[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69864-69878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26579]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[OAR-2002-0056; FRL-7844-8]
RIN 2060-AJ65


Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance 
for New and Existing Stationary Sources, Electric Utility Steam 
Generating Units: Notice of Data Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) concerning coal- and oil-fired electric utility 
steam generating units (power plants) on January 30, 2004,\1\ and a 
supplemental proposal on March 16, 2004.\2\ The proposed CAMR 
represents the first-ever Federal action to regulate mercury (Hg) from 
this source category. The proposed rule presents two primary 
alternative approaches to regulating Hg and nickel (Ni) from power 
plants. EPA received numerous comments on its proposed regulatory 
approaches, including comments on the modeling results EPA obtained 
using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), which is a model that 
predicts how the power sector will respond to a particular regulatory 
approach, and comments addressing the speciation of Hg. EPA is 
currently evaluating those comments to determine how the new data and 
information received in the comments, as described below, may affect 
the benefit-cost analysis and regulatory options under consideration. 
Although we recognize that the public has access to the comments in the 
rulemaking docket, we are issuing the NODA, in part, because the Agency 
received over 680,000 public comments, including almost 5,000 unique 
comments, and the comments present new data and information that are 
relevant to the two primary regulatory approaches addressed in the 
proposed CAMR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 69 FR 4652, January 30, 2004.
    \2\ 69 FR 12398, March 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also issuing the NODA to seek input on our benefits 
methodology, which has been preliminarily revised since the CAMR was 
proposed. An analysis of benefits and costs is consistent with 
principles of good government and the provisions of Executive Order 
(EO) 12866. Based on comments received on the proposal and in 
furtherance of our obligations under EO 12866, we have preliminarily 
revised our approach to analyzing the benefits of reducing Hg emissions 
from power plants, and we are seeking comment on that revised approach, 
which is described in Section III below. Some of the commenters 
suggested approaches that differ from EPA's proposed revised benefits 
methodology. We identify those comments in Section III, as well as 
other comments that we received that provide analyses relevant to our 
refined benefits methodology.

DATES: Comments on the NODA must be received on or before January 3, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the NODA should be submitted to Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0056. Comments may be submitted by one of the following 
methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e2a3cf838c86cfb0cfa68d81898796a2879283cc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90d1bdf1fef4bdc2bdd4fff3fbf5e4d0f5e0f1bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 69865]]

    <bullet> Mail: Air Docket, Clean Air Mercury Rule, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
    <bullet> Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special 
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments on the NODA to Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0056. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket(s) without change and may be made 
available online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 
regulations.gov websites are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Maxwell, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, 
Combustion Group (C439-01), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5430, e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c8c4ddd2c0c9c98bc7ccc9c9e5c0d5c48bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1e737f66697b7272307c7772725e7b6e7f30797168">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Outline: The information presented in this NODA is organized as 
follows:

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments
    A. How can I help EPA ensure that my comments are reviewed 
quickly?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    1. Submitting CBI
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
II. Electric Utility Sector Modeling and Hg Speciation
    A. What is the relevant background?
    B. What are the specific issues relevant to electric utility 
sector modeling?
    1. Overview
    2. What is IPM?
    3. What specific comments did EPA receive on its IPM modeling in 
response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal?
    4. What are the areas of ongoing EPA research?
    C. Issues of Hg Speciation
    1. Overview
    2. What specific comments on Hg speciation did EPA receive in 
response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal?
    3. What are the areas of ongoing EPA research?
III. EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Assessment
    A. What is the relevant background?
    B. How is EPA estimating reductions in Hg exposure associated 
with the CAMR?
    C. Step 1 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: 
Analyzing Hg Emissions from Other Sources
    1. Overview
    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on Hg emissions from 
other sources in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 
2004 supplemental proposal?
    D. Step 2 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: 
Analyzing Air Dispersion Modeling Capabilities
    1. Overview
    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on air dispersion 
modeling capabilities in response to the January 2004 proposal and 
the March 2004 supplemental proposal?
    E. Step 3 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: 
Modeling Ecosystem Dynamics
    1. Overview
    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on modeling ecosystem 
dynamics in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal?
    F. Step 4 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: Fish 
Consumption and Human Exposure
    1. Overview
    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on fish consumption 
patterns in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal?
    G. Step 5 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: How 
Will Reductions in Population-level Exposure Improve Public Health?

I. Additional Information on Submitting Comments

A. How Can I Help EPA Ensure That My Comments Are Reviewed Quickly?

    To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are 
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the 
copy you submit to the official docket, to William Maxwell, U.S. EPA, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards 
Division, Mail Code C439-01, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-5430, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7bab6afa0b2bbbbf9b5bebbbb97b2a7b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be6eaf3fceee7e7a5e9e2e7e7cbeefbeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The Agency may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by

[[Page 69866]]

referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. Electric Utility Sector Modeling and Hg Speciation

A. What Is the Relevant Background?

    On January 30, 2004, EPA issued a proposed CAMR under the CAA 
concerning power plants.\3\ That proposed rule presents two primary 
approaches to regulating Hg and Ni from power plants. Those approaches 
are (1) retaining the Agency's December 20, 2000, determination that 
regulating power plants under CAA section 112 is ``appropriate and 
necessary'' and issuing final emission standards under CAA section 
112(d); and (2) revising our December 2000 ``appropriate and 
necessary'' determination, removing power plants from the CAA section 
112(c) list, and issuing final standards of performance for coal-fired 
power plants using a ``cap-and-trade'' methodology.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 69 FR 4652, January 30, 2004.
    \4\ The Agency also proposed standards of performance for oil-
fired power plants that emit Ni. Although the Agency received 
several comments concerning its alternative proposals to regulate Ni 
from oil-fired power plants under CAA section 111 and CAA section 
112, those comments are not the subject of this NODA. This NODA 
instead focuses only on issues related to Hg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal, we received over 680,000 public comments, 
including almost 5,000 unique comments. Among other things, the 
comments addressed how the power sector could respond to different 
levels of control on Hg emissions. In particular, we received comments 
on EPA's IPM modeling results, including our modeling assumptions. We 
also received modeling analyses conducted by different commenters, some 
of which used models and/or assumptions different from EPA's. Based on 
the importance of, and the level of interest in, these modeling 
analyses, this NODA summarizes the modeling analyses performed by 
commenters and solicits comment on the inputs and assumptions 
underlying those analyses and other issues related to benefit-cost 
analysis.
    We also received comments concerning the speciation of Hg. As we 
explained in the proposed rule, the degree to which emissions control 
devices can remove Hg depends, in large part, on the amount of each 
form (or species) of Hg present in the flue gas. The three relevant 
species of Hg are elemental Hg (Hg\0\), ionic or oxidized Hg 
(Hg<SUP>+</SUP>\2\), and particulate Hg (Hg<INF>p</INF>).\5\ The Hg in 
the flue gas from a coal-fired utility unit consists of these three 
forms of Hg. Because of the importance of the relationship between Hg 
speciation and the level of Hg reduction achievable, we are seeking 
additional information on Hg speciation from coal-fired power plants to 
further inform our regulatory decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 69 FR 4652, January 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments concerning the impact of different levels of emissions 
control on the power sector and the speciation of Hg relate to both of 
the two proposed regulatory approaches described above. With respect to 
the CAA section 112(d) regulatory approach, the comments are relevant 
to whether EPA should adopt a CAA section 112(d) standard that is more 
stringent than the floor (i.e., a beyond-the-floor standard) and at 
what level such a standard should be set. In evaluating a beyond-the-
floor standard under CAA section 112(d), EPA must consider cost, nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts, and energy impacts.\6\ With 
respect to the CAA section 111 regulatory approach, the comments are 
relevant to the level at which standards of performance should be set. 
Similar to the beyond-the-floor analysis under CAA section 112(d), EPA 
must consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, 
and energy requirements in defining the best system of emission 
reduction under CAA section 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize that the public already has access to the comments 
submitted on the January 2004 proposed rule and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal. However, because of the large volume of comments 
received on those proposals, we issue the NODA today to summarize and 
solicit comment on the new data and information presented in the 
comments that are relevant to benefit-cost analysis and to the 
regulatory approaches under consideration.
    The Agency intends to make a final decision on its pending utility 
proposal by March 15, 2005. EPA is still considering the comments 
submitted on the proposal and supplemental proposal and evaluating 
which regulatory approach to pursue.

B. What Are the Specific Issues Relevant to Electric Utility Sector 
Modeling?

    1. Overview. This section of the NODA addresses how the power 
sector is predicted to respond to different levels of emissions 
control. As we explained in the proposed CAMR, in designing regulatory 
programs for the electric power sector, it is important to consider 
(forecast) ways the power sector could respond to such programs.
    In the proposed CAMR, EPA provided a forecast of how the power 
generation mix in the United States (U.S.) would respond to a 
particular regulatory approach.\7\ In response to the proposed rule, 
several commenters provided their own forecasts of power sector 
response. In some cases, the regulatory scenarios modeled by commenters 
were the same or similar to those modeled by EPA. In these cases, we 
can better understand the importance of different input assumptions by 
comparing and contrasting the modeling performed. In other cases, the 
commenters modeled alternative approaches and provided information 
about the tradeoffs in regulatory design. The submitted modeling 
addresses regulatory alternatives that are both more and less stringent 
than our proposal. In all cases, the models are designed to predict a 
least-cost solution to meeting electricity demand, subject to the model 
input assumptions and constraints imposed. These constraints can 
include restrictions on the availability of specific control 
technologies. EPA is currently performing an evaluation of the modeling 
analyses submitted by commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 69 FR 4706, January 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To aid in our decision-making process, we are seeking comment on 
the different input assumptions and constraints and the different 
modeled regulatory approaches as presented in the commenter's modeling 
analyses described below. We also identify below our questions of 
particular interest concerning the new data and information presented 
in the comments.
    2. What is IPM? EPA uses IPM, developed by ICF Consulting (ICF), to 
assess how the electric power industry will respond to various 
environmental policies affecting that industry. IPM is a dynamic linear 
programming model that can be used to examine air pollution

