U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–965 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 110–1090 

THE STATE OF MERCURY REGULATION, SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR 

SAFETY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 16, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 16, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 3 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 4 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 155 

WITNESSES 

Collins, Hon. Susan, U.S. Senator from the State of Maine ................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Schanbacher, David, chief engineer, Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality .................................................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Report, Mercury in Texas: Background, Federal Rules, Control Technologies, and Fiscal Implications ................................................................. 17–92 

Scott, Douglas P., director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ............... 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 106 

Keating, Martha Hastay, associate in research, Children’s Environmental 

Health Initiative, Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, 

Duke University ................................................................................................... 114 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders ............................. 120 

Pipitone, Guy L., senior vice president of Operations, Strategy, and Development, Firstenergy Corporation ............................................................................ 123 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124 

Chart, Integrated ECO®-ECO2 Installation ................................................... 126 

Foerter, David C., executive director, Institute of Clean Air Companies ........... 127 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 129 

Levin, Leonard, technical executive, Air Quality Health and Risk Assessment, 

Electric Power Research Institute ...................................................................... 131 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 134 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement, Jackson, Lisa P., Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................... 156 

Responses to questions from Senator Sanders ........................................... 170–308 

(1) 

THE STATE OF MERCURY REGULATION, 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR AND NUCLEAR SAFETY, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Thomas Carper 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper, Inhofe, Voinovich. Also, Senator Collins. 

Senator CARPER. The subcommittee will come to order. Welcome, 

everyone. 

We are looking forward to the testimony and the opportunity to 

have an exchange with our witnesses. We are also looking forward 

to four votes that start at 10:30 a.m. There are a lot of committee 

hearings and markups going on right now that are figuring out 

what are they going to do. What we are going to do is go ahead 

and Senators will make their opening statements. We will be joined 

by Senator Collins and she will make a statement. 

My hope is we will have a chance for the second panel to at least 

make opening statements. While they are wrapping it up, we will 

run off and vote four times, and then come back and try to finish 

it up before supper time. No, hopefully a lot sooner than that. 

This is a hearing on the state of mercury regulation, science and 

technology. Before we begin, just a couple of procedural matters to 

lay to bed. I am going to give a brief opening statement and then 

turn it over to Senator Inhofe for his statement and others who 

come along. 

Senator Collins is, I think, offering an amendment on the Floor 

right now. Once she gets here, we will recognize her to offer some 

of her views. 

I am going to hold off because one of our Floor managers for the 

Water Resources Development bill is Senator Inhofe, along with 

Senator Boxer. He needs to get back over to the Floor, so Senator 

Inhofe, why don’t you just go ahead and say whatever is on your 

mind, and then I will take it from there. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

sorry that I can’t stay. Barbara Boxer and I are managing the 
2 

WRDA bill on the Floor, which is probably the biggest non-defense 

bill of the year, so it is a very significant one. 

I thank you for holding this subcommittee hearing on mercury 

perspectives, science and technology. I have to say, it is such a 

pleasure for me to be sitting in here in a hearing that is not on 

global warming. So I thank you very much. This is a first in— 

what?—3 months now. 

Anyway, there is a lot of work to be done. For instance, there are 

still some areas that are out of compliance with particulate matter 

standards and serious non-attainment with ozone standards. I recommend this subcommittee examine what can be done to bring 

these highly polluted areas into compliance with existing laws. 

But we can’t let the failures of these few counties distract us 

from the enormous progress that we have made in cleaning up pollution in this country. Since 1970, we have had tremendous economic growth and tripled our energy use and vehicle miles traveled. Despite this, instead of tripling our pollution or doubling or 

even holding it constant, we have cut our pollution levels by more 

than half. That is really amazing. When you tell people that, they 

don’t believe it. We have tripled the mileage, and yet we have cut 

the pollution in half. 

So some things are working, Mr. Chairman. This gets to the 

heart of my greatest concern over the mercury debate. Few understand it, and some have preyed upon the lack of understanding. We 

are literally scaring ourselves to death over mercury. A few years 

ago when the EPA and the FDA issued the Joint Advisory on Mercury, environmentalists turned up their alarmist rhetoric and tuna 

consumption plummeted, and people became afraid to eat fish because they believed that it is all bad for them. Let’s be clear. We 

all know that all seafood has some level of mercury. It always has 

and always will. It is an element pervasive in the environment and 

bioaccumulative. 

The question is not whether mercury causes birth defects or even 

kills in high doses. It does in high doses. The question is whether 

it is harmful to the extreme in low quantities. According to the biggest and best designed and longest running study ever done, the 

answer is no. 

I just hope that we don’t resort to scare tactics, as we so often 

do in this committee. Even back in the years when I was the Chairman of this committee, we would hear people saying the world is 

always coming to an end, and so we are all going to die. But let’s 

try to be reasonable, try to look at this, and approach this in such 

a way. 

I would ask with that, Mr. Chairman, that my entire statement 

be placed into the record. 

Senator CARPER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this subcommittee hearing on mercury perspectives, science and technology. I must say it is a pleasure to attend a hearing 

on something other than global warming. The issue of clean air is an important one, 

and is an issue this Committee should be focused on. 
3 

There is much work to be done. For instance, there are still some areas that are 

out of compliance with particulate matter standards and in serious nonattainment 

with ozone standards. I recommend this Subcommittee examine what can be done 

to bring these highly polluted areas into compliance with existing law. 

But we cannot let the failures of these few counties distract us from the enormous 

progress we have made in cleaning up pollution in this country. Since 1970, we have 

had tremendous economic growth, and tripled our energy use and vehicle miles traveled. Despite this, instead of tripling our pollution or doubling or even holding it 

constant, we have cut our pollution levels by more than half. This is a success story 

that—hard as it is to believe—few people even realize is true. 

This gets to the heart of my greatest concern over the mercury debate. Few understand it, and some have preyed upon that lack of understanding. We are literally 

scaring ourselves to death over mercury. A few years ago, when EPA and the FDA 

issued a joint advisory on mercury and environmentalists turned up their alarmist 

rhetoric, tuna consumption plummeted. People became afraid to eat fish because 

they believed it was bad for them. 

Let’s be clear: all seafood has some level of mercury—always has and always will. 

It is an element, pervasive in the environment and bioaccumulative. The question 

is not whether mercury causes birth defects and even kills in high doses—it does. 

The question is whether it’s harmful in extremely low quantities. According to the 

biggest, best designed and longest running study ever done, the answer is a resounding ‘‘NO.’’ 

What most people do not realize is that the dose makes the poison. Fish is brain 

food. A diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids reduces colon and lung cancers and numerous other ailments, and aids brain development in the womb. The Seychelles Islands 

study found that, even though their seafood-rich diet meant they consumed more 

mercury than Americans, eating the seafood was beneficial. Let me repeat: by discouraging people from eating fish, we are literally scaring them to death. 

That isn’t to say we shouldn’t make progress in bringing down mercury levels. We 

should and we are. But we need to put the issue in perspective. 

Like other pollutants, mercury levels have also come down dramatically. Numerous industries that used to emit high levels of mercury, such as the municipal waste 

incinerators, have been controlled. The power sector industry is merely the latest 

industry to be regulated. And the regulations are significant—the Clean Air Mercury Rule will reduce powerplant mercury emissions by 70 percent. And because the 

rule acts in coordination with the Clean Air Implementation Rule—which reduces 

SO2, NOx, and particulate matter—it can be done for $2 billion. 

While there are many promising technologies on the horizon, some of which we 

will hear about today, no technology exists for which vendors will guarantee 90 percent mercury reductions, and some of these technologies are not appropriate for 

plants that are already controlled. According to the Energy Information Administration, setting a 90 percent reduction mandate on mercury over three years would cost 

up to $358 billion. That’s right—cutting 70 percent will cost $2 billion, but incrementally increasing that amount to beyond what the technologies can reliably do 

would cost up to $358 billion. 

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that reducing pollution levels in this country is important and that more can be done. But we cannot let political preferences let us lose 

sight of the fact that diverting enormous economic resources to this comparatively 

smaller problem away from the important mission of bringing ozone and soot levels 

into compliance with existing law is wrong-headed. And we cannot lose sight of the 

fact that this scaremongering is doing more harm to the health of our citizens than 

the very small incremental reductions that tightening the mercury standard further 

would achieve. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Welcome, Senator Voinovich. 

Two years ago, the Bush administration finalized, as you may recall, the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Remember that the rule requires 

reductions in mercury really in two phases. The first phase starts 

in the year 2010. It requires a 22 percent reduction of mercury 

emissions from powerplants by then. These reductions will be 

achieved as a side effect of the clean air interstate rule, meaning 
4 

no specific actions will be required to attain this rule, which I believe is weak. 

When it was finalized, opponents of the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

argued that the technology to limit mercury emissions does not 

exist and that stricter limits would cause utilities to switch from 

coal to natural gas. To put it simply, though, these critics have 

been proved wrong. The EPA was wrong, I believe, not to act more 

aggressively to limit the emissions of a pollutant that has serious 

health effects on children and pregnant women, some of the most 

vulnerable members of our society. 

Today, we know that the technology to control mercury does 

exist. We know that companies burning a variety of coal types are 

moving forward with plans to install this technology to comply with 

the more stringent State requirements that have been adopted. Instead of pretending that we can’t do more, we need to look at the 

reality of this issue. That is what we plan to do today. 

The reality is that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects 

the brain, the heart, and our immune system. Developing fetuses, 

children, and pregnant women are especially at risk. Even low 

level exposure to mercury can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, lower IQ, and problems with attention and with 

memory. 

Today, we are going to hear from States that have taken action 

to protect their citizens from mercury pollution. These States are 

requiring their pipelines to reduce their emissions by at least 90 

percent. 

We are also going to hear testimony on the growing scientific evidence of mercury hotspots and the health effects of mercury. 

Last, we will hear testimony on the reality of mercury control 

technology. It is affordable. It is available. It is reliable. 

It is an understatement to say that the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

is too weak. That is why I have introduced, along with a number 

of our colleagues, some on this committee and some not, legislation 

requiring every coal-fired plant in our country to reduce their mercury emissions by 90 percent no later than the year 2015. 

When EPA introduced the Clean Air Mercury Rule, they did get 

at least one thing right. EPA coupled the Mercury Rule with the 

nitrogen oxide and the sulfur dioxide requirements of the clean air 

interstate rule. When dealing with air pollution from powerplants, 

it makes sense to address all the pollutants at the same time, 

whether it is ozone-forming nitrogen oxide or asthma-causing sulfur dioxide, toxic mercury emissions or global warming caused by 

carbon dioxide, they all come out of the same smokestack. By addressing all four pollutants as a system, powerplants will have the 

flexibility and the regulatory certainty needed to plan for the most 

cost-effective control strategy. 

With that said, I am pleased to yield to my compadre here, Senator Voinovich. I am delighted that we have some witnesses from 

your State, from Ohio, and I am anxious to hear from them, and 

now from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thanks very much. 
5 

As we are all well aware, we worked very, very hard in this committee during the last Congress to come up with a bipartisan 

multi-emissions bill which would reduce powerplant emissions of 

mercury, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide. Despite our valiant efforts, in the end there didn’t seem to be a path forward. We 

couldn’t get it done. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing to continue our debate on this very important subject. I would like to 

thank Guy Pipitone, senior vice president of Operations, Strategy 

and Development at First Energy, from my home State, for being 

here today to discuss technology options to address mercury emissions. 

The harmful health effects of mercury, especially to fetuses and 

pregnant women, are well established. There is no one arguing 

about that. It is harmful. However, what often gets overlooked in 

these debates is the fact that mercury pollution is a global issue 

because it can travel hundreds and thousands of miles before depositing in land and water. Most of the mercury disposition in our 

Nation that comes from manmade sources is coming from overseas. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Asia is responsible for 53 percent of mercury emissions worldwide, and that U.S. 

powerplants contribute only about 1 percent of the mercury in the 

oceans, which is what we are talking about today. 

