahaffey, U.S. EPA, “Methylmercury Epidemiology Update,” Slide #9 of presentation given at the National Forum on Contaminants in Fish, San Diego, January 2004, available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/forum/2004/presentations/monday/mahaffey.pdf. 9 Ellen K. Silbergeld, Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, testimony presented at EPA hearing on the regulation of utility mercury emissions, Philadelphia, 25 February 2004; Edna M. Yokoo et al., “Low Level Methylmercury Exposure Affects Neuropsychological Function in Adults,” Environmental Health, 2(8), June 2003. 10 National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000). 11 Eliseo Guallar et al., “Mercury, Fish Oils, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction,” New England Journal of Medicine, 347(22), 1747-1754, 28 November 2002. 12 J.G. Weiner et al, “Partitioning and Bioavailability of Mercury in an Experimentally Acidified Wisconsin Lake,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 9:909-918, 1990. 13 EPA, “Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories” (fact sheet), June 2001, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf. 14 EPA, “Mercury Update: Impact on Fish Advisories” (fact sheet), June 2001, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/mercupd.pdf. 15 Zachary Corrigan, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Fishing for Trouble, October 2004 (analyzing all active fish consumption advisories issued by states in 2003 for local waterways due to mercury contamination and finding 44 states with such advisories). 16 Zachary Corrigan, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Fishing for Trouble, October 2004 (finding 21 states in 2003 with statewide advisories for their inland lakes and/or rivers. Since Fishing for Trouble was issued, another state—West Virginia—has issued a statewide mercury-related fish consumption advisory, bringing the total to 22 states. Brian Farkas, “Statewide Fish Consumption Advisory Issued for Mercury,” Associated Press Newswires, 13 December 2004. 17 EPA and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), What You Need to Know about Mercury Levels in Fish and Shellfish, 2004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fishadvice/advice.html. 18 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997, Vol. 3, page 5-1. 19 EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Benefits of Reducing Mercury in Saltwater Ecosystems: A Case Study, January 2004, 17. 20 Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Reel Danger: Power Plant Mercury Pollution and the Fish We Eat, August 2004, 4 (analyzing U.S. EPA’s 1999 National Emissions Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants as cited in Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, Mercury Emissions for Coal-Fired Power Plants: The Case for Regulatory Action, October 2003), available at http://www.uspirg.org/reports/ReelDanger7_04.pdf. 21 EPA, Mercury Study Report to Congress, December 1997, Vol. 3, pages 5-1 and 5-2. 22 Environmental Defense, Out of Control and Close to Home: Mercury Pollution from Power Plants, 2003. 23 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, “Integrating Atmospheric Mercury Deposition with Aquatic Cycling in South Florida: An Approach for Conducting Total Maximum Daily Load Analysis for an Atmospherically Derived Pollutant,” November 2003. 24 T.R. Hrabik and C.J. Watras, “Recent Declines in Mercury Concentration in a Freshwater Fishery: Isolating the Effects of De-Acidification and Decreased Atmospheric Mercury Deposition in Little Rock Lake,” The Science of the Total Environment, 297: 229-237, 2002.