[[Page 69867]]

control policies for Hg and other pollutants throughout the contiguous 
U.S. for the entire power system. IPM finds the least-cost solution to 
meeting electricity demand subject to environmental, transmission, 
reserve margin, and other system operating constraints for any 
specified region and time period. For a given control policy, IPM 
provides an electricity generator with various compliance options, 
including adding pollution controls, changing fuel type, and changing 
dispatch considerations. In addition, IPM provides information on fuel 
market interactions and impacts on the cost of electricity.
    Through licensing agreements with ICF, IPM is used by both public 
and private sector clients. EPA contracted with ICF to develop a 
version of IPM that EPA uses for its own power sector modeling. EPA has 
used IPM to model the nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) State 
implementation plan (SIP) call, the Clear Skies legislative proposal, 
the proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the proposed 
CAMR.\8\ Documentation for how EPA has configured IPM for pollution 
control analysis can be found at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 69 FR 4652, January 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since it began using IPM as a power sector modeling tool, EPA has 
periodically reviewed and updated the assumptions and modeling 
capability of IPM. These updates have included the addition to IPM of 
the capability to model Hg emissions and Hg control costs. However, EPA 
recognizes that its Hg-related assumptions are more uncertain than 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>)- and NO<INF>X</INF>-related assumptions 
due to limited information on controlling Hg from the power sector. 
This is because, although we have recent data on Hg emissions from the 
power sector, and some data on how the Hg speciation profile influences 
the ability to control Hg emissions, the electric power industry has 
much less experience implementing Hg controls than it does 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> controls. Further, as described later 
in this NODA, the full impact of the mix of the various Hg species 
found in the flue gas on the level of control achievable continues to 
be investigated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 69 FR 12401, March 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed further below, some of the commenters submitted 
analyses using IPM. EPA's power sector modeling of the proposed CAMR 
CAA section 112(d) maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
alternative using IPM 2003 is available in the docket in a memorandum 
titled ``Economic and Energy Impact Analysis for the Proposed Utility 
MACT Rulemaking'' (OAR-2002-0056-0048). EPA's power sector modeling of 
the proposed CAMR CAA section 111 trading rule can also be found in the 
docket at OAR-2002-0056-0338 to -0344.
    3. What specific comments did EPA receive on its IPM modeling in 
response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 supplemental 
proposal? During the comment period, EPA received numerous comments 
related to the regulatory approaches outlined in the January 2004 
proposal and the March 2004 supplemental proposal. EPA received 
specific comments on the power sector modeling results from the 
following commenters: Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) (OAR-2002-
0056-3447); Cinergy (OAR-2002-0056-4317 and -4318); Clean Air Task 
Force (CATF), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), et al. (OAR-
2002-0056-3459 and -3460); Edison Electric Institute (EEI) (OAR-2002-
0056-2929, -4894, -4895, and -4896); and Electric Power Research 
Institute (EPRI) (OAR-2002-0056-2578).
    Two of these commenters submitted the results of power sector 
modeling using a version of IPM and two commenters submitted analyses 
using a similar linear programming model. The CCAP submitted analyses 
of multi-pollutant control options for the power sector using a version 
similar to IPM 2003 employing different assumptions about electricity 
demand growth and natural gas prices. Cinergy submitted analyses 
performed using a version of IPM operated by ICF that included 
Cinergy's own unique modeling assumptions. The CATF submitted analyses 
on behalf of several environmental groups using EPA's IPM 2003. EEI 
submitted an analysis performed by Charles River Associates (CRA) using 
the Electric Power Market Model (EPMM; a linear programing model 
similar to IPM). The EPRI comments included the same EPMM analysis. The 
salient details of the individual analyses are described below.
    a. What were the results of CCAP's power sector modeling? CCAP 
established a stakeholder policy dialogue on alternative designs of 
multi-pollutant legislative programs designed to control emissions from 
the power sector. Their analysis was performed using a version of IPM 
similar to EPA's IPM 2003 with different assumptions about electricity 
demand growth and natural gas prices. Some modeling was conducted using 
EPA's IPM 2002 assumptions about demand growth and natural gas prices, 
and some modeling analysis was conducted using the Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) assumptions about demand growth and natural gas 
prices.
    CCAP sponsored a series of modeling runs to look at the costs and 
benefits of incremental changes in Hg cap levels and timing. The 
analysis was based on policy options similar to the Clear Skies 
proposal, using the same SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> caps and 
first phase Hg cap of 26 tons. Among the options analyzed, CCAP 
examined three scenarios that implemented incrementally more stringent 
Hg requirements in Phase 2: 15-ton cap in 2018 (Clear Skies), 10-ton 
cap in 2015, and 7.5-ton cap in 2015.
    Although their comments included several other modeling runs, for 
comparison purposes EPA has summarized in Table 1 below CCAP's model 
runs assuming EIA AEO2003 gas and growth assumptions. EPA notes that 
the term ``total installed capacity'' used in Table 1 includes all 
currently installed controls and control retrofits needed to meet the 
modeled policy. EPA also notes that CCAP's results for the Phase 2 cap 
of 15 tons are taken from EPA's analyses of the Clear Skies Act. CCAP 
recommended that EPA adopt a tighter Phase 2 cap for the proposed Hg 
trading rule, concluding that incremental changes in the timing and 
stringency of a Hg cap have, in CCAP's opinion, relatively modest cost 
implications.

[[Page 69868]]



                                                                         Table 1.--Summary of CCAP Power Sector Modeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Hg phase 2 cap of 15 tons                             Hg phase 2 cap of 10 tons                           Hg phase 2 cap of 7.5 tons
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2010                       2020                       2010                       2020                      2010                      2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg emissions....................  25 tons..................  18 tons..................  21 tons..................  13 tons..................  19 tons.................  11 tons.
Annual costs ($1999)............  $3.3 billion.............  $6.7 billion.............  $4.3 billion.............  $6.8 billion.............  $4.6 billion............  $7.1 billion.
Present value (2005-2025).......                      $64.5 billion
                                                      $71.3 billion
                                                      $75.0 billion
Hg Marginal costs in 2020.......                       $62,190/lb
                                                       $75,190/lb
                                                       $88,060/lb
Total installed capacity:
    FGD.........................  179 GW...................  228 GW...................  171 GW...................  223 GW...................  174 GW..................  220 GW.
    SCR.........................  173 GW...................  229 GW...................  173 GW...................  214 GW...................  173 GW..................  213 GW.
    ACI.........................  13 GW....................  40 GW....................  34 GW....................  70 GW....................  46 GW...................  84 GW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. What were the results of Cinergy's power sector modeling? 
Cinergy used IPM to analyze the economic and environmental impact of 
potential CAIR and Hg policies. Cinergy used a version of IPM offered 
by ICF to its private sector clients. In addition, Cinergy provided 
their own modeling assumptions that differ from those used by EPA, 
including higher electricity demand growth, higher natural gas prices, 
different costs for subbituminous coal switching, higher costs for 
pollution control retrofits, and a higher discount rate.
    The scenarios modeled by Cinergy included a CAIR only scenario, 
``CAIR plus Hg trading'' scenario, ``CAIR plus EPA MACT'' scenario, and 
``CAIR plus stringent MACT'' scenario. The ``CAIR plus stringent MACT'' 
scenario has no subcategorization and a 0.88 pounds per trillion 
British thermal units (lb/TBtu) rate for all affected units, starts in 
2008, and assumes that ACI is not commercially available until 2010. 
Results of the Cinergy analysis of Hg reduction scenarios are 
summarized in Table 2 below. Present value costs are for a 20-year 
period and assume a 7 percent discount rate. Although Cinergy's 
modeling assumed the availability of ACI, Cinergy raised concerns about 
the availability and performance of ACI in the 2008 to 2010 timeframe.
    For the CAIR only scenario, Cinergy's analysis projects a Hg co-
benefit level in 2010 of 38 tons. For the ``CAIR plus Hg trading'' 
scenario, the Cinergy analysis projected Hg marginal costs from 2010 to 
2020 to reach the safety valve price of $35,000/lb. Cinergy's model 
also projected lower bituminous coal consumption, 25 percent higher 
subbituminous coal consumption, and 10 percent higher lignite coal 
consumption when compared to EPA's Hg trading results. For the ``CAIR 
plus stringent MACT'' scenario, Cinergy modeling concluded that, due to 
the lack of ACI controls, units had to switch to lower Hg coals, 
install flue gas desulfurization/selective catalytic reduction (FGD/
SCR), or shut down in order to achieve compliance. In addition, Cinergy 
concluded that an unrealistic number of FGD/SCR were installed by 2008 
in order to meet the MACT limit (about 10 gigawatt (GW) of FGD and 30 
GW of SCR). The Cinergy analysis projected that units burning 
subbituminous and lignite coals would shut down for 2 years because no 
technologies would exist until 2010 to comply with stringent MACT 
emissions limits. Cinergy's analyses predicted that natural gas- and 
oil-fired units would be operated to make up the generation short fall. 
This resulted in significant increases in power prices and fuel prices 
in the short term. Once ACI became available in the model in 2010, 
units installed such controls and started operating again.

                                                                       Table 2.--Summary of Cinergy Power Sector Modeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Hg trading plus CAIR                              Proposed CAMR MACT plus CAIR                           Stringent MACT plus CAIR
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2010                       2020                       2010                       2020                      2010                      2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg emissions....................  32 tons..................  26 tons..................  33 tons..................  30 tons..................  9 tons..................  9 tons.
Present Value ($2000) for 20                           $65 billion
 year.
                                                       $64 billion
                                                      $130 billion
Total installed capacity:
    FGD.........................  150 GW...................  200 GW...................  160 GW...................  180 GW...................  180 GW..................  180 GW.
    SCR.........................  150 GW...................  160 GW...................  140 GW...................  170 GW...................  165 GW..................  175 GW.
    ACI.........................  10 GW....................  25 GW....................  15 GW....................  20 GW....................  120 GW..................  120 GW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: No annual costs were provided by Cinergy in their comments.

    c. What were the results of CATF's power sector modeling? CATF 
modeled two MACT scenarios with the assistance of ICF using EPA's IPM 
2003. The two scenarios modeled were: (1) EPA's CAMR MACT alternative 
proposal in combination with EPA's CAIR proposal (``CAMR MACT plus 
CAIR''), and (2) an ``Alternative Mercury Control Scenario.'' In their 
comments, CATF states that their ``Alternate Mercury Control Scenario'' 
is consistent with EPA's proposed ``CAMR MACT'' approach of basing 
subcategories on fuel rank; however, CATF notes that the emission rates 
used by EPA in its modeling do not represent what they believe to be 
MACT. The CATF states that their analysis is provided to ``demonstrate 
that more stringent Hg emission rates are feasible and highly cost-
effective.''
    The alternative emission rates CATF evaluated are standards 
representing 90 percent Hg reduction (measured as a reduction from the 
Hg content in the input coal) for bituminous-fired units,

[[Page 69869]]

1.5 lb/TBtu for subbituminous-fired units, and 4.5 lb/TBtu for lignite-
fired units. As stated in the CATF comments, the 90 percent level was 
specified for bituminous-fired units because the version of IPM used by 
CATF could not simulate Hg reductions any higher than 90 percent 
through the use of retrofitted control technology. EPA notes, however, 
that IPM can model reductions greater than 90 percent through fuel 
switching, dispatch changes, or retirements.
    A summary of the CATF analysis of the EPA proposed ``CAMR MACT plus 
CAIR'' and ``Alternative Mercury Control Scenario'' plus CAIR is 
provided in Table 3 below. EPA notes that the term ``total installed 
capacity'' used in Table 3 below includes all currently installed 
controls and control retrofits needed to meet modeled policy. EPA 
further notes that EPA's Base Case 2003 projects about 115 GW of 
scrubbers and 116 GW of SCR by 2010.