In fact, according to the U.S. EPA, U.S. emissions of mercury 

were reduced by nearly half from 1990 to 1999. While we have 

made great progress in reducing these emissions, they have often 

been offset by increases in emissions from Asia, particularly China, 

and it is not going to get any better when you consider the fact 

that China is going to be building a new coal-fired plant every 

week for the next couple of years. 

Still, by finalizing both the clean air interstate rule and Clean 

Air Mercury Rule in 2005, the United States became the first nation in the world to regulate mercury emissions from existing coalfired powerplants, the first in the world. The clean air interstate 

rule is designed to leverage reduction in emission requirements for 

other pollutants such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides to control mercury emissions, as Senator Carper emphasized, but we did 

NOx, SOx, and mercury. 

The Clean Air Mercury Rule will complement the other rule by 

establishing a cap and trade program for cutting overall powerplant mercury emissions from the current level of 48 tons annually 

to 38 tons in 2010, 15 tons is 2018, for a total reduction of 70 percent. This is modeled after the Nation’s most successful clean air 

program, the Acid Rain Program. Utilities able to reduce emissions 

more than required can sell excess emission allowances to facilities 

for which achieving reductions is less cost effective or technologically too difficult. 

These rules were developed through one of the most extensive 

rulemakings ever conducted for clean air regulations, culminating 

in nearly 15 years in the making, and reflect the most detailed scientific record ever established in developing this type of pollution 

reduction program. 

However, several of my colleagues have expressed support for a 

maximum achievable control technology standard called the MACT 
6 

standard to reduce mercury emissions from every powerplant by 90 

percent within 3 years. Proponents of this approach generally claim 

that each powerplant should be able to reduce mercury emissions 

by at least 90 percent, even though this level of reduction is not 

currently achievable and no control technology vendor will guarantee the performance of mercury removal technologies at this or 

any other specific level in the future. 

A MACT standard would have a devastating impact on our Nation because coal plants unable to attain it would be shut down. 

This would result in fuel switching from coal, which is our most 

abundant and least costly energy source, to natural gas. I know all 

about that. In my State, 85 percent of our energy comes from coal, 

and natural gas costs have increased 300 percent, having a terrible 

impact on our economy. 

Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will 

further increase prices, seriously impacting the ability of businesses to compete in the global marketplace, and the families that 

pay their utility bills. By the way, Mr. Chairman, we always forget 

about the families and their utility bills: 300 percent since 2000 in 

my town, and Cleveland is known for the most poverty. It is having 

a very, very negative effect, but we never even consider them when 

we start talking about some of the things that we do here. 

Well, EPA estimates the cost of its cap and trade rule at about $2 billion. The Independent Energy Information Administration 

has projected costs as high as $358 billion for a 90 percent MACT 

standard. The public’s return for such a regulation is an average 

increase in national electricity prices of about 20 percent—more in 

States like mine that rely primarily on coal for electricity—and an 

additional reduction in U.S. mercury disposition of just 2 percent, 

and an almost immeasurable decline in people’s exposure to mercury. 

The question we face on this committee is whether we should do 

something reasonable to improve our understanding of the issues 

surrounding mercury emissions and attempt to reduce—I am having a tough time this morning, because I was on the radio since 

6 o’clock this morning; we had two early morning radio people on 

and I did a lot of talking—atmospheric concentrations of mercury 

emissions without harming our economy, or rush into short-sighted 

policy that will cap mercury at unreasonable levels, shut down our 

economy, and cut thousands of jobs, and move manufacturing overseas to countries that do not have these environmental standards. 

I will never forget, Mr. Chairman, Jim Jeffords 4 or 5 years ago. 

We were debating with each other, and I said, ‘‘You know, Jim, 

what this is going to do it is going to eliminate jobs in my State. 

Jim, they are not going to Vermont. They are not going to Vermont. 

Those jobs are going overseas.’’ 

So what we have to do is something that you and I talked about 

a long time ago, is somehow get our environment, get our energy, 

and get our economy in the same room and figure out how we work 

together, and make people realize that we have a symbiotic relationship. The more we work together and figure this out, the better 

off everyone is going to be, and we will make some real headway 

on environmental issues, and on energy challenges, and we will 

also have some movement forward in terms of our economy. 
7 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF OHIO

Thank you Mr. Chairman. As you are well aware, we have worked hard on this 

Committee during the last Congress to come up with a bipartisan multi-emissions 

bill, which would reduce powerplant emissions of mercury, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Despite our valiant efforts, in the end, there did not seem to be a path 

forward. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing to continue our debate on 

this very important issue. And, I would like to thank Guy Pipitone, Senior Vice 

President of Operations, Strategy and Development at First Energy—from my home 

state—for being here to discuss technology options to address mercury emissions. 

The harmful health effects of mercury, especially to fetuses and pregnant women, 

are well established. 

However, what often gets overlooked in these debates is the fact that mercury pollution is a global issue because it can travel hundreds and thousands of miles before 

depositing in land and water. Most of the mercury deposition in our nation that 

comes from manmade sources is coming from overseas. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Asia is responsible for 53 percent of mercury emissions worldwide, and that U.S. powerplants contribute only 

about 1 percent of the mercury in the oceans, which is what we are talking about 

today. In fact, according to EPA, U.S. emissions of mercury were reduced by nearly 

half, from 1990 to 1999. While we have made great progress in reducing these emissions, they have been offset by increases in emissions from Asia, particularly China. 

Still, by finalizing both the Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule 

in 2005, the United States became the first nation in the world to regulate mercury 

emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. The first in the world! 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule is designed to leverage reduction in emission requirements for other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, to control mercury emissions. The Clean Air Mercury Rule will complement the other rule 

by establishing a ‘‘cap-and-trade’’ program for cutting overall powerplant mercury 

emissions from the current level of 48 tons annually, to 38 tons in 2010 and 15 tons 

in 2018, for a total reduction of 70 percent. 

This is modeled after the nation’s most successful clean air program—the Acid 

Rain Program. Utilities able to reduce emissions more than required can sell excess 

emission allowances to facilities for which achieving reductions is less cost-effective 

or technologically too difficult. 

These rules were developed through one of the most extensive rulemakings ever 

conducted for clean air regulations, culminating in nearly 15 years in the making 

and reflect the most detailed scientific record ever established in developing this 

type of pollution reduction program. 

However, several of my colleagues have expressed support for a Maximum Achievable Control Technology standard—called a MACT standard—to reduce mercury 

emissions from every powerplant by 90 percent within three years. Proponents of 

this approach generally claim that each powerplant should be able to reduce mercury emissions by at least 90 percent, even though this level of reduction is not currently achievable and no control technology vendor will or can guarantee the performance of mercury removal technologies at this or any other specific level in the 

future. 

A MACT standard would have a devastating impact on our nation because coal 

plants unable to attain it would be shutdown. This would result in fuel switching 

away from coal, which is our most abundant and least costly energy source, to natural gas. 

Increased reliance on natural gas for electricity generation will further increase 

prices, seriously impacting the ability of businesses to compete in the global marketplace and of families to pay their utility bills. 

While EPA estimates the cost of its cap-and-trade rule at about $2 billion, the 

independent Energy Information Administration has projected costs as high as $358 

billion for a 90-percent MACT standard. The public’s return for such a regulation 

is an average increase in national electricity prices of 20 percent—more in states 

like mine that rely primarily on coal for electricity—an additional reduction in U.S. 

mercury deposition of just 2 percent, and an almost immeasurable decline in people’s exposure to mercury. 

The question we face on this Committee is whether we should do something reasonable to improve our understanding of the issues surrounding mercury emissions 
8 

and attempt to reduce atmospheric concentrations of mercury emissions without 

harming our economy—or rush into a short-sighted policy that will cap mercury at 

unreasonable levels, shut down our economy, cut thousands of jobs (particularly in 

manufacturing states like Ohio), and move manufacturing overseas to countries that 

do not have environmental standards? 

We need to work with both business and environmental groups to find a bipartisan solution that makes a common sense in dealing with mercury emissions with 

an emphasis on sound science, and development of mercury control and clean coal 

technologies—a responsible approach that harmonizes our energy, environment, and 

economic needs. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for holding this important hearing, and I 

look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Pretty good timing, Senator Collins. I will give you time to grab 

a seat and have a drink of water if you want. My hope is that we 

have literally in this room today, starting with our first panelist, 

Senator Collins, followed by our other two panels, some of the folks 

who can help us answer those questions. Is it possible to reduce the 

emissions of mercury? Is it possible to do so in a way that doesn’t 

push our economy into a tailspin? Is it possible to do so in a way 

that doesn’t disadvantage consumers of electricity? Does it do so in 

a way that doesn’t push production of electricity from coal to natural gas, and further spike natural gas prices? 

I really look forward to this hearing, because I think we are 

going to find the answers to those questions. I think they may surprise us, I hope pleasantly so. 

We are delighted, Senator Collins, that you have joined us. I understand you rushed over from the Floor, and you are good to come. 

We appreciate very much your testimony and your willingness to 

work with us as a cosponsor of our legislation that addresses sulfur 

dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and CO2. Please take as much 

time as you wish. Welcome and thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MAINE 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I did run over from the Floor, but I so appreciate your invitation 

to speak today in support of the comprehensive National Mercury 

Monitoring Act of 2007. I have the great pleasure to work with 

both Chairman Carper and the Ranking Minority member, Senator 

Voinovich, on the Homeland Security Committee. It is a great 

honor to appear before both of you today. 

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Carper for his leadership in 

introducing the Clean Air Planning Act. This legislation would reduce mercury emissions at powerplants by 90 percent by 2015. It 

would also address the pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, and 

climate change. I am very pleased to join the chairman as an original cosponsor of this important bill. 

There are also two other members of the subcommittee, Senators 

Lieberman and Clinton, who I have worked very closely with and 

who joined me earlier this year in introducing the Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would establish mercury monitoring sites 

across the Nation in order to measure mercury levels in the air, 

rain, lakes, streams, as well as in plants and animals. 

Our bill would authorize $18 million in fiscal year 2008, and additional funding through 2013, for the EPA, the U.S. Geological 
9 

Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to perform scientific 

mercury measures. These agencies would measure long-term 

changes in mercury levels in the air and watersheds, including 

mercury levels in plants and animals at multiple monitoring sites 

in different ecosystems across the country. 

The Act would also create an advisory committee to advise the 

administrator of the EPA in choosing where these sites should be 

across the country. Now, I don’t think that I need to tell anyone 

on this committee that in the wrong form, mercury is an acutely 

dangerous neurotoxin that can cause serious developmental harm, 

especially to children and pregnant women. 

In fact, recent studies indicate that at least 6 percent of women 

of childbearing age in this country carry enough accumulated mercury in their bodies to pose the risk of adverse health effects to 

their children should they become pregnant. I think that is very 

alarming, Mr. Chairman, and it is one reason that I feel so strongly 

that we need to know more about how mercury is accumulating in 

our environment, as well as its consequences. 

Tragically, EPA scientists have found that some 630,000 infants 

were born in the United States in a 12-month period from 1999 to 

2000 with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered 

safe. To see just how toxic mercury is, one does not have to look 

any further than my home State of Maine. It always concerns me 

that every single freshwater lake, river and stream in the State of 

Maine is subject to a mercury advisory warning that pregnant 

women and young children should limit their consumption of fish 

caught in these waters. 

Of course, Maine is a State that prides itself on clean air and 

clean water and a beautiful environment, and yet there are warnings on all of our freshwater lakes, streams, and rivers about mercury. This advisory is especially difficult for indigenous peoples like 

those of the Penobscot Indian Nation, for whom sustenance fishing 

is historically an important part of their culture. 

Mercury is dangerous not only to people, but also to wildlife. The 

Biodiversity Research Institute in Gorham, ME has found mercury 

concentrations in loon eggs in Maine that were dangerously high, 

nearly four times higher than those found in Alaska. EPA issued 

its Clean Air Mercury Rule in 2005 in order to help address this 

problem. But unfortunately, this rule really did not do the job. I 

don’t believe that it was based on sound science. 