The Fine Print 30

25 Clean Air Act § 112(n)(1)(A). 26 Clean Air Act § 112(n)(1)(A). 27 EPA, Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, February 1998. 28 Felice Stadler, National Wildlife Federation, “Mercury and Power Plants: EPA’s 14-Year Effort to Regulate” (timeline). 29 62 Fed. Reg. 79825, 20 December 2000. 30 EPA, “EPA Decides Mercury Emissions from Power Plants Must Be Reduced” (press release), 14 December 2000. 31 Mercury is listed as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act, §112(b)(1). 32 Clean Air Act, § 112(d). 33 EPA, Presentation to the Edison Electric Institute, 18 September 2001, available at http://cta.policy.net/epamercury/pdf. 34 Reducing annual mercury emissions of 48 tons by 89%, 90%, and 98% would result in approximately 5.3, 4.8, and 1.0 tons, respectively. 35 60 Fed. Reg. 65387, 19 December 1995 (municipal waste combusters); 62 Fed. Reg. 48348, 15 September 1997 (medical waste incinerators). 36 69 Fed. Reg. 4652, 30 January 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 12398, 16 March 2004 (supplemental proposal). 37 Eric Pianin, “Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark,” Washington Post, 31 January 2004; Darren Samuelsohn, “More Industry Materials Found Duplicated in EPA’s Mercury Rule,” Greenwire, 26 February 2004 (reporting that sections of EPA’s proposed rule were taken verbatim from memos written by Latham & Watkins, a law firm representing large electric utilities, and West Associates, a group representing 20 power and transmission companies). 38 See, e.g., Tom Hamburger and Alan C. Miller, “Mercury Emissions Rule Geared to Benefit Industry, Staffers Say,” Los Angeles Times, 16 March 2004 (reporting that “[p]olitical appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed agency professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say. The EPA staffers say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order.”); Jennifer Lee, “White House Minimized the Risks of Mercury in Proposed Rules, Scientists Say,” New York Times, 7 April 2004 (reporting that White House officials scrubbed language in the proposal to downplay the scientific evidence regarding the hazards of mercury pollution). 39 Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee letter to EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt, 26 January 2004, downloaded from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/20040126/$file/20040126.pdf, 5 July 2004. 40 EPA, Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: Additional Analyses of Mercury Emissions Needed Before EPA Finalizes Rules for Coal-Fired Electric Utilities, Report No. 2005-P-00003, 3 February 2005 (finding, among other things, that “[e]vidence indicates that EPA senior management instructed EPA staff to develop a Maximum Achievable Control technology (MACT) standard for mercury that would result in national emissions of 34 tons annually, instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing units were achieving in practice”). 41 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Clean Air Act: Observations on EPA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis of Its Mercury Control Options, GAO-05-252, February 2005 (identifying “four major shortcomings in the economic analysis underlying EPA’s proposed mercury control options that limit its usefulness for informing decision makers about the economic trade-offs of the different policy options”). 42 Statement of Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate, U.S. PIRG, “Protect Children’s Health: Stop Mercury Pollution,” 30 June 2004, available at www.uspirg.org. 43 To avoid issuing a MACT standard for mercury, EPA reversed its prior determination that power plant mercury emissions should be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant in a separate rule available at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_regfinding.pdf. 44 Clean Air Mercury Rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_preamble.pdf (preamble) and http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_regtext.pdf (regulatory text). 45 Darren Samuelson, “N.Y. AG, Enviro Group Prepare Lawsuits over Mercury Rule,” Greenwire, 16 March 2005. 46 New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey et al, “Nine States File Suit Challenging EPA Mercury Rule,” press release, 29 March 2005. 47 Clear Skies Act of 2005, S.131, §473. This section allocates 1,088,000 and 480,000 mercury allowances for the years 2010-2017 and 2018 and thereafter, respectively. Given that one mercury allowance is needed for each ounce of mercury, the allocated allowances would result in emissions of 34 tons annually from 2010-2017 (1,088,000 ÷ 16 oz./lb. ÷ 2000 lbs./ton) and 15 tons annually in 2018 and beyond (480,000 ÷ 16 oz./ton ÷2000 lbs./ton). 48 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Analysis of S. 1844, the Clear Skies Act of 2003; S. 843, the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003; and S. 366, the Clean power Act of 2003, May 2004. While the EIA analyzed a 2003 version of the “Clear Skies” initiative, its analysis is also applicable to S.131, the 2005 bill.

The Fine Print 31

49 Clean Air Mercury Rule Preamble, at http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/pdfs/camr_final_preamble.pdf; see also EPA, Response to Significant Public Comments on the Proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule, pp. 202-04, available at www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utiltoxpg.html#TECH. 50 69 Fed. Reg. 58666. See also EPA, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act—Section 313: Guidance for Reporting Toxic Chemicals: Mercury and Mercury-Related Compounds, August 2001. 51 EPA, “Fact Sheet on EPCRA Section 313 Rulemaking: Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals,” available at http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/pbt/pbtrule-fs.pdf.

Documents

How a Loophole in the ‘Clear Skies’ Bill Lets Power Plants ... · emissions of mercury, a bioaccumulative neurotoxin that poses serious health hazards even in minute amounts