                                                     Table 3.--Summary of CATF Power Sector Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        CAMR MACT plus CAIR                          Alternative Mercury Control Scenario plus CAIR
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2010                          2020                         2010                         2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg emissions.......................  26 tons.....................  23 tons....................  12 tons....................  12 tons.
Annual costs ($1999)...............  $5.7 billion................  $7.1 billion...............  $8.4 billion...............  $7.7 billion.
Total installed capacity:
    FGD............................  193 GW......................  233 GW.....................  221 GW.....................  224 GW.
    SCR............................  145 GW......................  177 GW.....................  172 GW.....................  174 GW.
    ACI............................  17 GW.......................  19 GW......................  102 GW.....................  102 GW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: No present value costs were provided by CATF in their comments.

    CATF concluded that the ``Alternate Mercury Control Scenario'' 
results in shifts toward more bituminous coal use (in 2020, about 7 
percent from Base Case 2003) and declines in subbituminous and lignite 
coal use (in 2020, about 27 percent and 13 percent from Base Case 2003, 
respectively). CATF projected a similar shift in reaction to EPA's 
proposed ``MACT plus CAIR'' scenario (i.e., increase of about 5 percent 
for bituminous, decreases of about 24 percent and 15 percent for 
subbituminous and lignite, respectively). In addition, CATF concluded 
that the ``Alternate Mercury Control Scenario'' reduces coal use in 
2020 by less than 1 percent compared to EPA's proposed ``CAMR MACT plus 
CAIR'' scenario, to a level that would be about 6 percent above current 
(2001) electric power generation coal consumption.
    d. What were the results of EEI's power sector modeling? EEI's 
power sector modeling was performed using CRA's EPMM model. As noted 
above, EPRI's comments included the same CRA EPMM modeling analysis as 
EEI. Some of the EPMM modeling assumptions differ from those of EPA, 
including higher natural gas prices, higher electric growth demand, 
different Hg co-benefit assumptions for NO<INF>X</INF> and 
SO<INF>2</INF> controls, and different costs and performance for ACI. 
The scenarios modeled by EEI include a CAIR-only scenario, ``CAIR plus 
EPA MACT'' scenario, and three ``CAIR plus Hg trading'' scenarios. EEI 
modeled two cases of the EPA-proposed Hg trading scenario with a 34-ton 
first-phase cap in 2010 and a 15-ton second phase cap in 2018. (Note 
that EPA did not propose a 34-ton first-phase cap but, rather, took 
comment on the appropriate level of the Phase 1 cap.) One of EEI's 
cases assumed a 2.5 percent annual improvement in variable operating 
costs for ACI, and the other did not include this assumption. EEI also 
modeled an alternative Hg trading scenario with a 24-ton cap in 2015 
and a 15-ton cap in 2018, assuming 2.5 percent annual improvement in 
variable operating costs for ACI. Under this alternative option, early 
reduction credits can be earned and banked during the period 2010 to 
2014 through early application of Hg control technologies (e.g., ACI). 
To simulate early reduction credits, the EEI analysis set caps equal to 
co-benefits during this period. The co-benefits were defined as the Hg 
emissions from the comparable CAIR-only scenario, 39.9 tons in 2010 and 
2011, and 38.5 tons for 2012 through 2014.
    Results of the EEI analysis of Hg reduction scenarios are 
summarized in Table 4 below. Present value costs in Table 4 are for 
2004 to 2020 and assume an 8 percent discount rate, consistent with 
EEI's analysis. For Hg trading scenarios, EPA notes that EEI projected 
emissions of 15 tons in 2020 appear to be an artifact of the grouping 
of the 2020 run year with the model end run year of 2040. EPA maintains 
that, in a least-cost solution model like EPMM, the model would solve 
for the cap in the final run year grouping. Therefore, Hg emissions 
reported for trading scenarios in the table below are those projected 
for 2019, because EPA believes they better represent emissions in 2020, 
i.e., if 2020 had not been grouped with 2040. The Hg trading scenarios 
have been modeled without a safety valve.
    EEI's analysis also included information on projected technology 
retrofits. EEI notes in their comments that these projections reflect 
the quantities necessary to comply with the proposed rules and may not 
reflect what is feasible to retrofit or what is commercially available. 
EEI also noted in their comments, that although they modeled the 
availability of ACI at 90 percent removal, the cost and effectiveness 
of ACI control technology remains uncertain, especially on 
subbituminous coal-fired units.

                                                                         Table 4.--Summary of EEI Power Sector Modeling*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Proposed CAMR MACT plus CAIR                Hg trading plus CAIR             Hg trading plus CAIR (improved ACI       Alternative Hg trading plus CAIR
                                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 costs)                           (improved ACI costs)
                                                                                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         2010                2020                2010                2020                2010                2020                2010                2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hg emissions**.................  32 tons............  30 tons...........  34 tons...........  24 tons...........  34 tons...........  24 tons...........  37 tons...........  23 tons.
Annual costs ($1999)...........  $4.4 billion.......  $6.8 billion......  $2.5 billion......  $8.1 billion......  $2.5 billion......  $8.0 billion......  $2.6 billion......  $7.7 billion.

[[Page 69870]]

 
Present value (2004-2020)......               $27.8 billion
                                              $19.7 billion
                                              $19.1 billion
                                              $19.4 billion
Hg marginal costs in 2020......               Not applicable
                                                $37,285/lb
                                                $32,536/lb
                                                $32,536/lb
Total installed capacity:
    FGD........................  153 GW.............  180 GW............  128 GW............  192 GW............  128 GW............  193 GW............  129 GW............  195 GW.
    SCR........................  134 GW.............  153 GW............  120 GW............  148 GW............  121 GW............  148 GW............  121 GW............  148 GW.
    ACI........................  67 GW..............  67 GW.............  16 GW.............  107 GW............  16 GW.............  112 GW............  16 GW.............  112 GW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EPRI comments submitted the same modeling analysis.
** Emission results are presented for 2019.

    4. What are the areas of ongoing EPA research? EPA is in the 
process of evaluating the above comments and data and, as noted above, 
has developed certain preliminary reactions to the comments. We are 
seeking comment on certain aspects of the above modeling analyses. As 
demonstrated by the above summaries of the comments, estimates of the 
impact of Hg regulation on the power sector are sensitive to model 
input assumptions. To increase the accuracy of EPA's power sector 
modeling as related to forecasting the power sector's response to 
environmental regulatory programs, we are seeking comment and/or 
additional information to inform our regulatory decision.
    Moreover, since the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal, we have become aware of new information on the 
ability of sorbent injection technologies to remove Hg emissions from 
coal-fired power plants (e.g., results of ACI testing over a period of 
several months at Southern Company's Plant Gaston, brominated activated 
carbon (B*PAC<SUP>TM</SUP>) injection at Detroit Edison's St. Clair 
Power Plant, etc.). To this end, the Agency is seeking updated 
information on issues that may be relevant to assessing the assumptions 
employed in our power sector modeling (e.g., removal efficiencies, 
capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, timeline for 
commercialization, balance of plant issues, etc.). Specifically, we are 
interested in obtaining information on:
    a. In some of EEI's analyses, EEI assumed a 2.5 percent annual 
improvement in variable operating costs for ACI. Is it appropriate for 
an economic forecast to assume an improvement in costs over time (such 
as through technology cost reductions or through future technology 
innovation), and, if yes, what level of improvement in costs should be 
assumed?
    b. Due to model size considerations, limited knowledge on 
achievable levels of Hg control, and limited knowledge on assessing the 
full impact of the Hg speciation profile on control, IPM has limited Hg 
control retrofit options. Currently, IPM assumes that Hg reductions are 
achieved only through use of SCR and FGD or ACI (with or without fabric 
filter). (EPA notes that Hg reductions in IPM can also be achieved 
through fuel switching, dispatch changes, and retirements.) Should 
other control options be considered in EPA's power sector modeling 
(e.g., retrofit of fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators, pre-
combustion controls, and the optimization of SO<INF>2</INF> or 
NO<INF>X</INF> controls)?
    c. To the extent commenters believe that control considerations 
other than those noted in the proposal or in the preceding paragraphs 
should be included in power sector modeling, EPA is seeking data on the 
timeline for commercialization, cost, balance of plant issues, and 
performance of such control options.
    d. CATF and Cinergy both modeled more stringent MACT-type options. 
However, CATF assumed that ACI would be available in 2005 for all coal 
types, while Cinergy assumed that ACI would be available in 2010 for 
all coal types for one MACT scenario modeled. (EPA notes that for 
Cinergy's other modeled scenarios, including a MACT scenario, it 
assumed ACI would be available in 2005.) The year of availability for 
ACI is an assumption that appears to have made a large difference in 
the projected impacts of a MACT-type option. (Note that in a January 
2004 white paper, we projected that ACI technology would be available 
for commercial application after 2010 and that removal levels in the 70 
percent to 90 percent range could be achievable. This assumes the 
funding and successful implementation of an aggressive, comprehensive 
research and development program at both EPA and the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE). Such applications represent only the initiation of a 
potential national retrofit program, which would take a number of years 
to fully implement. Since release of the white paper, we have received 
numerous comments on technology and have additional test data. We are 
currently evaluating this new information.) \10\ What assumptions for 
ACI availability are most appropriate? Specifically, what date of 
availability for ACI technology is appropriate to consider in a 
modeling analysis, at what quantities, for what coal types, and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See OAR-2002-0056-0043 and -0463.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. EEI estimated that ACI would be less expensive per pound of Hg 
removed than EPA has estimated. In addition, Cinergy assumed higher 
capital costs for ACI than EPA in its modeled scenarios. Are EPA's Hg 
control technology cost assumptions reasonable? Although EPA has 
information on the costs of ACI, EPA is seeking additional detailed 
data addressing the validity of the costs assumed for ACI.
    f. Analyses by commenters and EPA of Hg trading programs indicate 
that variations in the first phase cap level and timing impact when the 
final cap level will be achieved (i.e., the emissions reduction ``glide 
path''). Although banking in the first phase impacts the timing of 
achieving the second phase cap, it should not affect the cumulative Hg 
emissions reductions ultimately achieved under the program. EPA is 
seeking additional comment on the impact banking may have on the timing 
of achieving the second phase cap.
    g. EPA received comments estimating the co-benefits of Hg 
reductions associated with implementation of the proposed CAIR (i.e., 
the level of Hg