Senator Lieberman and I met with EPA Administrator Johnson 

in 2005 in order to express our concerns over this rule. At that 

time, Mr. Johnson presented to us a number of charts depicting 

mercury problems across the United States, and in particular in 

the Northeast. I later found out in consulting with scientists that 

these charts were seriously flawed. They were based on computer 

measurements that were not peer-reviewed and that had not been 

verified with actual measurements. 

The extent of the flaws in the EPA data became apparent earlier 

this year with the publication of several new studies. These studies 

by individuals at the Biodiversity Research Institute in Gorham, 

ME, as well as researchers at Syracuse University, demonstrate 

the existence of mercury hotspots in the northeastern United 
10 

States, and attribute much of the cause of these hotspots where 

mercury is concentrated to emissions from powerplants. 

The studies conflict markedly with EPA’s computer modeling 

data, which were used to justify the EPA mercury rule. For example, the study showed that mercury deposition is five times higher 

than previously estimated near a coal plant in southern New 

Hampshire. What I think these studies demonstrate, Mr. Chairman, is the need for real world mercury measurements, not just 

computer models. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that we are under a time constraint this 

morning because of the votes that are coming up. Let me just close 

by saying that the EPA inspector general also issued a report a 

year ago saying that monitoring was needed to assess the impact 

of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule on these potential hotspots. That 

is exactly what this legislation would do. 

Now, I know that some of our colleagues have different opinions 

on the EPA’s mercury rule, and I certainly respect those opinions. 

But certainly, we all ought to be able to agree that the EPA ought 

to be basing its actions on the very best scientific measurements 

possible, and that is the purpose of the bill, the bipartisan bill that 

I have introduced. 

It would provide those scientific measurements across the United 

States, help us identify the hotspots, help us identify the causes. 

So I would ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be put 

in the record, but I thank you very much for the opportunity to be 

here today to testify about something that I feel very strongly 

about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. COLLINS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Voinovich, and Members of the Committee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the Comprehensive National 

Mercury Monitoring Act of 2007. 

Let me begin by thanking Chairman Carper for his leadership in introducing the 

Clean Air Planning Act. This legislation would reduce mercury emissions at powerplants by 90 percent by 2015. It would also address the pollutants that cause smog, 

acid rain, and climate change. I was pleased to join Senator Carper earlier this year 

as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. 

I also want to thank two distinguished members of this subcommittee, Senators 

Lieberman and Clinton, who joined me earlier this year in introducing the Mercury 

Monitoring Act. This legislation would establish mercury monitoring sites across the 

nation in order to measure mercury levels in the air, rain, soil, lakes and streams, 

as well as in plants and animals. 

Our legislation would authorize $18 million in fiscal year 2008, and additional 

funding through 2013, for the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration to perform scientific mercury measurements. These 

agencies would measure long-term changes in mercury levels in the air and watersheds, including mercury levels in plants and animals, at multiple monitoring sites 

in different ecosystems across the country. The Act would create a ‘‘Mercury Monitoring Advisory Committee’’ to advise the Administrator of the EPA in choosing the 

monitoring sites. 

I do not think I need to tell anyone on this Committee that, in the wrong form, 

mercury is an acutely dangerous toxin that can cause serious neurodevelopmental 

harm, especially to children and pregnant women. In fact, recent studies indicate 

that at least 6 percent of women of childbearing age in the United States carry 

enough accumulated mercury in their bodies to pose the risk of adverse health effects to their children, should they become pregnant. Tragically, scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency found that some 630,000 infants were born in the 
11 

United States in a 12-month period from 1999 to 2000 with blood mercury levels 

higher than what is considered safe. 

To see just how toxic mercury is, one does not have to look any farther than my 

home state of Maine. Every freshwater lake, river, and stream in my state is subject 

to a mercury advisory warning pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in these waters. This advisory is especially difficult for indigenous peoples, like those of the Penobscot Indian Nation, for whom subsistence 

fishing is an historically important part of their culture. 

Mercury is dangerous not only to people, but also to wildlife. The Biodiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine, found that mercury concentrations in loon eggs 

in Maine were dangerously high, nearly four times higher than those found in Alaska. 

EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule in 2005 in order to help address our nation’s mercury problem. Unfortunately, this rule did not go far enough. I believe it 

was not based on sound science. 

Senator Lieberman and I met with EPA Administrator Johnson in 2005 in order 

to express our concerns over this rule. At that time, Mr. Johnson presented a number of charts depicting the mercury problem across the United States, and in particular, in the Northeast. As I later found out, these charts were seriously flawed. 

They were based on computer measurements that were not peer-reviewed and that 

were not verified with actual measurements. 

The extent of the flaws in the EPA data became apparent earlier this year with 

the publication of several new studies. These studies, by David Evers and Wing 

Goodale of the Biodiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine, as well as researchers at Syracuse University, demonstrate the existence of mercury hotspots in 

the northeastern United States and attribute much of the cause of the hotspots to 

emissions from powerplants. 

These studies conflict markedly with EPA’s computer modeling data which were 

used to justify the EPA mercury rule. For example, the studies showed that mercury 

deposition is five times higher than previously estimated near a coal plant in southern New Hampshire. These studies demonstrate the need for real-world mercury 

measurements—not just computer models. 

The EPA Inspector General issued a report exactly one year ago yesterday titled 

‘‘Monitoring Needed to Assess Impact of EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule on Potential 

Hotspots.’’ This report noted that, ‘‘without field data from an improved monitoring 

network, EPA’s ability to advance mercury science will be limited and ‘utility-attributable’ hotspots that pose health risks may occur and go undetected.’’ The report 

recommended that EPA develop and implement a mercury monitoring plan. 

I realize that some of my colleagues have a different opinion on EPA’s mercury 

rule, and I respect their opinion. I hope, however, we can all agree that any EPA 

rule should be based on the best scientific measurements possible. I believe the 

Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would provide the scientific measurements we need in order to more accurately assess the extent of the mercury 

problem in this country, and to provide better information on how to address this 

serious problem. 

I thank Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Voinovich, and the members of this 

Subcommittee for providing this opportunity for me to appear before you today. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Collins, thank you very much. Without 

objection, your full statement will appear in the record. We are 

very grateful. We know this has been a hectic morning for you and 

we are grateful that you were able to work us into your schedule, 

and we look forward to working with you on this issue, as I have 

with others in the past. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. My family and I are going on a vacation in August, and among the places we are considering is Acadia National 

Park in Maine. Now that I know we can’t eat the fish that we catch 

there, I am sure we have to revisit this. 

Senator COLLINS. I would encourage you to come anyway. You 

are not of childbearing age anymore. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. You never know these days. Remember what 

we used to say to Strom Thurmond. 
12 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Again, thank you. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. 

We are going to try to do as best we can with this next set. Senate votes are now likely to start about 10 minutes later at 10:40 

a.m. This may just work, the answer to a prayer. 

I am going to ask our witnesses to come on up and have a seat 

at the table. The first panel is comprised of State witnesses representing the States of Illinois, New Jersey and Texas. We appreciate their willingness to appear before us today. I ask each of you 

to take maybe 5 minutes for your statements. I understand that 

Ms. Jackson from New Jersey cannot be here. Talk about hotspots. 

Who is here from New Jersey? Come on up and join us and 

maybe you will be willing to answer some questions. I understand 

your name is Alyssa Wolfe, and you are a counselor to the Commissioner for the Department of Environmental Protection. I understand there is a forest fire or something that was created by a fire 

that an aircraft dropped. So New Jersey knows first hand about 

hotspots today, but we are grateful, and there is a spot for you to 

sit right here. 

I spent most of the morning pronouncing Mr. Schanbacher’s 

name. I think I have it right. Let’s see here. Ms. Wolfe is here to 

respond to questions. She will not be giving the statement on behalf of the Commissioner. So we are going to just ask you to go 

ahead and lead us off. We are grateful that you are here, all the 

way from Texas, Austin, and know a thing or two about these 

issues. We appreciate your being here on behalf of your State. 

We look forward to Mr. Scott, who has come to us all the way 

from Illinois. I believe he is a fighting Illini. We have a couple of 

Buckeyes up here, and we always welcome our friends from Illinois. I am interested to hear what you are doing there in your 

State to address mercury, and especially how you got the utilities 

to buy into this. That will be an interesting discussion, I am sure. 

Mr. Schanbacher, you are on. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SCHANBACHER, CHIEF ENGINEER, 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Mr. SCHANBACHER. Thank you very much. 

I am David Schanbacher, the chief engineer of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Thank you, Chairman Carper 

and Ranking Member Voinovich for asking me to speak to you this 

morning. 

I have been working on environmental issues for over 15 years, 

and the transport and fate of mercury is one of the most complicated air pollutions that I have ever studied. We know a lot 

about the health effects of mercury thanks to extensive studies conducted outside of the United States. These studies looked at the 

children of women whose diet is comprised largely of fish. Fish consumption is the primary source of human mercury exposure. 

These studies determined the mercury level in the mother’s blood 

associated with the development of subtle neurological effects in 

their children. The EPA set a reference dose 10 times lower than 

the levels at which these subtle health effects were seen. Although 
13 

the EPA reference dose is very conservative and health effects are 

not expected, we like to maintain a large margin of safety for our 

citizens. 

Thanks to extensive sampling by the Centers for Disease Control, 

we also have a very good idea of the U.S. population’s exposure to 

mercury. Our review of the 2000–2001 CDC data indicates that 

only 2.5 percent of women of childbearing age have blood mercury 

levels greater than the EPA reference dose, and none of these 

women have blood mercury levels where any adverse effects are to 

be expected. 

We also have a Texas study with similar results. The Texas Department of State Health Services looked specifically at a group of 

people who live near and consume fish from Caddo Lake, which 

has a fish consumption advisory for mercury. They found that the 

blood mercury levels did increase with increasing fish consumption, 

but these levels were all well below those expected to cause adverse 

effects. 

At TCEQ, we look closely at all new information to make sure 

we are working with the best possible science. For example, a recent Texas study looked at mercury emissions and autism. This 

study reported an association between proximity to mercury emissions and special education rates. However, it could not establish 

that mercury causes autism, and in fact two recent case control 

studies indicated no causal relationship between mercury and autism. 

The amount of mercury in fish is determined by many different 

factors and varies regionally. Especially important is the chemistry 

of the water body where mercury is deposited. Factors such as pH, 

sulfate, and oxygen influence the rate at which divalent mercury 

is converted into methylmercury, the form that accumulates in fish. 

Whether or not a water body has a fish consumption advisory is 

more dependent on lake chemistry than proximity to a mercury 

emissions source. 

One major concern we have regarding a national standard for 

mercury control is the regional difference in the coal-types used in 

U.S. powerplants. Bituminous coal is used primarily in eastern 

States, while western States rely more on sub-bituminous coal and 

lignite. The coal type affects the amount and form of mercury released and the form of mercury is very important in determining 

deposition rates and the subsequent bio-accumulation of 

methylmercury in fish. 

Now, divalent or reactive mercury is the form that is most likely 

to deposit locally and that is most easily converted to 

methylmercury in the water body. Fortunately, divalent mercury is 

also the easiest to remove from powerplant emissions. Plants that 

burn bituminous coal emit primarily divalent mercury. This means 

that mercury is most easily controlled at plants in the eastern 

United States. 

Sub-bituminous coal and lignite, on the other hand, emit primarily elemental mercury, which is much more difficult to control 

because it is not water soluble and passes through most control devices. 
14 

However, elemental mercury is not deposited locally, but rather 

enters the global mercury pool where it is stable and can remain 

in the atmosphere from 6 months to 2 years. 

We believe that the EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule contains several important features that should be retained. It regulates powerplant mercury emissions based on the type of coal burned and as 

such the form of mercury emitted. Phase one of the mercury rule 

is set at levels that will likely force plants to control the more important divalent mercury. The cap and trade program creates a financial incentive for plants to remove more mercury than required. 