[[Page 69871]]

reductions realized as a result of compliance with the proposed CAIR). 
Cinergy estimates a co-benefit level in 2010 of 38 tons as compared to 
current emissions of 48 tons. EEI estimates a co-benefit level in 2010 
of 40 tons. Both groups modeled a 34-ton first phase cap. In light of 
these modeling analyses, EPA is seeking additional comment on the 
reasonableness of its current IPM assumptions co-benefit reductions. 
Emission modification factors (EMF) are one component of the estimated 
Hg co-benefits from the proposed CAIR. A comparison of co-benefit 
assumptions used in EPA and other modeling is provided in Table 5. We 
are also seeking comment on appropriate EMF.

                                            Table 5.--Hg Removal Assumptions for Pollution Control Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        EPA 2003 EMFs               CRA 2004 EMFs EIA             EIA AEO2004 EMFs
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Name for control                                    Subbit    Lignite             Subbit    Lignite             Subbit    Lignite
                                                                 Bit EMF     EMF       EMF     Bit EMF     EMF       EMF     Bit EMF     EMF       EMF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC/CS-ESP.....................................................      0.64      0.97      1.00      0.65      0.80      0.90      0.64      0.97      1.00
PC/CS-ESP/FGD.................................................      0.34      0.84      0.56      0.40      0.65      0.65      0.34      0.73      0.58
PC/CS-ESP/FGD-Dry.............................................      0.64      0.65      1.00      0.50      0.85      0.90      0.64      0.65      1.00
PC/CS-ESP/SCR/FGD.............................................      0.10      0.34      0.56      0.15      0.65      0.65      0.10      0.73      0.58
PC/FF.........................................................      0.11      0.27      1.00      0.25      0.35      0.90      0.11      0.27      1.00
PC/FF/FGD.....................................................      0.10      0.27      1.00      0.15      0.25      0.60      0.05      0.27      0.64
PC/FF/FGD-Dry.................................................      0.05      0.75      1.00      0.15      0.75      0.90      0.05      0.75      1.00
PC/FF/SCR/FGD.................................................      0.10      0.15      0.56      0.10      0.25      0.60      0.10      0.27      0.64
PC/HS-ESP.....................................................      0.90      0.94      1.00      0.80      1.00      1.00      0.90      0.94      1.00
PC/HS-ESP/FGD.................................................      0.58      0.80      1.00      0.45      0.70      0.70      0.58      0.80      1.00
PC/HS-ESP/FGD-Dry.............................................      0.60      0.85      1.00        na        na        na      0.60      0.85      1.00
PC/HS-ESP/SCR/FGD.............................................      0.10      0.75      1.00      0.15      0.70      0.70      0.42      0.76     0.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: PC: pulverized coal; CS-ESP: cold-side electrostatic precipitator; HS-ESP: hot-side electrostatic precipitator; FGD: flue gas desulfurization;
  SCR: selective catalytic reduction; FF: fabric filter; EMF: emission modification factor (% reduction = 1--EMF) EPA 2003 EMFs used by CATF and CCAP
  analyses; Charles River Associates (CRA) EMFs used in EEI analysis; AEO2004 EMF used in Energy Information Administration (EIA) modeling.

    h. More recent test data than were available at proposal on 
subbituminous-fired units equipped with SCR indicate that SCR does not 
enhance the oxidation of Hg<SUP>0</SUP> on such coals and, thus, does 
not provide for additional capture in a wet scrubber.\11\ Based on 
these test data, EPA is considering revising the EMF for subbituminous 
coal-fired units equipped with SCR and wet FGD in modeling for the 
final rule. For the EMF identified in Table 5 for such units, EPA 
recommends the use of the EMF control combination before a SCR is added 
(i.e., ascribe no additional control due to the addition of the SCR). 
Thus, EPA is considering making the following three changes to the 
subbituminous coal EMF used in IPM: for CS-ESP/SCR/FGD, use CS-ESP/FGD 
(0.84); for FF/SCR/FGD, use FF/FGD (0.27); and for HS-ESP/SCR/FGD, use 
HS-ESP/FGD (0.80). EPA is seeking comment on these proposed EMF 
changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See OAR-2002-0056-1268 and -1270.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA notes that other recent test data (e.g., DOE- and 
EPRI-sponsored testing on Hg controls) may be available that would 
influence EMF used in EPA modeling. EPA is seeking comment on the 
appropriateness of using other test data for EMF development and 
requests that commenters submit any test data that may be relevant.

C. Issues of Hg Speciation

    This section addresses the issue of Hg speciation. As explained 
further below, we are seeking additional input on the species (or form) 
of Hg emitted in the flue gas, the percentage of each species emitted 
in the flue gas, and how those percentages in total (i.e., the 
speciation profile) affect the analysis of how the power sector could 
respond to different levels of emissions control.
    1. Overview. To quantify the relative contribution of Hg emissions 
from U.S. coal-fired power plants on total nationwide Hg deposition, 
the EPA initiated an Information Collection Request (ICR) in 1999 under 
the provisions of CAA section 114. During this data collection effort, 
incoming coal shipments for all coal-fired power plants in the U.S. 
were tested for Hg content (for calendar year 1999) and other selected 
coal properties (e.g., ash, sulfur and chlorine content, etc.). 
Additionally, during 1999, 81 power plants--chosen to be representative 
of the entire U.S. power plant sector--were tested for stack emissions 
of Hg using the Ontario-Hydro sampling method. The Ontario-Hydro method 
provided EPA with speciated Hg emissions (i.e., Hg<SUP>0</SUP>, 
Hg<SUP>+2</SUP>, and Hg<INF>p</INF>) for these tested units. Data from 
these tests were then extrapolated to all domestic coal-fired power 
plants and used to generate a national total Hg emissions estimate for 
1999 (48 tons per year). These data were further used to provide a 
national estimate of emissions of the three forms of Hg as follows: 
Hg<SUP>0</SUP>--54 percent, Hg<SUP>+2</SUP>--43 percent, and 
Hg<INF>p</INF>--3 percent. Plant-specific estimates based on these data 
were used in the IPM modeling activities discussed elsewhere in this 
notice. In general, eastern bituminous coals emitted the least amount 
of Hg<SUP>0</SUP> (the species most difficult to control); followed by 
western subbituminous coals (e.g., Powder River Basin (PRB), etc.); and 
the northern and southern lignite coals. To this end, the 1999 ICR data 
collection effort provided EPA one of the most comprehensive databases 
available to date regarding Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants.
    In the proposed CAMR, EPA discussed the relevance and importance of 
characterizing the species of Hg emitted in the flue gas and solicited 
comment on that issue. EPA received significant public input as a 
result. As we and commenters have recognized, the form (or species) of 
Hg emitted in the flue gas affects the ability to control Hg emissions 
\12\ and the form of Hg released from a stack affects the atmospheric 
fate and transport of Hg. The species of Hg, therefore, is relevant to 
assessing the costs associated with different levels of Hg emissions 
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 69 FR 4672, January 30, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. What specific comments on Hg speciation did EPA receive in 
response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 supplemental 
proposal? A number of comments were provided on

[[Page 69872]]

the importance of speciated Hg emission information and potential 
atmospheric transformations during the public comment period. Among 
these are comments or attachments submitted by the following: EPRI 
(OAR-2002-0056-2578); Hubbard Brook Research Foundation (HBRF) (OAR-
2002-0056-2038); Southern Company (OAR-2002-0056-2948); Subbituminous 
Energy Coalition (SEC) (OAR-2002-0056-2379); and Utility Air Regulatory 
Group (UARG) (OAR-2002-0056-2922 and -2928).
    EPRI provided information (in Section A of their report) on plume-
simulating chamber studies that indicate transformation of Hg species 
in the plume. This work was followed by studies to evaluate the 
speciation changes in actual power plant plumes.
    HBRF (in Section 3 of their report) provided comment on the 
validity of using an average speciation profile for all coal-fired 
power plants. SEC raised questions about the speciation profile for 
units burning a mix of coals. Southern Company and UARG indicated that, 
because the Hg speciation dictates the level of control that may be 
achieved with existing control equipment, different Hg emission limits 
must be established for the different coal ranks.
    3. What are the areas of ongoing EPA research? EPA is evaluating 
all of the comments on speciation that it received in response to the 
proposed CAMR. To further aid in our review of these comments, to 
supplement our existing 1999 ICR database, and to aid in our decision-
making process, EPA is seeking additional comment on the following 
areas.
    a. We have received numerous comments on subcategorization by coal 
type and the speciation profiles resulting from the combustion of 
various coal types. We are seeking additional specific data and 
information on the speciation profiles of various types and blends of 
fuels.
    b. Commenters have questioned the appropriateness of using a 
standard (or average) speciation profile in modeling analyses conducted 
for all coal-fired power plants. The Agency is seeking comment on if/
when a standard (or average) speciation profile should be used for 
either the CAA section 111 or CAA section 112 regulatory approach.
    c. Is it currently feasible, or will it be feasible within the 
compliance timeframes of the proposed rule, to accurately monitor a 
source's Hg emissions by species?

III. EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Assessment

A. What Is the Relevant Background?

    Consistent with EO 12866, EPA included a benefits assessment in the 
proposed CAMR. EPA received comments on that assessment. Based on those 
comments and in furtherance of our obligations under EO 12866, we have 
preliminarily revised our proposed approach to analyzing the benefits 
associated with Hg emission reductions from power plants. We explain 
below our proposed revised benefits methodology. We also identify below 
comments received on the proposed CAMR that provide analyses or 
information relevant to our proposed revised benefits approach. We 
further identify those commenters that presented approaches that differ 
from our revised approach, as described below. We seek comment on our 
proposed revised benefits methodology and on the strengths and 
weaknesses of the analytical approaches presented in the comments to 
the extent they relate to our proposed revised benefits methodology.
    Although this section of the NODA addresses the benefits analysis 
that we must prepare for purposes of EO 12866, we recognize that the 
costs and benefits of reducing emissions are often inter-related. Thus, 
to the extent that we receive any comments or other information in the 
process of completing the benefits assessment for purposes of EO 12866 
and to the extent that such information bears on the statutory factors 
relevant to setting either a beyond-the-floor standard for Hg under CAA 
section 112(d) or a standard of performance for Hg under CAA section 
111, we intend to evaluate and consider that information as we make a 
final decision as to which regulatory approach to pursue.

B. How Is EPA Estimating Reductions in Hg Exposure Associated With the 
CAMR?

    EPA's proposed revised benefits analysis attempts to estimate the 
extent to which adverse human health effects will be reduced as a 
result of reducing Hg emissions from coal-fired power plants. 
Translating estimates of reductions in Hg emissions from coal-fired 
power plants to health outcomes in humans is a function of a number of 
complex chemical, physical, and biological processes, as well as a wide 
variety of human behaviors and responses.
    The relevant events and processes include the following:
    <bullet> The magnitude and nature of current and forecasted Hg 
emissions from coal-fired power plants, as well as the magnitude and 
species of current Hg emissions from other sources, both domestic and 
international.
    <bullet> The physical transport of vapor and particle-phase Hg 
emissions in the air, as well as the chemical transformations that 
occur to Hg as it reacts with other chemical species in the atmosphere.
    <bullet> The deposition of inorganic Hg onto terrestrial and 
aquatic surfaces, and the transport of Hg from terrestrial systems to 
surface water bodies.
    <bullet> The biological, chemical, and physical processes that 
control the rate of methylmercury (MeHg) production in surface waters 
and aquatic sediments and the bioavailability of Hg to organisms.
    <bullet> The composition and complexity of aquatic food webs and 
species-specific factors such as diet composition, chemical 
assimilation efficiencies, and metabolism that affect the 
bioaccumulation of MeHg in fish.
    <bullet> The extent to which specific water bodies are used for a 
variety of fishing activities, either by individuals or commercially.
    <bullet> Different human fish consumption behaviors, including for 
specific subpopulations.
    <bullet> The human response to MeHg exposure.
    EPA's proposed revised benefits methodology attempts to 
characterize, either directly or indirectly, each of the above events 
and processes. EPA specifically is seeking to estimate the reduction in 
exposure to MeHg associated with reducing Hg emissions from coal-fired 
power plants. We are seeking comment on our proposed revised benefits 
approach, as described below. As noted above, we are also seeking 
comment on the comments that we received that are relevant to our 
proposed revised benefits methodology.
    The following sections describe each of the steps of our proposed 
revised benefits methodology. Those steps can be categorized broadly as 
follows:
    <bullet> Quantify Hg emissions that are projected from U.S. coal-
fired power plants under the Base Case and CAMR and then quantify Hg 
emissions that result from sources other than U.S. coal-fired power 
plants. The power sector modeling described above and in more detail at 
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/epa-ipm/ will assist in the 
quantification of Hg from U.S. coal-fired power plants.
    <bullet> Model the atmospheric dispersion, atmospheric speciation, 
and deposition of Hg.

[[Page 69873]]

    <bullet> Model the link between changes in Hg deposition and 
changes in the MeHg concentration in fish.
    <bullet> Assess the types and amounts of fish consumed by U.S. 
consumers and, from that, assess the resulting MeHg exposure.
    <bullet> Assess how reductions in human exposure to MeHg affects 
human health.

C. Step 1 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: Analyzing Hg 
Emissions From Other Sources

    1. Overview. As stated in the proposed CAMR, Hg exposure is both a 
domestic and a global issue. From a domestic perspective, power plants 
are one source of Hg air emissions, but there are other domestic 
sources of man-made Hg. Mercury also enters the atmosphere from a 
variety of natural processes, including, for example, volcanic 
eruptions, groundwater seepage, and evaporation from the oceans.
    EPA currently does not have an inventory of natural or re-emitted 
sources suitable for modeling purposes. EPA does, however, have 
inventories concerning man-made domestic and international sources of 
Hg. These inventories have been used over the past decade in air 
quality and air deposition modeling.<SUP>13 14</SUP> They are important 
because the first step of EPA's proposed revised benefits methodology 
is to quantify Hg emissions that result from sources other than U.S. 
coal-fired power plants. In particular, the inventories enable us to 
establish upwind and downwind boundary conditions to apportion exposure 
to non-natural domestic and international sources of Hg emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Pacyna, J.M., E.G. Pacyna, F. Steenhuisen, S. Wilson. 2003. 
Mapping 1995 Global Anthropogenic Emissions of Mercury. Atmosph. 
Env., 37, p. 109-117.
    \14\ Seigneur, C., K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Loman, P. 
Karamchandani, C. Scott. 2004. Global Source Attribution for Mercury 
Deposition in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, p. 555-
569.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inventory sets that EPA currently is considering using include 
an update/modification to the 1999 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 
for all U.S. anthropogenic sources for criteria pollutants and for all 
U.S. anthropogenic non-power plant sources for Hg emissions, the 1995 
Canadian criteria pollutant inventory for Canadian anthropogenic 
sources, and the 2000 Hg inventory for Canadian anthropogenic 
sources.\15\ EPA is also planning on using GEOS-CHEM for modeling 
boundary conditions representing the global background.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The update of the 1999 NEI (1) updates emissions of 
criteria pollutants to 2001, (2) removes fugitive dust sources of Hg 
in the few States where the original 1999 NEI includes them, and (3) 
replaces the 1999 NEI estimates of 1999 Hg emissions from medical 
waste incinerators with more recent data on 2002 emissions. The 
original 1999 NEI is posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/1999inventory.html. The 2001 criteria pollutant inventory for U.S. 
sources is available in EPA Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0053, and is the 
same as made available in the Notice of Data Availability for the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (69 FR 47828, August 6, 2004). The 
updated/modified 1999 U.S. Hg inventory and the Canadian inventory 
for all pollutants are posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/invent/index.html.
    \16\ See http://www-as.harvard.edu/chemistry/trop/geos/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also aware of research conducted by EPA and others (e.g., at 
Cheeka Peak, WA; Steubenville, OH; Mauna Loa, HI; Mt. Bachelor, OR; and 
Okinawa).\17\ That research, for example, provides important 
information about Hg fate and transport and relative domestic and 
international source contributions. The research also provides 
speciated high altitude atmospheric measurements of Hg. These 
measurements may improve our understanding of the atmospheric reactions 
that alter the chemical species of Hg in the atmosphere and that 
ultimately impact fate and transport of emissions originating in Asian 
countries and other international sources. This research is, therefore, 
directly relevant to the first step of our preliminary proposed revised 
benefits methodology, as it affects our ability to estimate the U.S. 
power plant contribution to total Hg deposition within the U.S. EPA is 
seeking comment on this step of its proposed revised benefits 
methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimsapi.dispdetail?deid=56181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on Hg emissions from 
other sources in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 
2004 supplemental proposal? EPA received a number of public comments 
that are relevant to the issue of assessing Hg emissions from sources 
other than U.S. coal-fired power plants, including comments from the 
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) (OAR-2002-0056-2256); 
EPRI (OAR-2002-0056-2578); HBRF (OAR-2002-0056-2038); National Mining 
Association (OAR-2002-0056-2434); TXU Energy (OAR-2002-0056-1831); and 
UARG (OAR-2002-0056-2922). Some of these comments employed different 
approaches for simulating boundary conditions for apportioning Hg 
exposure from domestic and international sources, and we are interested 
in obtaining public input on these alternative approaches and analyses.

D. Step 2 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: Analyzing Air 
Dispersion Modeling Capabilities

    1. Overview. The second step of our proposed revised benefits 
methodology requires modeling the atmospheric dispersion, atmospheric 
speciation, and deposition of Hg. This is a critical step in our 
analysis because to evaluate the benefits of reducing Hg emissions from 
coal-fired power plants, we need to understand how Hg moves through the 
atmosphere and how it is ultimately deposited.
    Over the past decade, EPA has used a variety of analytical and 
numerical simulation tools to project the atmospheric transport, 
chemistry, and deposition of both criteria (e.g., ozone, fine 
particles, etc.) and toxic (e.g., Hg) air pollutants. These models 
range in complexity from simple, one-layer Gaussian dispersion models 
(e.g., Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) model \18\) to more complex, 
multi-layer Lagrangian puff-type trajectory models (e.g., Hybrid Single 
Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model\19\), and 
finally to complex three-dimensional (3-D) Eulerian grid models (e.g., 
Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model <SUP>20 21 22</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt22.htm#isc; http://www.epa.gov/scram001/userg/regmod/isc3v2.pdf; and http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/iscprime/useguide.pdf.
    \19\ See http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html.
    \20\ Amar, P., R. Bornstein, H. Feldman, H. Jeffries, D. Steyn, 
R. Yamartino, Y. Zhang. 2004. Review of CMAQ Model, December 17-18, 
2003. See http://hill.nccr.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/PeerReview_of_CMAQ.pdf.
    \21\ Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) Model 
Documentation. See http://hill.nccr.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/CMAQ_Documentation.pdf.
    \22\ Byun, D.W., N. Moon, D. Jacob, R. Park. Linking CMAQ with 
GEOS-CHEM. See http://hill.nccr.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/GEOSCHEMforCMAQ_Description.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and others have been using a suite of complex numerical models 
to assess the transport and fate of Hg emissions in the local, 
regional, and global atmosphere. In the Utility Report to Congress, EPA 
relied heavily on the ISC3 dispersion model to assess near-field Hg 
deposition effects.\23\ The HYSPLIT model has also been used 
extensively in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay watersheds to analyze 
source-receptor relationships for Hg deposition in these areas.\24\ The

[[Page 69874]]

Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition (REMSAD),\25\ a 3-
D Eulerian grid model, has been used in recent years for several State-
based total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments for Hg deposition to 
local watersheds.\26\ In addition, REMSAD was used to assess the 
depositional changes associated with the implementation of the Clear 
Skies Act of 2003.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ U.S. EPA. February 1998. op. cit. pp. ES-16, ES-20, and 7-
28.
    \24\ Cohen, M., R. Artz, R. Draxler, P. Miller, L. Poissant, D. 
Niemi, D. Ratte, M. Deslauriers, R. Duval, R. Laurin, J. Slotnick, 
J. Neetesheim, J. McDonald. 2004. Modeling the Atmospheric Transport 
and Deposition of Mercury to the Great Lakes. Environ. Res., 95, p. 
247-265.
    \25\ See http://remsad.saintl.com/.
    \26\ ICF Consulting. August 5, 2004. EPA Region 6--REMSAD Air 
Deposition Modeling in Support of TMDL Development for Southern 
Louisiana. Final Report. Prepared for EPA Region 6.
    \27\ See http://epa.gov/clearskies/air_quality_tech.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, EPA and EPRI have applied 3-D Eulerian modeling 
platforms to assess both domestic and global Hg deposition, 
respectively. EPA has been evaluating the atmospheric transport, 
transformation, and deposition of Hg using the CMAQ model over four 1-
month periods (two in 1995 and two in 2001) and over the entire year of 
2001.\28\ CMAQ uses a ``one-atmosphere'' approach and addresses the 
complex physical and chemical interactions known to occur among 
multiple pollutants in the free atmosphere. The spatial resolution 
(i.e., the ability to observe concentration or depositional gradients/
differences) of the gridded output information from CMAQ is generally 
considered to be either 36 kilometers (km), 12 km, or 4 km; however, to 
date, CMAQ results have only been developed for Hg modeling at the 36 
km resolution. In simulating the transport, transformation, and 
deposition of pollutants, CMAQ resolves 14 vertical layers in the 
atmosphere, and employs finer-scale resolution near the surface to 
simulate deposition to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. CMAQ 
transport is defined using a higher-order meteorological model, 
commonly the Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/National 
Center for Atmospheric Research mesoscale model (MMM5) \29\ (current 
modeling analyses are planning to use calendar year 2001 meteorological 
data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Bullock, O., K. Brehme. 2002. Atmospheric Mercury 
Simulation Using the CMAQ Model: Formulation Description and 
Analysis of Wet Deposition Results. Atmosph. Environ., 36, p. 2135-
2146.
    \29\ See http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/mm5-home.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, EPA is planning to use REMSAD and CMAQ for modeling the 
atmospheric dispersion, speciation, and deposition of Hg. EPA is 
specifically planning to use CMAQ version 4.4 with Hg with a horizontal 
resolution of 36 km and 14 vertical layers and REMSAD version 7.13 also 
with a horizontal resolution of 36 km and 14 vertical layers. As 
described above, EPA is planning to use the GEOS-CHEM global model for 
boundary conditions input to both REMSAD and CMAQ. EPA is seeking 
comment on its proposed use of REMSAD and CMAQ to evaluate how Hg moves 
through the atmosphere and how it will ultimately be deposited.
    An important aspect of the second step of our proposed revised 
benefits methodology is the evaluation of the REMSAD and CMAQ modeling. 
In evaluating modeling, we seek to compare the simulated results with 
ambient monitoring information to assess the quality of the modeled 
simulations. The Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) provides the only 
source of routinely available empirical domestic Hg deposition 
information. MDN is a collaborative network involving several 
organizations (e.g., United States Geological Survey (USGS), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, EPA) and is part of the 
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) network of sites across 
the U.S.\30\ As of spring 2003, the MDN contained approximately 90 
sites across the U.S. and Canada, which provide measurements of wet 
deposition of total Hg, integrated over weekly intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/mdn/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We recognize the need to complement the MDN wet deposition 
measurements with dry deposition measurements because it is not clear 
how significant dry Hg deposition is to total ecosystem deposition. 
Currently, there is no recognized field method for measuring dry 
deposition. State-of-the-art atmospheric models indicate that the rate 
of dry deposition of Hg can be of a similar order of magnitude as wet 
deposition. Although the current extent of the MDN is relatively 
limited--as compared to the extensive networks for ozone and fine 
particles--EPA believes that the MDN data are the best available to 
evaluate the predictive capabilities of regional- and national-scale 
models. The MDN was not developed to monitor deposition near large 
sources and is of limited use for evaluating near-field deposition from 
models. We are seeking comment on how to use the MDN or related 
information in evaluating the numerical modeling analyses discussed 
above.
    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on air dispersion 
modeling capabilities in response to the January 2004 proposal and the 
March 2004 supplemental proposal? We received a number of public 
comments on the use of analytical and numerical models for assessing 
the impacts of the proposed regulatory programs on Hg deposition 
patterns. Among these are comments or attachments submitted by the 
following: CEED (OAR-2002-0056-2256); CATF, NRDC, et al. (OAR-2002-
0056-3460); EPRI (OAR-2002-0056-2578); and UARG (OAR-2002-0056-2922). 
Some of these commenters suggested alternative approaches to assessing 
the atmospheric transport and deposition of Hg, and we seek comment on 
those approaches.

E. Step 3 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: Modeling 
Ecosystem Dynamics

    1. Overview. In the above steps of our proposed revised benefits 
methodology, we seek to quantify changes in Hg deposition associated 
with Hg reductions from U.S. coal-fired power plants. The third step 
involves modeling affected ecosystems. As we explained in the proposed 
CAMR, the main route of human exposure to MeHg is through consumption 
of fish containing elevated levels of MeHg. Accordingly, to estimate 
the changes in human exposure to MeHg that may result from reductions 
in Hg emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants, we must first 
quantify how changes in Hg deposition from U.S. coal-fired power plants 
(forecasted using the models described above) translate into changes in 
MeHg concentrations in fish. Quantifying the linkage between different 
levels of Hg deposition and fish tissue MeHg concentration is the third 
step of our proposed revised benefits methodology.
    To effectively estimate fish MeHg concentrations in a given 
ecosystem, it is important to understand that the behavior of Hg in 
aquatic ecosystems is a complex function of the chemistry, biology, and 
physical dynamics of different ecosystems. The majority (95 to 97 
percent) of the Hg that enters lakes, rivers, and estuaries from direct 
atmospheric deposition is in the inorganic form.\31\ Microbes convert a 
small fraction of the pool of inorganic Hg in the water and sediments 
of these ecosystems into the organic form of Hg (MeHg). MeHg both 
bioconcentrates and biomagnifies. In the environment this process is 
referred to as bioaccumulation. MeHg is the only form of Hg that 
biomagnifies in organisms.\32\

[[Page 69875]]

Ecosystem-specific factors that affect both the bioavailability of 
inorganic Hg to methylating microbes (e.g., sulfide, dissolved organic 
carbon) <SUP>33 34</SUP> and the activity of the microbes themselves 
(e.g., temperature, organic carbon, redox status) \35\ determine the 
rate of MeHg production and subsequent accumulation in fish. The extent 
of MeHg bioaccumulation is also affected by the number of trophic 
levels in the food web (e.g., piscivorus fish populations) because MeHg 
biomagnifies as large piscivorus fish eat smaller organisms. These and 
other factors can result in considerable variability in fish MeHg 
levels among ecosystems at the regional and local scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Lin, C-J., S.O. Pehkonen. 1999. The Chemistry of 
Atmospheric Mercury: A Review. Atmospheric Environment, 33, p. 2067-
2079.
    \32\ Bloom, N.S. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible 
fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 
and Aquatic Sciences, 49, p. 1010-1017.
    \33\ Benoit, J., C.C. Gilmour, R.P. Mason, A. Heyes. 1999. 
Sulfide controls mercury speciation and bioavailability to 
methylating bacteria in sediment pore waters. Environ. Sci. Tech., 
33(6), p. 951-957.
    \34\ Benoit, J.M., R.P. Mason, C.C. Gilmour, G.R. Aiken. 2001. 
Constants for mercury binding by dissolved organic matter isolates 
in the Florida Everglades. Goechim. Cosmochim. Acta, 65, p. 4445-
4451.
    \35\ Hammerschmidt, C.R. and W.F. Fitzgerald. 2004. Geochemical 
controls on the production and distribution of mercury in near-shore 
marine sediments. Environ. Sci. Tech., 38(5), p. 1480-1486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To analyze the link between Hg deposition and MeHg concentrations 
in fish in aquatic ecosystems across the U.S., EPA currently is 
considering using EPA's Office of Water's Mercury Maps (MMaps).\36\ 
MMaps, which has been peer reviewed by EPA scientists and is currently 
undergoing external peer review, provides a quantitative spatial link 
between air deposition of Hg and MeHg in fish tissue. The external peer 
review materials will be placed in the docket as soon as they are 
available. The MMaps model suggests that changes in steady-state 
concentrations of MeHg in fish will be proportional to changes in Hg 
inputs from atmospheric deposition if air deposition is the only 
significant source of Hg to a water body; and if the physical, 
chemical, and biological characteristics of the ecosystem remain 
constant over time. This model is best applied to ecosystems where 
atmospheric deposition is the principal source of Hg to a water body 
and assumes that the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics 
of the ecosystem remain constant over time. EPA recognizes that 
concentrations of MeHg in fish are not expected to be at steady state. 
We also recognize that the requirement that all other conditions remain 
constant over time inherent in the MMaps methodology is not likely to 
be met. We further recognize that many water bodies, particularly in 
areas of historic gold and Hg mining in western States, contain 
significant nonair sources of Hg. Finally, we recognize that MMaps does 
not provide for a calculation of the time lag between a reduction in Hg 
deposition and a reduction in the MeHg concentrations in fish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Description of EPA's Mercury Maps model--http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/maps/ and September 2001 Mercury Maps Peer 
Reviewed Final Report--http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/maps/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite these limitations of this model, EPA is unaware of any 
other tool for performing a national-scale assessment of the change in 
fish MeHg concentrations resulting from reductions in atmospheric 
deposition of Hg. As with all other aspects of our proposed revised 
benefits methodology, we seek comment on the use of the steady-state 
linear relationship between air deposition and MeHg concentrations in 
fish (i.e., MMaps) and how the results of the application of this 
relationship should be interpreted to account for the inherent 
limitations described above.
    To supplement the MMaps methodology, EPA is currently pursuing a 
number of case studies examining Hg deposition and bioaccumulation of 
MeHg in fish tissue. Dynamic ecosystem scale models are being used to 
estimate ecosystem response times following reductions in atmospheric 
Hg emissions, and to explore the uncertainty around the proportional 
relationship used by the MMaps model. In this project, EPA is 
considering modeling eight case studies spanning a range of ecosystem 
types and characteristics in the Eastern and Midwestern U.S. Dynamic 
watershed, water body, and aquatic bioaccumulation models will be 
linked and applied to selected ecosystems, and sensitivity analyses 
will be run to provide a context for estimating the range in the 
magnitude and timing of changes in fish MeHg concentrations in response 
to declines in Hg deposition that expected as the result of regulation 
of power plants. More information on the models EPA is considering 
using in the case studies (WASP, GBMM, SERAFM, EFDC, WhAEM2000, BASS, 
E-MCM) can be found on the Council for Regulatory Environmental 
Modeling (CREM) Models Knowledge Base (www.epa.gov/crem) and the Web 
site for the Ecosystem Research Division of the Office of Research and 
Development (ORD) (http://www.epa.gov/athens/).
    In pursuing these case studies, EPA is seeking information on the 
strengths and weaknesses of different approaches for modeling the 
anticipated response of fish tissue MeHg concentrations to declines in 
deposition for a national-scale benefits methodology. The case studies 
will help determine the potential magnitude of response of the MeHg 
concentration in fish in marine and freshwater systems if atmospheric 
deposition from power plants are reduced, and what the expected time 
lag will be before a response is observed in fish. To complement these 
case studies, EPA is interested in both empirical information collected 
from ecosystems across the U.S. or modeled scenarios that show the 
temporal dynamics of Hg in different ecosystems.
    The case studies will also help determine the effects of ecosystem 
properties other than total Hg loading on accumulation in organisms and 
suggestions for how such information should be incorporated into the 
exposure analysis. To complement these case studies, EPA is interested 
in both empirical information collected from ecosystems across the U.S. 
or modeled scenarios that show the effects of ecosystem properties 
other than total Hg loading on accumulation in organisms in different 
ecosystems and, specifically, on new knowledge related to factors 
affecting methylation and demethylation in a range of aquatic ecosystem 
types.
    Using the best-available scientific understanding of key processes, 
these case studies will provide estimates of average rates and a 
distribution of Hg methylation rates and MeHg bioaccumulation factors 
(BAF) in different aquatic systems (freshwater and marine) across the 
U.S. for use in modeling. EPA seeks comment on data and/or analytical 
tools that can be used to forecast methylation rates and 
bioaccumulation rates in aquatic ecosystems.
    These case studies should provide detailed information on time lag, 
important ecosystem properties other than deposition rates, Hg 
methylation rates, and Hg BAF that can be used to inform how the 
results of a national-scale MMaps application should be interpreted. We 
are seeking information on the strengths and weaknesses of applying 
MMaps to modeling the anticipated response of fish tissue MeHg 
concentrations to declines in Hg deposition for a national-scale 
benefits methodology. Additionally, EPA intends to document these case 
studies in the electronic docket for the CAMR and to make this 
information available to the public on the ORD's website as soon as 
possible.
    There are two final issues on which we are seeking comment that are 
relevant to the third step in our proposed revised benefits 
methodology. First, MMaps is designed to simulate natural freshwater 
systems. We currently do not have an appropriate

[[Page 69876]]

method for assessing how a change in the deposition of Hg relates to a 
change in the concentration of MeHg in fish tissue in fish found in 
marine environments and/or farm-raised species. We recognize, however, 
that marine and farm-raised species comprise a large proportion of the 
fish consumed by the U.S. population and, likely account for a 
significant fraction of the overall exposure. We are aware that EPRI 
has submitted an analysis that assumes the changes in Hg deposition 
resulting from regulation of emissions from coal-fired power plants 
will have an effect on MeHg concentrations in estuarine and marine 
species (salt-water species) proportional to the reduction in global 
emissions.\37\ We are evaluating EPRI's proposed approach, but are also 
seeking comment on other potential approaches for analyzing effects in 
salt-water marine fish populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See OAR-2002-0056-2578, -2589, and -2593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, as noted above, MMaps does not account for the time lag 
that exists between reducing Hg deposition and reducing MeHg 
concentrations in fish. MMaps instead assumes that a change in Hg 
deposition immediately translates into a change in MeHg fish tissue 
concentration. We are evaluating other tools that will enable us to 
assess this time lag issue. In particular, we are aware of the Mercury 
Experiment To Assess Atmospheric Loading In Canada and the U.S. 
(METAALICUS) study, which was cited in a number of comments received by 
EPA on the proposed CAMR. In METAALICUS, newly deposited Hg appeared to 
be more available to bacteria to convert to MeHg than Hg that was in 
the system for longer periods of time (i.e., historically deposited 
Hg).\38\ These results suggest that lakes receiving the bulk of their 
Hg directly from deposition to the lake surface would see fish MeHg 
concentrations respond more rapidly to changes in atmospheric Hg 
deposition than lakes receiving most of their Hg from terrestrial 
runoff. These data also imply that systems with a greater surface-area-
to-watershed-area ratio that receive most of their inputs directly from 
the atmosphere may respond more rapidly to changes in emissions and 
deposition of Hg than those receiving significant inputs of Hg from the 
catchment area. We emphasize that the METAALICUS experiment is ongoing, 
and conclusions are still being refined. We do not know whether the 
METAALICUS results, or ones similar, would be found in different 
ecosystems. We are especially interested in information that can be 
used to extend or extrapolate the results of the METAALICUS experiment 
to other freshwater systems, and information on Hg cycling and 
bioavailability in coastal and marine ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ H. Hintelmann, R. Harris, A. Heyes, J.P. Hurley, C.A. 
Kelly, D.P. Krabbenhoft, S. Lindberg, J.W.M. Rudd, K.J. Scott, V.S. 
St. Louis. 2002. Reactivity and mobility of new and old mercury 
deposition in a boreal forest ecosystem during the first year of the 
METAALICUS study. Environ. Sci. Tech., 36, p. 5034-5040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on modeling ecosystem 
dynamics in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal? EPA received several comments addressing 
existing MeHg accumulation in fish and anticipated MeHg fish 
concentrations associated with reductions in Hg emissions from coal-
fired power plants. Several groups submitted independent analyses of 
the changes in fish MeHg concentrations expected as the result of 
changes in Hg deposition. Among these are comments or attachments 
submitted by the following: Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of 
Chippewa Indians (OAR-2002-0056-2118); Environmental Defense (OAR-2002-
0056-2878); EPRI (OAR-2002-0056-2578, -2589, and -2593); HBRF (OAR-
2002-0056-2038); Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 
(NESCAUM) (OAR-2002-0056-2887 and -2890); and TXU Energy (OAR-2002-
0056-1831). We are seeking comment on the analyses provided by the 
commenters.

F. Step 4 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: Fish 
Consumption and Human Exposure

    1. Overview. Step 4 in EPA's proposed revised benefits methodology 
addresses the relationship between reductions in MeHg concentrations in 
fish tissue and reductions in human exposure to MeHg. Fish obtained 
through commercial sources or noncommercial fishing activities come 
from both saltwater environments (including estuaries, bays, and the 
open ocean), and freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds.
    Consumption of fish is the primary pathway for human exposure to 
MeHg. The fourth step in our methodology requires both an assessment of 
MeHg concentrations in freshwater and saltwater fish and an assessment 
of human consumption patterns of such fish. In this regard, we have 
been evaluating several databases for estimating MeHg concentrations in 
fish and consumption rates of such fish.
    EPA's ongoing freshwater fish study, among other things, 
incorporates information from EPA's National Listing of Fish Advisories 
(NLFA), which contains approximately 80,000 samples of MeHg in fish 
tissue from both freshwater and saltwater species.\39\ These data are 
voluntarily submitted by State agencies to the EPA and provide 
extensive coverage for the Eastern half of the U.S. Although the method 
of collection can vary by State, the NLFA data generally represent a 
combination of data collected from areas of increased angling activity 
and areas of suspected contamination. To the extent that the NLFA data 
are concentrated in areas of suspected contamination, the MeHg 
concentrations in fish based on these data may be biased and 
overestimate exposure to anglers and their families. The potential 
existence of this bias reflects the varying data collection 
methodologies that are selected by each State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ U.S. EPA. August 2004. 2003 National Listing of Fish 
Advisories. Office of Water. EPA-823-F-04-016. Additional 
information available at http://map1.epa.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To supplement the NLFA data, EPA is considering using the recently 
completed 4-year field study, entitled the National Study of Chemical 
Residues in Lake Fish Tissue, which is also referred to as the National 
Fish Tissue Study (NFTS). The database contains about 1,000 samples of 
freshwater fish from 500 different lakes across the U.S.\40\ The NFTS 
is a 4-year national screening-level freshwater fish contamination 
study. It is also the first national fish tissue survey to be based on 
a statistical (random) sampling design, and it will generate data on 
the largest set of persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals ever 
studied in fish. The statistical design of the study allows EPA to 
develop national estimates of the mean concentrations of 268 chemicals 
in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs of the lower 48 States. EPA 
will conduct a quality assurance analysis on the data for each year of 
the study. Additional information concerning NFTS is available at 
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ U.S. EPA. November 2001. National Fish Tissue Study. EPA-
823-F-01-028. See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fishstudy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For saltwater fish, there are fewer samples of fish tissue MeHg 
data, relative to freshwater information. EPA is considering the use of 
the Mercury in Marine Life database (available through the NLFA) that 
provides data on the level of Hg contamination in the estuaries and 
marine environments nationwide, and the U.S. Food and Drug 
Administration's (FDA) database of MeHg concentrations in fish.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mercury in Fish: FDA 
Monitoring Program (1990-2003). See http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/frf/seamehg2.html.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 69877]]