By deferring the removal of less important elemental mercury until 

2018, industry has time to develop cost effective and safe mercury 

control technology. 

I also have some concerns with requiring mercury emissions reductions on a more stringent schedule. Additional testing of the 

control technology is required to determine long-term reductions 

and the potential effects on unit performance. Activated carbon 

may change fly ash properties and may render it unusable in concrete, resulting in large volumes of ash to be landfilled, rather than 

reused. Many mercury-specific controls are designed to convert elemental mercury, which does not deposit locally, into divalent mercury which does. Control requirements that outpace technology 

could ironically increase local mercury deposition. 

The EPA fish tissue modeling shows very little, if any, benefit 

from phase two, because phase two addresses elemental mercury, 

which does not deposit locally. Finally, mercury control requirements that outpace technology could adversely impact the Nation’s 

supply of affordable and reliable electricity, and cause a shift away 

from one of our most abundant domestic energy sources. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schanbacher follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. SCHANBACHER, P.E., CHIEF ENGINEER, TEXAS COMMISSION

ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mercury is toxic to the nervous system and potentially associated with cardiovascular disease; however, blood mercury levels in the United States are below levels shown to cause adverse health effects. The U.S. EPA has developed a Reference 

Dose based on subtle neurological effects seen in children whose mothers consume 

higher than average amounts of fish. This level of 0.3 mg methylmercury/kg whole 

fish is 10 times lower than the levels at which effects were actually seen. The Reference Dose is set to protect against adverse effects from daily exposure in sensitive 

groups. Our review of the 2000-2001 National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey indicates that only 2.5 percent of women of child-bearing age had blood mercury levels greater than the Reference Dose. None of these women had blood mercury levels above doses where adverse effects were seen. Although these values are 

conservative and health effects are not expected to occur, we would like to maintain 

conservative levels of mercury in the blood of our citizens. As such, we advise people 

to limit their consumption of fish that exceed conservative screening values. The 

Texas Department of State Health Services looked specifically at a group of people 

who live near and consume fish from Caddo Lake, which has a fish-consumption advisory for mercury. They found that blood mercury levels did increase with increasing fish consumption, but these levels were all well below levels expected to cause 

adverse effects. All women of child-bearing age in this study had blood mercury levels below the EPA Reference Dose. 

A recent study in Texas raised concerns about the association of mercury and autism. This study reported an association between mercury emissions and special 

education rates; however, it cannot establish that mercury causes autism. In fact, 

two recent case-control studies indicate no causal relationship between mercury and 

autism. 
15 

Fish consumption is the primary source of methylmercury exposure for humans; 

however, the amount of mercury in fish is determined by many different factors and 

varies regionally. These factors include the pH, dissolved organic carbon, sulfate, 

and oxygen content of the water body where divalent mercury is deposited. These 

factors influence the rate at which bacteria convert divalent mercury into 

methylmercury, which is the form that accumulates in fish. 

Regional differences also exist in the types of coal used to fuel powerplants in the 

United States. The type of coal burned also affects the amount and form of mercury 

released. The form of mercury released is very important in determining deposition 

rates and subsequent bioaccumulation of methylmercury in fish. Bituminous coal is 

primarily used in the eastern United States, while western states rely more on subbituminous coal and lignite, especially in Texas. Bituminous coal, when burned, 

emits primarily divalent, or reactive, mercury. Sub-bituminous coal and lignite, on 

the other hand, emit primarily elemental mercury. 

Divalent mercury settles out readily from the atmosphere through wet and dry 

deposition and as such, is subject to local deposition. Elemental mercury, the primary form of mercury emitted from sub-bituminous coal and lignite, is not deposited 

locally, but rather enters the global pool of mercury, where it is stable and can remain in the atmosphere between six months and two years. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR) appropriately regulates mercury emissions from powerplants based on the 

type of coal burned and as such, the form of mercury emitted. The Phase I CAMR 

rule relies on co-benefits of the Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR. CAIR controls 

to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), such as scrubbers, are also 

very effective in controlling divalent mercury, the form of mercury primarily emitted 

from bituminous coal and subject to local deposition. Texas electric generating units 

are subject to some of the most stringent requirements in the nation for NOx and 

SO2. 

EPA’s Phase II CAMR controls will rely on mercury-specific control technologies 

that address control of elemental mercury. Mercury-specific technologies are in various stages of development. Additional testing is required to determine long-term reductions, potential effects on unit performance, and fly ash contamination for the 

types of coal burned in Texas. Current research has shown that abatement devices 

do not work equally as well for all boilers. Elemental mercury, specifically from lignite and sub-bituminous coal, can be especially difficult to control, because elemental mercury is not very water-soluble and passes through most abatement devices. Mercury efficiency removal rates for lignite have been recorded anywhere 

from 0 to 75 percent depending on the control technology. Lack of full-scale and 

long-term testing data for all mercury-specific control devices, particularly for lignite-fired boilers, is an important concern for Texas. For example, substantial data 

for activated carbon in municipal solid waste combustors exists, but these systems, 

with typically lower flue gas temperatures, are not as complex as utility boilers. Results from activated carbon injection from utility boilers vary, even on systems with 

similar design. With regard to fly ash contamination, standard sorbents may change 

the properties of the fly ash and may render it unusable in concrete, potentially resulting in large volumes of ash to be landfilled rather than put into beneficial reuse. 

Although mercury controls will be available for use on some scale prior to 2018, 

EPA and Texas do not believe they can be installed and operated on a national scale 

prior to that date. The potential availability and reliability of these controls provides 

justification for CAMR Phase II to begin in 2018 and Texas agrees. It is somewhat 

ironic that most of the mercury-specific controls are designed to convert elemental 

mercury, which is not subject to local deposition, into divalent mercury, which is. 

Lastly, EPA modeling of mercury fish tissue concentrations as a result of both CAIR 

and CAMR controls shows very little, if any, impact of CAMR Phase II over the 

CAIR controls. This result is expected since CAMR Phase II addresses elemental 

mercury which is not subject to local deposition. 

There are three main interconnected networks or power grids that comprise the 

electric power system in the continental United States: the Eastern Interconnect, 

the Western Interconnect, and the Texas Interconnect. The Texas Interconnect is 

not connected with the other networks, except through certain direct current interconnection facilities. Limited portions of Texas do fall into the other two interconnects, however the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow 

of electric power in the Texas Interconnect to approximately 20 million Texas customers—representing 85 percent of the state’s electric load and 75 percent of the 

Texas land area. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects 38,000 miles of transmission lines and 

more than 500 generation units. In August 2005, ERCOT recorded a new system 
16 

peak demand of 60,274 megawatts (MW) surpassing the previous record of 60,095 

MW set in 2003. With Texas’ continued growth, reliable power is essential. 

Texas currently has 17 coal-fired electric generating utilities (EGUs) that have 36 

boilers that are covered by the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Of the 36 boilers, 

15 are lignite (8200 megawatt electrical (MWe)); 20 are subbituminous (8102 MWe); 

and one uses bituminous coal (600 MWe). In 2003, 39 percent of the power in Texas 

was generated by coal (49 percent natural gas, 9 percent nuclear and 1.2 percent 

renewable). Texas committed to participating in the CAMR cap-and-trade program 

by adopting the federal rule by reference in July 2006. For CAMR Phase I beginning 

in 2010 through 2017, the EPA is relying on reductions as a ‘‘co-benefit’’ of NOx and 

SO2 controls from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to assist EGUs in meeting 

the Phase I requirements of CAMR budgets. CAMR Phase II begins in 2018 and 

additional controls may be necessary for EGUs to meet their mercury allowance 

caps. 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Schanbacher, thank you very much, and 

thanks again for joining us. We look forward to asking you a couple 

of questions here in a few minutes. 

Mr. Scott, again welcome. Commissioner Jackson is not here, and 

Ms. Wolfe is not here to give her statement, but she will be here 

to answer all the tough questions that Senator Voinovich and I are 

going to ask. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent that Commissioner Jackson’s statement be made a part of the record. Without objection, it 

will be. 

[The referenced document follows on page 156.] 

Senator CARPER. The same will be true for each of our other witnesses. We will make your entire statement part of the record, unless there are objections. 

Hearing none, Mr. Scott, you are recognized. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Chairman Carper and Senator 

Voinovich. My name is Doug Scott. I am the director of the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency. On behalf of Governor Rod 

Blagojevich, I want to thank you and the committee members for 

this opportunity to testify on Illinois’ recently adopted regulations 

to control mercury emissions from the State’s coal-fired powerplants that also successfully implemented a multi-pollutant strategy to achieve substantial reductions in nitrogen oxide and sulfur 

dioxide. 

I believe our experience has shown that significant mercury reductions beyond those contained in the Federal Clean Air Mercury 

Rule can be achieved with available technology and at a reasonable 

cost, while providing substantial benefits to public health. 

Like other States, Illinois felt strongly that the Federal rule was 

inadequate in protecting public health. Like Senator Collins, I come 

from a State where we have a fish advisory on all waters of the 

State for all predator fish. 

Senator CARPER. I guess that will knock out New Jersey for us 

for our family vacation, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. We thought that the Federal rule was too slow in 

terms of when the restrictions came in; required too little reduction. We had strong objection to the trading of the neurotoxin, 

which may leave Illinois and other States with no substantial reductions. 

But as a result of negotiations with the major coal-fired powerplant operators, we were able to reach agreements that will result 

not only in significantly exceeding the mercury reductions that 

would have occurred under CAMR, but also achieve reductions in 

NOx and SO2 that go beyond the Federal clean air interstate rule 

requirements. 

Illinois has been aggressive in other mercury legislation as well. 

There is still an issue in terms of collection of materials that contain mercury. There is still an issue in terms of where that material goes. I know Senator Obama from our State and Senator Murkowski have legislation to address that, that we are very interested 
94 

in. But with respect to powerplants, the written testimony that I 

have filed with the subcommittee details the qualifications and conclusions of the group of respected experts on regulatory, technical 

controls, economic and health issues relative to mercury reductions 

from powerplants that assisted us. 

Their work and that of our own EPA Bureau of Air staff created 

a strong case for the Governor’s plan to reduce mercury emissions 

from Illinois coal-fired powerplants by 90 percent beginning in mid2009. Illinois obtains more than 40 percent of its electricity from 

21 coal-fired powerplants, and we sit on top of 38 billion tons of 

coal, giving us the third largest coal reserves in the Nation. 

Coal-fired powerplants in Illinois constitute the largest source of 

manmade emissions of mercury and sulfur dioxide, and one of the 

largest sources of nitrogen oxide. After nearly a full year of stakeholder meetings and contested public hearings, rulemaking procedures, and lengthy negotiations, the Illinois mercury rule was 

unanimously approved, both by our Pollution Control Board and by 

our Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, and the 

rule became effective on December 21 of last year. 

The special significance was that the introduction of the Illinois 

mercury rule became the catalyst for the State to reach landmark 

environmentally beneficial agreements with the three largest coalfired powerplant systems operating in Illinois: Midwest Generation, 

Ameren, and Dynegy. These three companies represent 88 percent 

of Illinois’ coal-fired electric generating capacity, and account for 

hundreds of thousands of tons of air emissions each year. 

After the Illinois EPA presented its findings in support of the 

mercury rule during 2 weeks of public hearings that were well attended and full of lively debate, the Illinois EPA was approached 

by one of the power companies who expressed a desire to work toward common goals on a multi-pollutant solution. As a result of 

long hours of negotiation, an alternative standard was proposed 

that allowed some limited flexibility in complying with the mercury 

standards in exchange for commitments to also significantly reduce 

SO2 and NOx. 

This initial agreement led to similar discussions and similar 

agreements with Illinois’ other two large coal-burning powerplant 

owners. The outcome is a critical milestone in reducing air pollution and one of the most important environmental and public 

health advances in Illinois history. It represents the largest reduction in air emissions ever agreed to by individual companies in Illinois under any context, whether through an enforcement action or 

through a regulation. 

The mercury reductions obtained from Illinois’ rule will substantially be greater than those under Federal CAMR, and will occur 

more quickly. Whereas the Clean Air Mercury Rule would cap Illinois’ annual mercury emissions at 3,188 pounds by 2010 through 

2017, the Illinois rule results in annual mercury emissions of only 

around 770 pounds beginning in 2009. 

Overall, under CAMR, coal-fired power producers in Illinois 

would have only been required to reduce their mercury emissions 

by 47 percent in 2010 and 78 percent by 2018, not the 90 percent 

reduction by 2009 required in the Illinois rule. In addition, trading 

mercury allowances is not permitted under the Illinois rule to pre-
95 

vent the hotspots that we have already heard about this morning, 

and to assure that reductions actually occur in Illinois, in contrast 

to the cap and trade program under CAMR. 

Coal-fired powerplant operators covered by the negotiated multipollutants standards must also comply with Federal CAIR, the 

combined impact will be reductions of SO2 and NOx that will far 

exceed those required under CAIR alone. Under the proposed 

CAIR, U.S. EPA estimates that coal-fired power producers in Illinois would have been required to reduce their SO2 emissions by 34 

percent overall by 2019. Under the agreement that we reached 

with Midwest Generation, the largest coal-fired power generator in 

Illinois, by 2019 an estimated 80 percent reduction in SO2 will 

occur. 

Under the multi-pollutant solution, Ameren will be required to 

reduce emissions of SO2 by 76 percent by 2015 and Dynegy will be 

required to reduce emissions by 65 percent by 2015. We project the 

total emission cuts from all three power companies that will result 

from a combined CAIR and multi-pollutant solution rule, comparing a baseline in the 2003 and 2005 period with 2019, the reduction will be over 233,000 tons per year of reduction in SO2 and 

over 61,000 tons per year reduction of NOx. 

They also substantially restrict trading of SO2 and NOx allowances to assure that the reductions actually occur at the Illinois 

plants, which is not only good for our citizens, but good for the 

folks that are to the northeast of us as well. Some mercury emission reductions—— 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Scott, given the fact that votes are just 

starting, I am going to ask you to go ahead and wrap it up, if you 

will. 

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely. 

Senator CARPER. So we will have a chance to try to ask the questions of this panel, to excuse this panel, and we will rush off to 

make our votes. So if you could just wrap it up, please. 

Mr. SCOTT. Certainly, thank you, Senator. 

Flexibility for mercury control was provided in the form of relief 

of timing of demonstrating compliance with the 90 percent reduction standard, which we believe is the key to this. It gives the companies some flexibility and some certainty as they not only comply 

with the mercury rule, but with other legislation to come. We believe that that is one of the reasons why they willingly entered into 

these agreements with us. 

The result for citizens in Illinois, and we think citizens of other 

States, will be significant public health benefits, while still assuring affordable and reliable energy. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR, ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Doug Scott and I am 

the Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. I want to thank Senator Carper and the other members of the Senate Subcommittee on Clean Air and 

Nuclear Safety for this opportunity to testify on Illinois’ recently adopted regulations to control mercury emissions from the State’s coal-fired powerplants. 

I received a Bachelor’s Degree with honors from the University of Tulsa in 1982, 

and received a graduate Juris Doctor law degree with honors from Marquette Uni-
96 

versity in 1985. I served as Assistant City Attorney and City Attorney for the City 

of Rockford, Illinois from 1985 to 1995. I also represented the City on a number of 

environmental issues. From 1995–2001 I served as an Illinois State Representative 

for the 67th District and served on the House Energy and Environment Committee, 

and was a member of the committee that rewrote the States’ electric utility laws. 

I was elected to the Office of the Mayor of Rockford in April 2001 and served a fouryear term and served as President of the Illinois Chapter of the National 

Brownfields Association. I was appointed as the Director of the Illinois EPA by Governor Rod Blagojevich in July 2005. 

I am pleased to be here to provide testimony on behalf of Illinois Governor Rod 

Blagojevich and the Illinois EPA regarding Illinois’ mercury rule and the associated 

agreements we reached with the State’s three largest coal-fired powerplant system 

owners. My testimony will provide background information and a broad overview of 

the development of Illinois’ mercury rule and the related multi-pollutant reduction 

agreements. I will address some of the measures the Illinois EPA took during rule 

development to ensure that we relied on accurate and current information as we 

crafted the rule. 

INTRODUCTION

Illinois is a large industrial state with a population of around 13 million and a 

gross state product of $522 billion, both of which are approximately four percent of 

the U.S. total and ranks Illinois as fifth among the 50 states in these categories. 

Illinois obtains more than 40 percent of its electricity from coal-fired powerplants 

and sits on top of 38 billion tons of coal, giving it the third largest coal reserves 

in the nation. Coal-fired powerplants in Illinois constitute the largest source of manmade emissions of mercury and sulfur dioxide (SO2), and one of the largest sources 

of nitrogen oxides (NOx). 

On January 5, 2006, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich announced an aggressive 

proposal to reduce mercury emissions from Illinois coal-fired powerplants by 90 percent beginning mid 2009. After nearly a full year of stakeholder meetings, contested 

public hearings, rulemaking procedural processes, and lengthy negotiations, the Illinois mercury rule was unanimously approved by both the Illinois Pollution Control 

Board (Board) and the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), the two 

governing oversight bodies for regulations in Illinois. The Illinois mercury rule became effective on December 21, 2006. This rule requires coal-fired powerplants in 

Illinois to achieve greater reductions of mercury and achieve these reductions more 

quickly than that proposed in May 2005 by the U.S. EPA under the federal Clean 

Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Illinois is not alone in seeking to go beyond the federal 

CAMR. Other states have made similar decisions. Numerous states have adopted 

mercury reduction programs that ‘‘go beyond’’ CAMR in their reduction target or 

timeframe for obtaining reductions, and a number of other states have announced 

their intentions to do so as well. 

Of special significance for Illinois was that the Illinois mercury rule became the 

catalyst for the State to reach landmark, environmentally-beneficial agreements 

with the three largest coal-fired powerplant systems operating in Illinois: Midwest 

Generation, Ameren, and Dynegy. These three companies represent 88 percent of 

Illinois’ 17,007 Megawatts of coal-fired electric generating capacity and account for 

hundreds of thousands of tons of air emissions each year. 

After the Illinois EPA presented its findings in support of the mercury rule during 

two weeks of public hearings that were well attended and full of lively debate, the 

Illinois EPA was approached by one of the power companies that expressed a desire 

to work toward common goals. As a result of long hours of negotiation, an alternative standard was proposed that allowed some limited flexibility in complying 

with the mercury standards in exchange for commitments to also significantly reduce SO2 and NOx emissions from the company’s coal-fired powerplants. This initial 

agreement led to similar discussions and agreements with Illinois’ other two large 

coal-burning plant owners. 

The agreements reached and memorialized in the Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS) 

and Combined Pollutant Standard (CPS) are significant not only for the magnitude 

of emissions reductions that occur, but also for the mercury rule support that accompanied the agreements. The Illinois mercury rule was initially vehemently opposed 

by a unified coal-fired power industry. The first agreement established that mutual 

goals were achievable, set the guiding principles, and opened the door for other companies to follow. Ultimately, the success of the Illinois mercury rule, and in particular the final unanimous approval of the rule, can be widely attributed to the removal of significant opposition and reciprocating support that occurred due to these 

agreements. 
97 

These multi-pollutant reduction agreements are expected to result in measurable 

improvements to Illinois and regional air quality by dramatically reducing mercury, 

SO2, and NOx emissions. The agreed to measures are a critical milestone in reducing air pollution and one of the most important environmental and public health advances in Illinois or this nation’s history. They represent the largest reductions in 

air emissions ever agreed to by individual companies in Illinois under any context, 

whether through an enforcement action or regulation. 

The coal-fired powerplant operators covered by MPS and CPS must also fully comply with the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the combined impact will 

be reductions of SO2 and NOx that will far exceed those required under CAIR alone. 

Under the proposed CAIR, U.S. EPA estimates that coal-fired power producers in 

Illinois would have been required to reduce their SO2 missions by 34 percent overall, by 2019. Under the CPS, Midwest Generation, the largest coal-fired power generator in Illinois, will have an estimated reduction of 80 percent by 2019 in SO2. 

In terms of the emission rate, it would have been an estimated 0.45 pounds per million Btu by 2019 under CAIR only, compared to 0.11 pounds per million Btu with 

CPS. Under MPS, Ameren will be required to reduce emissions of SO2 by 76 percent 

by 2015 and Dynegy will be required to reduce emissions by 65 percent by 2015. 

For NOx, the reduction would be a projected 55 percent for all of the coal-fired 

powerplants in Illinois under CAIR only compared to 62 percent for Midwest Generation under CPS, 52 percent for Ameren and 48 percent for Dynegy under MPS. 

The Illinois EPA estimates the total emission cuts from all three power companies 

that will result from the combined CAIR, CPS and MPS rules, comparing a baseline 

in the 2003–2005 period and 2019, will be 233,600 tons per year reduction for SO2

and 61,434 tons per year reduction for NOx. 

Just as trading to prevent ‘‘hotspots’’ was prohibited in the mercury rule, in order 

to receive the maximum benefit in Illinois air quality and to prevent contributions 

to interstate pollution transport, the CPS and MPS rules also substantially restrict 

trading of SO2 and NOx allowances. For Midwest Generation, under the CPS, the 

allowances can only be initially traded to the company’s own generation station in 

Homer City, Pennsylvania and thereafter only outside Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas—all of which are 

states that have been shown to contribute to pollution in Illinois. For Ameren and 

Dynegy, there are no restrictions on the trading of allowances interstate amongst 

their own units, however, they can only interstate trade any additional allowances 

that occur as a result of controlling emissions beyond the levels required by the 

MPS. This provides an incentive for these companies to reduce emissions to the 

greatest extent possible instead of seeking only to control emissions to the exact 

level of the MPS numeric emission limits. In addition, Midwest Generation, Ameren 

and Dynegy cannot purchase allowances to assist in meeting the MPS or CPS emission standards. 

ILLINOIS MERCURY RULEMAKING PROCESS

The mercury rulemaking process in Illinois began long before 2006 with Illinois 

providing comments on federal mercury control proposals and indicating to our coalfired power industry that the State was looking to control mercury emissions to the 

greatest extent reasonably possible in consideration of technical and economic 

issues. 

Illinois Governor’s Rod Blagojevich’s January 2006 announcement on mercury 

control set the rule development process into high gear. The Illinois EPA began to 

hold stakeholder meetings later that very month and proposed a draft rule to the 

Board in March of 2006. 

Illinois recognized early on that it needed to obtain the highest quality information on the controversial subject of mercury control. We sought out and retained nationally recognized experts on different topics regarding mercury. These experts 

were utilized to assist the Illinois EPA in rule development and testimony before 

the Board. Experts were retained that included: Dr. James Staudt, PhD, Andover 

Technology Partners, on mercury controls and associated costs; Dr. Gerald Keeler, 

PhD, Professor, University of Michigan, on mercury deposition and local impacts; 

Dr. Deborah Rice, PhD, Toxicologist, on health effects; ICF Consulting Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, on regulatory economic impacts; Dick Ayres, Principal, 

Ayres Law Group, on regulatory issues surrounding mercury control. 

The Illinois EPA performed significant outreach to stakeholders on the rule, including the aforementioned stakeholder outreach meetings in early 2006 where we 

presented information on our findings, updated stakeholders on the rule, requested 

feedback on issues, and held question and answer sessions. We also provided regular mail and e-mail addresses to allow interested parties to submit comments and 
98 

questions that were then answered at the stakeholder meetings. In addition, we repeatedly offered to meet with any stakeholders in smaller groups to discuss the rule 

and related issues, and, in fact, held many such meetings. 