    With the above information on MeHg concentrations in fish tissue in 
fresh- and salt-water fish, the next question is how do we compute 
exposures to affected populations? We recognize that our analysis must 
be based on MeHg estimates for fish that are typically consumed by the 
U.S. population. The NLFA contains samples that vary by size (i.e., 
several are taken from fish that are potentially consumable based on 
size, while other samples are taken from smaller fish that are not 
likely to be consumed) and by species. To estimate the MeHg content in 
fish species that are typically consumed, EPA is evaluating the 
application of the NLFA and NFTS data to a statistical model developed 
by Dr. Stephen Wente, USGS, the National Descriptive Model of Mercury 
and Fish Tissue (NDMMFT).\42\ The model uses statistical procedures to 
estimate a relationship between fish size and MeHg concentrations, 
while controlling for fish species, sampling method, location, and 
other factors. EPA intends to conduct a peer review of the application 
of this model to the NLFA and NFTS data and will place the appropriate 
materials in the docket when available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5199/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also collecting information on fish consumption rates by 
different affected populations, particularly in the eastern half of the 
U.S. We recognize that many Americans consume seafood or freshwater 
fish; however, some subpopulations in the U.S. (e.g., Native Americans, 
Southeast Asian Americans, and lower income subsistence fishers) may 
rely on fish as a primary source of nutrition and/or for cultural 
practices. Therefore, they may consume larger amounts and different 
parts of fish than the general population and may potentially be at a 
greater risk to the adverse health effects from MeHg due to increased 
consumption/exposure. We intend to use the following consumption data 
to complete our analysis concerning the relationship between reductions 
in MeHg concentrations in fish tissue and reductions of human exposure 
to MeHg.
    a. Women of childbearing age--the National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey (NHANES) provides information based on the women who 
participated in the study.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Center for Disease Control. National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey. National Center for Health Statistics. See 
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5343a5.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Children--Exposure Factors Handbook and NHANES provide 
information.
    c. Subsistence fishers and ``high-end'' consumers (including, but 
not limited to Native Americans and Asian Americans)--The Exposure 
Factors Handbook provides information for subsistence Native American 
fishers; Journal articles (Peterson, et al., 1994; \44\ Hutchinson, et 
al., 1994 \45\) provide data for specific subpopulations such as 
specific Native American tribes and the Asian American population 
(i.e., Hmong) located in the Eastern half of the U.S. Peterson, et al. 
(1994) assesses the fishing activity of the Chippewa in Minnesota and 
Wisconsin. Hutchinson, et al. (1994) assesses the fishing activities of 
the Hmong living in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Other studies 
exist for these populations, but they do not address consumption 
behavior in the Eastern half of the U.S. EPA is interested in 
additional information for subsistence anglers (freshwater and/or 
saltwater), and for Native Americans or Southeast Asian Americans 
living in the Eastern half of the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Peterson, D.E., M.S. Kanarek, M.A. Kuykendall, J.M. 
Diedrich, H.A. Anderson, P.L. Remington, and T.B. Sheffy. 1994. 
``Fish Consumption Patterns and Blood Mercury Levels in Wisconsin 
Chippewa Indians.'' Environmental Health 49(1):53-58.
    \45\ Hutchinson, R., and C.E. Kraft. 1994. ``Hmong Fishing 
Activity and Fish Consumption.'' Journal of Great Lakes Research 
20(2):471-487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA notes that the Methyl mercury Water Quality Criterion, 
which establishes a MeHg fish concentration designed to be protective 
of human health, estimates fish consumption rates. EPA is seeking 
comment on whether the MeHg fish concentration set forth in the Water 
Quality Criterion or the fish consumption rates used in the Water 
Quality Criterion could be used for local, regional, or national 
assessments.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 66 FR 1345, January 8, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. What specific comments did EPA receive on fish consumption 
patterns in response to the January 2004 proposal and the March 2004 
supplemental proposal? Several commenters identified existing fish 
consumption data, including: CATF, NRDC, et al. (OAR-2002-0056-3460); 
EEI (OAR-2002-0056-2929); EPRI (OAR-2002-0056-2578); Forest County 
Potawatomi Community (OAR-2002-0056-2173); Minnesota Conservation 
Federation, et al. (OAR-2002-0056-2415); and Southern Environmental Law 
Center (OAR-2002-0056-4222). We are seeking comment on the usefulness 
of the data provided by the commenters.

G. Step 5 of EPA's Proposed Revised Benefits Methodology: How Will 
Reductions in Population-Level Exposure Improve Public Health?

    A variety of human health effects are associated with MeHg 
exposure. Published MeHg research suggests there may be neurological 
effects during fetal and child development, including intelligence 
quotient (IQ) decrements and more subtle effects on the ability to 
learn.\47\ Numerous studies suggest that fish consumption has a 
beneficial cardiovascular effect in adult males as a result of its n-3 
fatty acids (e.g., Omega-3 fatty acids, etc.). However, research also 
raises the possibility that MeHg in fish can reduce the 
cardioprotective effects of fish consumption in adult 
males.<SUP>48 49 50</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ National Academy of Sciences. July 2000. Toxicological 
Effects of Methylmercury. National Academy of Sciences/National 
Research Council; National Academy Press.
    \48\ Yoshizawa, et al. 2002. ``Mercury and the Risk of Coronary 
Heart Disease in Men.'' New England Journal of Medicine; Nov. 2002; 
347(22): 1755-60.
    \49\ Guillar, et al. 2002. ``Mercury, Fish Oils, and the Risk of 
Myocardial Infarction.'' New England Journal of Medicine; Nov. 2002; 
347(22): 1747-54.
    \50\ Salonen, et al. 1995. ``Intake of Mercury from Fish, Lipid 
Peroxidation, and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Coronary 
Cardiovascular, and Any Death in Eastern Finnish Men.'' American 
Heart Association, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The state-of-the-science regarding neurodevelopmental effects in 
children has been more thoroughly evaluated and reviewed than that for 
other health effects. A review by the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS), published in July 2000, concluded that neurodevelopmental 
effects are the most sensitive and well-documented effects of MeHg 
exposure. EPA subsequently established a reference dose (RfD) \51\ of 
0.0001 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) 
derived from a neurodevelopmental endpoint based on the NAS review. NAS 
determined that EPA's RfD ``is a scientifically justified level for the 
protection of public health.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ ``In general, the RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily exposure to the 
human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to 
be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a 
lifetime.'' See http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0073.htm.
    \52\ National Academy of Sciences. July 2000. op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RfD was based on three epidemiological studies of prenatal MeHg 
exposure in the Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and Seychelles Islands. 
These studies examined neurodevelopmental outcomes through the 
administration of numerous tests of

[[Page 69878]]

cognitive functioning.<SUP>53 54 55</SUP> These tests provided partial 
or full assessments of IQ, problem solving, social and adaptive 
behavior, language functions, motor skills, attention, memory, and 
other functions. NAS found that all three studies are ``well-designed, 
prospective, longitudinal studies.'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Myers, et al. 2003. ``Prenatal Methylmercury Exposure from 
Ocean Fish Consumption in the Seychelles Child Development Study.'' 
The Lancet. Vol. 361; May, 2003.
    \54\ Crump, et al. 1998. ``Influence of Prenatal Mercury 
Exposure Upon Scholastic and Psychological Test Performance: 
Benchmark Analysis of a New Zealand Cohort.'' Risk Analysis, 18(6): 
701-713.
    \55\ Grandjean. 1997. Cognitive Deficit in 7-Year-Old Children 
with Prenatal Exposure to Methylmercury. Neurotoxicology, 19(6): 
417-428.
    \56\ National Academy of Sciences. July 2000. op. cit. at 267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is considering using these three studies to conduct a benefits 
assessment. Specifically, EPA is considering focusing on IQ decrements 
associated with prenatal MeHg exposure as the initial endpoint for 
quantification and valuation of health benefits of reduced exposure to 
MeHg. This initial focus in IQ as the neurodevelopmental endpoint for 
quantification was supported by participants in a Hg neurotoxicity 
workshop held by EPA in November 2002.\57\ Reasons for focusing on IQ 
include the availability of thoroughly-reviewed, epidemiological 
studies assessing IQ and/or related cognitive outcomes suitable for IQ 
estimation; and the availability of well-established methods and data 
for the economic valuation of avoided IQ deficits. EPA recognizes that, 
although IQ is a good metric of the cognitive impacts of prenatal MeHg 
exposure, IQ is not a comprehensive measure of the neurodevelopmental 
effects of MeHg exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/mercuryworkshop.pdf pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To potentially support a benefits estimation, EPA is working with 
researchers from Harvard University to analyze whether data from the 
Faroe Islands, New Zealand, and Seychelles Islands studies on the 
relationship between prenatal MeHg exposure and neurodevelopmental 
outcomes can be integrated. The study is intended to estimate the 
relationship between the exposure to MeHg and decrements in full-scale 
IQ, based on all three studies. The Harvard study will likely assume a 
linear dose-response relationship. The Faroe Islands and Seychelles 
Islands studies did not conduct the complete battery of tests used to 
estimate full-scale IQ. Therefore, the study is designed to use the 
results from the tests administered to predict full-scale IQ. This 
analysis will be peer-reviewed and placed in the docket as soon as it 
is available.
    EPA is considering using a K-model to fit population-level dose-
response relationships to the pooled data from the three studies. EPA 
is also considering, for the purposes of a national-level benefits 
assessment, to set K = 1, which assumes a linear relationship between 
exposure and effects.
    The practicality of using a linear (K = 1) model is the primary 
reason that the Agency is considering use of such a model. A linear 
model would allow us to estimate the benefits of reductions in exposure 
due to power plants without a complete assessment of the other sources 
of exposure. Other models would require information on the joint 
distribution of exposure from power plants and other sources to 
estimate the benefits of reducing the exposure due to power plants, 
which would require much more precise information about consumption 
patterns than a K-model would require.
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the methodology for 
estimating the relationship between reductions in MeHg exposure and 
improvements in health. In particular, we are seeking comment on the 
following:
    a. The focus on neurodevelopmental health of children.
    b. The selection of IQ as an endpoint for quantification of 
neurodevelopmental effects and whether it is an appropriate endpoint 
for benefits analysis for reduced exposure to MeHg.
    c. Whether other neurodevelopmental effects can be quantified and 
are amenable to economic valuation.
    d. Whether, and if so how, data from the Faroe Islands, New 
Zealand, and Seychelles Islands studies can be integrated for the 
purposes of a benefits assessment.
    e. The choice of the K = 1 model for the estimating the 
relationship between exposure and IQ and practical alternatives to that 
approach.
    f. The appropriateness and consistency of using a linear dose-
response model given the RfD established by EPA in 2001 (reflecting the 
NAS review in 2000), which assumes a threshold dose below which there 
is not likely to be an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a 
lifetime.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control.

40 CFR Part 72 and 75

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric 
utilities.

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 04-26579 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>