The rule was the subject of much controversy from the outset. Illinois’ coal-fired 

powerplants united in opposition and several court proceedings followed the initial 

filing of the rule. Nevertheless, the mercury proposal continued to progress through 

the rulemaking process. As is normal for any controversial rulemaking, the Board 

scheduled public hearings with the initial round of hearings designated for the Illinois EPA to present its case on why the rule should be adopted. 

The proposed mercury rule received support from the State’s environmental 

groups and an alliance of opposition from the State’s coal-fired powerplant owners. 

The first round of hearings lasted a full two weeks and we believe the Illinois EPA 

and its experts built a strong case for stringent mercury control before the Board, 

facilitating the subsequent negotiations with the powerplant systems on alternative 

multi-pollutant regulatory approaches. 

The second round of hearings was designed for the coal-fired powerplant representatives to present their findings to the Board on why they believed the rule 

was flawed. The beginning of these hearings witnessed the introduction of a joint 

filing by the Illinois EPA and one of the power companies on the agreement reached 

whereby the company would withdraw all opposition to the proposed mercury rule 

based on an amendment to the rule that contained an agreed upon multi-pollutant 

standard. This set the stage for other agreements to subsequently be reached, although the last agreement was not finalized until after the second round of hearings 

ended and only shortly before the rule was approved by JCAR. 

The crux of the multi-pollutant agreements lies in the mutual benefits of multipollutant standards for controlling the emissions of mercury, SO2, and NOx from 

coal-fired powerplants. Such benefits include an increase in the protection of public 

health and the environment by achieving greater reductions, reducing pollution 

more cost-effectively, and offering greater certainty to both industry and regulators. 

Since mercury emission reductions can be obtained as a co-benefit from the control 

devices used to reduce SO2 and NOx, it makes sense to allow companies the option 

to synchronize the control of these pollutants, provided that public health and the 

environment are also positively impacted. Flexibility for mercury control in the MPS 

and CPS was provided in the form of relief in the timing of demonstrating compliance with a 90 percent reduction standard, with the final goal of achieving even 

greater reductions. In essence, under the MPS and CPS, companies are required to 

install mercury controls on the vast majority of their units no later than mid-2009 

as required in the primary mercury standard. However, actual compliance with the 

90 percent standard is not required to be demonstrated until 2015 for those units 

that are unable to achieve this level of reduction. In providing more time to reach 

compliance with the 90 percent mercury standard, emission controls that target SO2

and NOx, and that achieve mercury reductions as a co-benefit, can be installed and 

thereafter be used to further reduce mercury to the desired level. It is anticipated 

that companies will install a multitude of pollution control equipment costing billions of dollars on their units, including scrubbers for SO2, selective catalytic reduction and non-selective catalytic reduction units for NOx, and particulate matter control equipment, such as electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters. 

In recognition of the high level of SO2 and NOx control that result from companies meeting the agreed standards of the MPS and CPS, the Illinois EPA pledged 

to look first at other sources than those complying with the MPS and CPS in Illinois 

for future reductions in these pollutants for purposes of meeting the State’s air quality goals. 

The Illinois mercury rulemaking process culminated with the adoption of the rule 

with an effective date of December 21, 2006. 

MERCURY BACKGROUND AND CONCERNS

Mercury is a persistent, bioaccumulative neurotoxin that presents a serious threat 

to the health and welfare to the citizens of Illinois and nationwide. Mercury as a 

pollutant is of particular concern to Illinois due to our large fleet of coal-fired powerplants. Mercury is contained in small amounts in all forms of coal that are burned 

at Illinois powerplants. The combustion of coal at powerplants represents the largest 

source category of anthropogenic mercury emissions in Illinois, and for that matter, 

in the United States. As the coal is burned in a boiler at a powerplant, the mercury 

is released into the exhaust flue stream and travels through existing ductwork and 

control devices until it is finally emitted through a stack into the atmosphere. 

Mercury is released into the atmosphere from anthropogenic emission sources 

such as coal-fired powerplants as either a gas or attached to minute solid particles. 
99 

These emissions can contaminate the environment both locally near the point of release and many miles away. Mercury emissions in the air are transferred to the 

earth’s surface via wet or dry deposition processes. The wet forms can fall to earth 

as rain, snow, or fog while the dry forms are particulates. 

Mercury that is directly deposited or finds its way into the aquatic systems transforms into methylmercury through a series of chemical reactions involving microbial 

activity. Methylmercury is toxic and is the most common organic form of mercury 

found in the environment. It is very soluble and bioaccumulates within the tissues 

of wildlife (fish, aquatic invertebrates, mammals) as well as humans. Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism’s rate of uptake of a substance exceeds its rate of 

elimination. Fish become contaminated as they feed on contaminated food sources 

such as plankton or smaller fish. Humans are contaminated as a result of eating 

contaminated fish. 

A key concept in understanding the need and methods for mercury control is that, 

although mercury air emissions are the target for reductions, the ultimate goal is 

to reduce methylmercury levels in water bodies, and hence, fish tissue. 

The Illinois EPA retained the services of Dr. Gerald Keeler to assist us with understanding mercury deposition and to provide technical information on deposition 

issues. Dr. Keeler is a recognized leader in the field of mercury deposition and has 

conducted state-of-the-art research on the relationship of mercury emissions, local 

impacts, and coal-fired powerplants. 

ILLINOIS COAL-FIRED POWERPLANTS AND MERCURY

Today, more than 40 percent of Illinois’ electricity comes from coal-fired powerplants. Illinois is home to 21 coal-fired powerplants that are affected by the Illinois 

mercury rule, most of which are over 25 years old. There are a total of 59 electric 

generating units operating at these 21 plants. These coal-fired powerplants emitted 

an estimated 7,022 pounds per year of mercury into the atmosphere in 2002. We 

estimate that these powerplants make up around 71 percent of Illinois’ man-made 

mercury emissions. The State’s fleet of powerplants are scattered throughout Illinois, with many located near major bodies of water. 

Mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants can have both local and downwind 

environmental impacts and Dr. Keeler assisted the Illinois EPA in understanding 

the potential for local impacts from powerplants. Illinois EPA believes that the reduction in mercury emissions required by the rule will result in significant reductions of mercury deposition and methylmercury levels in Illinois waters and fish. 

This belief is reinforced by actual measured reductions in methylmercury fish tissue 

contents in Florida and Massachusetts that directly coincide with measures taken 

to reduce mercury emissions from nearby sources. 

Because mercury is of such a significant concern to human health and the environment, Illinois has adopted legislation and/or implemented a number of programs 

to reduce mercury emissions to the environment from sources other than coal-fired 

powerplants. Illinois’ coal-fired powerplants constitute the largest source of uncontrolled mercury emissions in the State. 

MERCURY CONTAMINATION IN ILLINOIS

Fish consumption advisories are issued when concentrations above human healthbased limits of one or more of contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), chlordane, and mercury are detected in fish tissue. One of the most profound statements regarding the status of mercury contamination in Illinois is that 

there is a statewide advisory for predator fish in Illinois waters due to 

methylmercury. Fish consumption use is associated with all waterbodies in the 

State and therefore it is commonly stated that all waterbodies in the State have a 

fish consumption advisory in place for mercury. According to the latest (2004) Illinois list of impaired waters, there are 61 river segments (1,034 miles) and 8 lakes 

(6,264 acres) that have mercury listed as a potential cause of impairment due to 

restrictions on fish consumption. 

Our review of fish consumption literature provides convincing evidence that sport 

anglers currently consume amounts of sport-caught fish that could cause them and 

their families to exceed health-based limits for mercury contamination. The literature regarding anglers’ consumption of their catch strongly suggests that a subset of these anglers have meal frequencies that exceed the state-wide fish consumption advisory for mercury, putting them well above the recommended rates for even 

fairly low levels of contamination. 

The Illinois EPA retained the services of Dr. Deborah Rice, a toxicologist with a 

background in the health effects of mercury, to assist us with understanding the 
100 

human health effects of mercury and to provide technical information on such effects. 

MERCURY CONTROL IN ILLINOIS—IDENTIFYING THE NEED TO GO BEYOND CAMR

After earlier activities to determine how best to regulate mercury, on January 30, 

2004, U.S. EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth three alternative regulatory approaches to reducing emissions of mercury from coal-fired powerplants. In two of the three alternatives, U.S. EPA proposed to rescind its regulatory finding, which would require Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) level control of mercury emissions, and instead impose statewide mercury 

emissions budgets to regulate powerplants that could be met through a cap and 

trade program, namely the CAMR. 

In response to the proposed rule, the Illinois EPA submitted comments, making 

the following key points: 

• Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that needs to be regulated under Section 112 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and as such, the mercury emissions from powerplants 

must be subject to a MACT standard; 

• Mercury limits must be more stringent than set forth in the proposed U.S. EPA 

rule; 

• Any mercury rule for powerplants must be fuel neutral, without favoring coal 

from any particular region of the country, and thus, there should be a common 

standard for bituminous and subbituminous coal; 

• Illinois EPA opposes emissions trading of mercury allowances unless the units 

involved in trading can demonstrate that mercury hotspots are prevented; and 

• Mercury emission reductions can and should occur by 2010. 

The comments also stated that U.S. EPA gave insufficient support for its extended 

compliance deadline of 2018, which U.S. EPA acknowledged could extend compliance out to 2025 or 2030 due to banking elements of the trading program. 

In April 2004, U.S. EPA reversed the regulatory course it established in 2000 for 

regulation of mercury emissions under Section 112 and announced two key proposals: (1) to remove the source category containing coal-fired powerplants from the 

list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emitters under Section 112 of the CAA, and, 

(2) to adopt a cap-and-trade program under Section 111 of the CAA instead of 

MACT standards under Section 112 of the CAA. This regulatory approach adopted 

none of Illinois EPA’s key points on mercury control. 

On March 15, 2005, U.S. EPA issued the CAMR to permanently cap and reduce 

mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants. Notably, CAMR did not apply a 

MACT standard to mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, and instead created a market-based cap-and-trade program to reduce nationwide powerplant emissions of mercury in two separate phases. The first phase sets a national emissions 

cap of 38 tons in 2010 that is to be achieved by mercury reductions occurring as 

a co-benefit of requirements for reducing SO2 and NOx emissions under the federal 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). No mercury specific controls are required in this 

first phase. The second phase begins in 2018 and requires coal-fired powerplants to 

meet a reduced national cap of 15 tons. Illinois’ budget, or cap, under CAMR is 

1.594 tons per year of mercury for Phase I and 0.629 tons per year for Phase II. 

U.S. EPA estimates that CAMR provides mercury emission reductions from Illinois 

coal-fired powerplants of approximately 47 percent by 2010 and 79 percent by 2018. 

After review of CAMR, the Illinois EPA determined that CAMR will not result 

in timely and sufficient reductions of mercury and that the rule contained biased 

allocation methods that favored non-Illinois coals and thus impeded Illinois’ efforts 

to encourage use of clean-coal technologies involving Illinois coal. Illinois EPA requested that the Illinois Attorney General’s Office file an appeal of CAMR and the 

related U.S. EPA actions. On May 27, 2005, the State of Illinois filed Petitions for 

Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

challenging CAMR. Thirteen other states also filed one or more appeals of the 

CAMR and related actions. These appeals are pending. 

Illinois is not required to adopt the CAMR, but must submit a State plan to 

achieve the statewide mercury emissions budget called for in the rule and must 

demonstrate that Illinois’ plan will achieve at least as much reduction as CAMR. 

Illinois’ plan is afforded the ability to forego trading and the other aspects of a capand-trade program. However, if Illinois’ submittal is not timely and deemed acceptable by the U.S. EPA, then CAMR will be imposed upon Illinois. Illinois’ plan was 

due to the U.S. EPA by no later than November 17, 2006. 

The Illinois EPA determined that the appropriate method to protect the public 

health and environment while meeting federal requirements was to adopt reason-
101 

able state-specific mercury reduction requirements for Illinois’ coal-fired powerplants. 

ILLINOIS MERCURY RULE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

In developing the Illinois mercury rule, Illinois EPA took several steps, including 

consulting recognized experts, holding discussions with stakeholders and interested 

parties, conducting research and literature reviews, and utilizing internal experts 

and staff. 

A key finding was that mercury control technologies have advanced significantly 

over the last several years (e.g., use of halogenated sorbents) resulting in both a reduction in costs of mercury control and increased effectiveness. The trend is one 

where technological advances and vendor expansion should continue to lead to decreasing costs and increasing control efficiencies and options. 

The Illinois EPA retained the service of Dr. James Staudt of Andover Technology 

Partners to assist us in understanding the state-of-the-art in mercury controls, levels of mercury reductions obtainable under different control configurations, and the 

associated costs. Dr. Staudt is a nationally renowned expert on coal-fired powerplant 

controls and has done similar work for U.S. EPA, among others. 

The Illinois EPA relied on several basic principles as guidance in developing the 

proposed rule: 

• The need to protect human health, fish and wildlife, and the environment from 

the harmful effects of mercury and methylmercury; 

• The need to control the unregulated mercury emissions from Illinois’ coal-fired 

powerplants to the greatest level possible and as quickly as possible in a cost-effective manner; 

• Must consider the latest control technology that has been shown effective in 

controlling mercury emissions and which can be reasonably employed, in a cost effective manner, across the full fleet of Illinois powerplants and coal types; 

• Must ensure that the required mercury reductions occur both in Illinois and at 

every powerplant in Illinois to address local impacts; and 

• The rule needs to incorporate flexibility in complying with the proposed standards to assist in widespread compliance and to help reduce compliance costs. 

We also sought to ensure that the rule would not encourage a switch to the use 

of non-Illinois coal and interfere with actions to promote the use of Illinois coal in 

clean-coal technology applications. Therefore, the rule does not treat sources differently or establish different requirements based on the type of coal being used. 

This is contrary to CAMR, which established state mercury budgets, as well as proposes a baseline allocation scheme that provides higher allowances for units burning 

coal types other than Illinois bituminous coal. Furthermore, credit for mercury removal from coal washing was given by establishing an output-based limit that accounts for mercury removal during pre-combustion processes such as coal washing. 

Careful consideration was given to the effect mercury control requirements will 

have on Illinois’ economy, including consumers, jobs, and the power sector. Illinois 

carefully selected an achievable, reasonable, and cost-effective mercury reduction 

target. Illinois research established that data supported a 90 percent reduction as 

an achievable and reasonable level of mercury control for Illinois powerplants and 

that the costs of controlling mercury are consistent with Illinois’ goals. In addition, 

we looked into the amount of mercury reduction in fish tissue levels needed to get 

below fish consumption advisory levels. The mercury reduction amount required for 

a selected species (e.g., largemouth bass) in order to reach unlimited consumption 

levels by childbearing age women and children less than 15 years of age, the most 

sensitive and restrictive sub-population, is about 90 percent. Moreover, a November 

2005 mercury control model rule proposed by then State and Territorial Air Pollution Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) provided two options, both of which had initial Phase 1 compliance 

dates set at the end of 2008 and required final cuts in mercury equivalent to 90- 

95 percent by the end of 2012. Illinois also reviewed the actions of several states 

that have selected compliance dates earlier than 2009 as well as mercury reduction 

requirements of 90 percent or greater. 

In addition to the detailed mercury control and cost analysis performed by Illinois’ 

technical expert, Dr. Staudt, Illinois utilized the services of ICF Resources Incorporated (ICF) to evaluate the economic impact of the rule on Illinois’ electricity rates 

and affected powerplants. While there are some additional costs predicted from the 

rule when compared to CAMR, the costs are deemed to be reasonable in light of the 

concerns presented by mercury pollution and the potential benefits of mercury control. 
102 

Illinois EPA determined that it can achieve the required mercury reductions proposed by Governor Blagojevich and give compliance flexibility to sources. Giving 

flexibility serves to reduce compliance costs and increase the probability of widespread compliance. 

Illinois was also concerned with the potential for so-called mercury hotspots. We 

addressed the hotspot issue by not allowing trading, or the banking or purchase of 

emissions allowances, and by requiring mercury reductions at all powerplants. Ensuring emission reductions take place in Illinois and at all locations where powerplants exist should reduce local impacts and hotspots. 

A multi-pollutant approach for controlling the emissions of mercury, SO2, and 

NOx from coal-fired powerplants has numerous advantages over a traditional, single 

regulatory pollutant scheme. For example, a well crafted multi-pollutant standard 

can increase the protection of public health and the environment, reduce pollution 

more cost-effectively, and offer greater certainty to both industry and regulators. 

Since mercury emission reductions can be obtained as a co-benefit from the control 

devices used to reduce SO2 and NOx, it makes sense to allow companies the option 

to synchronize the control of these pollutants, provided that public health and the 

environment are likewise positively impacted. Whereas the mercury rule singlemindedly tackles mercury emissions, and CAIR concentrates on SO2 and NOx, both 

the MPS and the CPS accomplish the aforementioned benefits in the context of a 

single regulatory framework and in recognition of the timing and other issues that 

accompany a combined-pollutant control strategy. 

MERCURY CONTROLS

Many options exist for curtailing mercury emissions that occur as a result of the 

combustion of coal at powerplants. These options include the cleaning of coal to remove mercury before combustion, improving boiler efficiencies so that less coal is 

burned to obtain the same amount of energy output, and the use of add-on air pollution control equipment. All of these options can be used either alone or in combination to arrive at an effective mercury control strategy. Several variables play a role 

in determining what strategy and control options are best suited and effective for 

mercury reductions at a given powerplant including, coal type, existing controls, 

boiler type, fly ash needs, and economic feasibility. 

Dr. Staudt with the assistance of Illinois EPA staff conducted a unit-by-unit analysis of Illinois’ fleet of coal-fired electric generating units. The results of this analysis are found in Section 8 of the mercury rule’s technical support document. In general it was found that a 90 percent reduction in mercury was widely achievable in 

Illinois in a cost effective manner. Overall, the costs per pound of mercury removed 

for compliance with the Illinois rule was estimated to be around $8,100 per pound 

of mercury captured. For comparison, the estimated cost to comply with the 2010 

CAMR state budget through use of control technology was lower at around $5,800 

per pound of mercury removal, for far fewer reductions. 

The use of halogenated activated carbon injection (ACI) was found to provide a 

high level of mercury control at reasonable costs for the majority of Illinois’ units. 

ACI has been used for years to reduce mercury emissions on municipal waste combustors with mercury removal efficiencies of more than 90 percent. There has been 

wide-scale testing of ACI systems on numerous coal-fired powerplants with mercury 

reductions of greater than 90 percent achieved and ACI is now beginning to be deployed on coal-fired units in the United States. ACI vendors have stated they are 

able to provide large scale installation of ACI systems on powerplants in Illinois and 

we are aware of several negotiations underway between the parties to test and install ACI systems. 

Of course the ultimate decision of strategies and controls employed will be made 

by the owners and operators of the powerplants themselves, and most likely be governed by the economics at the time. Attempts to predict these decisions are ‘‘best 

guesses’’ of the types of controls that will be actually put into practice. The noted 

trend that is expected to continue is one where technological advances lead to decreasing costs, increasing control efficiencies, and expanding options. 

ILLINOIS MERCURY RULE

The rule requires mercury reductions from Illinois’ coal-fired powerplants in two 

phases. During Phase I, which begins on July 1, 2009, coal-fired powerplants must 

comply with either an output-based emission standard of 0.0080 lbs mercury/ 

gigawatt hour (GWh), or a minimum 90 percent reduction of input mercury, both 

on a rolling 12-month basis. However, plants with the same owner/operator may 

elect to comply with the limit on a system-wide basis by averaging across their entire fleet of plants in Illinois, provided that each plant meets a minimum output- 
103 

based emission standard of 0.020 lbs mercury/GWh or a minimum 75-percent reduction of input mercury. 

In Phase II, beginning January 1, 2013, plants must comply with either an output-based emission standard of 0.0080 lbs mercury/GWh or a minimum 90 percent 

reduction of input mercury, both on a rolling 12-month basis. The rule does not 

allow for the trading, purchasing or the banking of allowances. 

Flexibility provided by the rule includes the following: 

• The source has the option of complying with either a mercury reduction efficiency or an output based emission rate; 

• The proposed rule does not prescribe how compliance with the selected standard 

is to be achieved; instead, the affected source makes the ultimate decision on how 

compliance is obtained; 

• The proposed rule phases in standards over a period of 31⁄2 years, with a less 

restrictive standard in Phase 1; 

• The rule allows a source to demonstrate compliance by both system-wide and 

plant-wide averaging in Phase 1, and plant-wide averaging in Phase 2; 

• The rule allows for sources that commit to shutdown within a certain timetable 

to avoid installing controls. 

• The rule has a temporary technology based option that provides relief for a limited number of emission units that install appropriate mercury controls but are unable to achieve compliance. Eligible units are only required to operate the mercury 

controls in an optimal manner to be deemed in compliance. This provision is available through June 2015 and can be used by up to 25 percent of a company’s generating capacity. 

• Perhaps most importantly, the rule allows for sources to opt-in to multi-pollutant standards (e.g., MPS or CPS) which allow additional flexibility in regard to mercury for sources that commit to reductions in SO2 and NOx. The primary mercury 

compliance flexibility provided by the MPS and CPS is that, although companies are 

still required to install mercury controls able to achieve a 90 percent reduction on 

all but a few of the smallest units by no later than mid 2009, actual compliance 

is not required until 2015 provided they operate the mercury controls in an optimal 

manner. 

The monitoring requirements of the rule are essentially the same as those outlined in the model federal CAMR. However, in addition to monitoring outlet mercury emissions, the Illinois mercury rule also requires sources complying with the 

rule via the 90 percent reduction standard to determine, through coal analysis, the 

input mercury in order to determine the removal efficiency. 

EFFECT OF THE ILLINOIS MERCURY RULE

The mercury reductions obtained from Illinois’ rule will be beyond those of the 

federal CAMR and will occur more quickly. Whereas CAMR would cap Illinois’ annual mercury emissions at 3,188 pounds by 2010 through 2017, the Illinois rule results in annual mercury emissions of only around 770 pounds beginning mid-2009. 

Therefore, the rule is anticipated to eliminate approximately 2,418 additional 

pounds per year of harmful mercury pollution, and do so six months earlier than 

the federal CAMR. The reductions obtained under the Illinois rule will likewise be 

greater than those required in Phase II of CAMR, which does not go into effect until 

2018. The CAMR budget for Illinois in Phase II is 1,258 pounds per year, but with 

banking allowed under CAMR, it is not expected that actual emission reductions 

will occur until 2020 or later. Compared to CAMR, the Illinois rule should result 

in 488 fewer pounds of mercury emissions per year about seven years sooner. It is 

important to note that CAMR is a cap and trade program and therefore, under 

CAMR, Illinois powerplants could postpone or avoid some mercury reductions 

through the purchase or banking of allowances, an option not allowed under Illinois’ 

rule. 

Over time, Illinois expects to see reductions in mercury water deposition to Illinois’ lakes and streams and corresponding methylmercury decreases in Illinois fish 

tissues, making fish caught in Illinois waters safer to eat. 

We also expect to see significant benefits to human health, although it is difficult 

to estimate a dollar value for such things as improvements in IQ and less cardiovascular disease. There could also be several recognized benefits to Illinois beyond 

the expected public health benefits that come with a reduction in water and fish 

methylmercury levels. Such benefits include support for existing, and the potential 

for additional, jobs resulting from the installation and operating requirements of additional pollution control devices. There also exists a potential for an increase in 

tourism and recreational fishing as mercury levels drop in fish, bringing an associated positive impact to local economies and the State overall. With a possible in-
104 

crease in the use of bituminous coal, there should be a positive economic impact on 

the Illinois coal industry and Illinois coal mining jobs. 

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

In evaluating the economic impacts of the rule, Illinois EPA consulted and retained the services of experts, stakeholders and interested parties, conducted literature reviews, and utilized internal staff. 

In order to better understand the economic effects of the mercury rule, Illinois retained the services of ICF Consulting Inc. (ICF), the same firm used by U.S. EPA 

for CAMR. ICF conducted a study evaluating the economic impacts of the mercury 

rule using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM®). This study focused on the impacts 

of the mercury rule in terms of costs to the power sector and costs to electricity consumers. 

Of significant importance is that a ‘‘more stringent’’ rule than the final adopted 

rule was modeled and therefore the results are considered conservative. Illinois EPA 

discussed modeling parameters with ICF prior to the modeling and it was determined that where the modeling inputs allowed discretion, we would err on the side 

of being conservative. Some examples of this are that the IPM® was unable to reflect the mid-year Phase 1 compliance date of July 1, 2009 and therefore for modeling we moved the compliance date up to January 1, 2009, six months sooner than 

that required by the Illinois rule. Also, the IPM® model assumed a mass emissions 

cap on each and every unit where the rule does not cap emissions but requires compliance with a standard that allows for growth in electricity generation. Emission 

caps as used in the IPM® Model are more stringent than a percent reduction control 

requirement or emissions rate since they also limit growth. As a result, the plant 

output might be severely limited depending upon the cap. This implicit limit to the 

plant output could create a situation where the modeling forecasts the plant is no 

longer economically viable whereas it might be viable under a 90 percent reduction 

requirement or 0.0080 lbs Hg/GWh emissions rate that allows output growth. For 

accurate assessment of what the modeling predicts, it is critical that the modeling 

results be viewed in context, i.e., taking the above into consideration. 

ICF prepared a comprehensive report for the Illinois EPA in which it provides a 

summary of the modeling results and identifies what it believes are the principal 

findings of the study. Of note is that modeling shows only a 1–3.5 percent increase 

in retail electricity prices and costs across all sectors (e.g., residential, industrial 

and commercial) from the rule relative to the CAMR. On an average bill basis, residential customers in Illinois would pay less than $1.50 per month more under the 

Illinois rule relative to CAMR across the study horizon. 

IPM® modeling predicts that two powerplants may be adversely impacted to the 

extent that some small, older coal-fired units are retired, potentially resulting in 

some corresponding job loss. Note that economic experts consulted by the Illinois 

EPA who have reviewed the IPM® modeling believe that the modeling is not accurate in predicting the retirement of these plants as a result of the rule. The modeling also forecasts an increase in the use of bituminous coal as a direct result of 

the mercury rule. This increase should have a positive impact on Illinois coal related 

operations, such as Illinois coal mines and jobs, since most of the bituminous coal 

fired in Illinois is mined in Illinois. The modeling further shows corresponding decreases in the use of subbituminous coal, which is mined in western states. Of particular interest is that were Illinois to implement CAMR instead of the mercury 

rule, IPM® modeling shows a decrease in bituminous coal use. 

The Illinois EPA found that there would be no significant adverse impact to the 

safety and reliability of the electricity distribution grid as a result of the rule. We 

also found that there could be significant economic benefits as a result of the rule 

in the form of support for existing jobs and potential for new jobs in the pollution 

control device installation industry, fishing industry, and Illinois’ coal industry. 

The Illinois EPA retained the services of Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (Synapse) to review the modeling performed and to testify before the Board on issues 

related to the IPM® modeling. In addition, Synapse was asked to assist the Illinois 

EPA in understanding a wide range of economic issues related to the rule. These 

include the potential effect of the rule on the reliability of the electricity grid, Illinois jobs, consumer electric rates, competitiveness of coal-fired powerplants, and potential for retirement of coal-fired units, and costs to the power sector. In particular, 

due to the serious nature of any potential unit retirements and loss of competitiveness of Illinois’ coal-fired owner plants in comparison to other states, the Illinois 

EPA requested further review of these issues by its economic experts, (e.g., Synapse). The Illinois EPA also believed that these issues warranted further review due 
105 

to the conservative representation of the rule by the modeling and the corresponding 

potential for the modeling results to overestimate any negative impacts. 

The above considerations focus on the economic impacts associated with issues 

outside of public health benefits. However, when evaluating the appropriateness of 

the potential costs of any rule, the costs associated with the rule must be measured 

against the costs to society of continued contamination from the targeted pollutant 

and the intimately related monetized health benefits expected from reduced emissions. Illinois reviewed the numerous studies on the monetized health benefits of 

mercury control of coal-fired powerplants nationwide and found that the annual 

benefits are conservatively estimated in the range of $10.4 to $288 million. Notably, 

in the rule development process of the federal CAMR, the U.S. EPA may not have 

recognized the full societal cost benefit of controlling mercury emissions. This is 

highlighted by the fact that U.S. EPA did not consider the results of the Harvard/ 

NESCAUM study as well as other recent studies in its analysis of the full benefits 

of mercury control. Illinois’ expert on the health effects of mercury, Dr. Rice, found 

that the costs to society from cognitive deficits in adults, accelerated aging, and impairment of elderly to live independently due to methylmercury exposure have not 

been monetized. Therefore, the costs to society from mercury pollution from coalfired powerplants, although extremely large, may be substantially underestimated. 

The preponderance of available information indicates potentially huge monetized 

health benefits from mercury control. 

CONCLUSION

Recent advances in mercury control technology have improved control efficiencies 

and reduced the costs to control mercury. The federal CAMR does not account for 

these advances and does not go far enough or go fast enough in reducing the emissions of this highly toxic pollutant. Illinois coal-fired powerplants are the largest 

source of man-made mercury emissions in the State and as such, the Illinois mercury rule aims to eliminate as much of the mercury emissions from these sources 

as is reasonably possible, and to do so as quickly as possible. The Illinois EPA used 

several avenues, including the retention of services of nationally recognized mercury 

and economic experts, in order to obtain the latest, most accurate information on 

mercury and mercury controls, as well as to assist in rule development and impact 

analyses. We feel that the rule provides for deep, attainable cuts in mercury emissions while providing compliance flexibility and other measures designed to minimize costs to affected sources. The non-public health economic implications of the 

rule, although difficult to forecast, are variable with some potential benefits provided in the area of jobs and increased recreational activity and possible negative 

impacts such as increased costs to the power sector and the potential for the retirement of some coal-fired units. The impact to Illinois consumer electricity bills should 

be minimal. The potential benefits to the public health of Illinois citizens from the 

proposed rule are substantial, as the harmful effects from mercury to IQ and cardiovascular systems, to name a few, are lessened. We expect to see lower mercury deposition to Illinois waterbodies and corresponding decreases in methylmercury fish 

levels, making fish caught in Illinois safer to eat. 

The SO2 and NOx reductions agreed to under the MPS and CPS are expected to 

go a long way toward helping Illinois achieve its attainment goals for ozone and particulate matter. The final estimates on emission reductions are enormous. The Illinois EPA estimates the total emission cuts from all three power companies at 

233,600 tons per year of SO2, 61,434 tons per year of NOx and 7,040 pounds per 

year of mercury. This equates to reductions of SO2 of 76 percent for Ameren, 65 percent for Dynegy, and 80 percent for Midwest Generation. These SO2 cuts begin no 

later than 2013 and continue on through 2018. The reductions in annual NOx emissions average around 52 percent and occur no later than 2012. 

Under CAMR, coal-fired power producers in Illinois would have only been required to reduce their mercury emissions by 47 percent in 2010 and 78 percent by 

2018, not the 90 percent reduction by 2009 required in the Illinois rule. The amount 

and general timing of mercury reductions for those sources that opt-in to the MPS 

or CPS are estimated to be essentially the same, although they will not be required 

to comply on a 12-month rolling basis until 2015. Sources under the MPS and CPS 

are expected to have mercury emission reductions that exceed even the required 90 

percent in the Illinois mercury rule after 2015 due to the co-benefit reductions 

achieved from the installation of new controls needed to comply with the corresponding SO2 and NOx standards. 

The benefits of removing SO2 and NOx are well established and most notably will 

result in reductions in both particulate matter and ozone. SO2 is a precursor to particulate matter and NOx is a precursor to both particulate matter and ozone. Partic-
106 

ulate matter related annual benefits include fewer premature fatalities, fewer cases 

of chronic bronchitis, fewer non-fatal heart attacks, fewer hospitalization admissions 

(for respiratory and cardiovascular disease combined) and should result in fewer 

days of restricted activity due to respiratory illness and fewer work loss days. Moreover, there should be health improvements for children from reduced upper and 

lower respiratory illness, acute bronchitis, and asthma attacks. 

Ozone health-related benefits are expected to occur during the summer ozone season and include fewer hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, fewer emergency 

room admissions for asthma, fewer days with restricted activity levels, and fewer 

days where children are absent from school due to illnesses. In addition, there 

should be ecological and welfare benefits. Such benefits include visibility improvements; reductions in acidification in lakes, streams, and forests; reduced nutrient 

replenishing in water bodies; and benefits from reduced ozone levels for forests and 

agricultural production. 

Thank you again to the committee for allowing me to testify today on behalf of 

Governor Rod Blagojevich and the Illinois EPA. 

RESPONSES BY DOUGLAS P. SCOTT TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR SANDERS

Question 1. Your state has gone well beyond EPA’s ‘‘Clean Air Mercury Rule’’ by 

requiring faster and deeper mercury reduction from powerplants. Please tell us 

what you concluded about the current and future state of mercury pollution control 

technologies during the period in which your rule will be carried out that led you 

to believe utility owners could achieve the mercury standards in your law. What, 

if any, communications have you received from EPA regarding your state mercury 

standards? 

Response. Illinois concluded that mercury control technologies currently exist that 

can provide a high level of mercury reductions in a cost-effective manner for coalfired powerplants. We found that mercury control technologies have advanced significantly over the last several years, and since U.S. EPA promulgated the Clean 

Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), and that such advancements have resulted in both increased control effectiveness and a reduction in costs of mercury control. We believe 

the future of mercury control technologies is one where technological advances and 

vendor expansion should continue to lead to decreasing costs and increasing control 

efficiencies as well as a wider variety of mercury control options. 

In developing its mercury rule, Illinois took several steps to assess the state-ofthe-art in mercury control technologies, levels of mercury reductions obtainable 

under different powerplant and control equipment configurations, and the associated 

costs. These steps included consulting recognized experts, holding discussions with 

stakeholders and interested parties, conducting research and literature reviews, and 

utilizing internal experts and staff. We also retained the services of Dr. James 

Staudt of Andover Technology Partners. Dr. Staudt is a nationally recognized expert 

on coal-fired powerplant controls and has done similar work for U.S. EPA, among 

others. 

Dr. Staudt, with the assistance of Illinois EPA staff, conducted a unit-by-unit 

analysis of Illinois’ fleet of coal-fired electric generating units. The results of this 

analysis are found in Section 8 of Illinois mercury rule’s technical support document. Illinois concluded that a 90 percent reduction in mercury was widely achievable in Illinois in a cost-effective manner. In particular, the use of halogenated activated carbon injection (ACI) was found to provide a high level of mercury control 

at reasonable costs for the majority of Illinois’ units. ACI has been used for years 

to reduce mercury emissions on municipal waste combustors with mercury removal 

efficiencies of more than 90 percent. There has been wide-scale testing of ACI systems on numerous coal-fired powerplants with mercury reductions of greater than 

90 percent achieved and ACI is now beginning to be deployed on coal-fired units in 

the United States. ACI vendors have stated they are able to provide large scale installation of ACI systems on powerplants in Illinois and we are aware of several negotiations underway between the parties to test and install ACI systems. 

Furthermore, Illinois recognized the importance of providing rule flexibility to address the level of uncertainty inherent in any technology-based regulatory standard. 

Illinois worked closely with its stakeholders on a wide variety of flexibility provisions that were incorporated into the Illinois mercury rule, including the multi-pollutant standards. 

We also found that significant mercury reductions can be obtained as a co-benefit 

from emission control technologies that target sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). By adopting mercury control rules that consider SO2 and NOx control 
107 

strategies, and allowing companies to implement an integrated multi-pollutant control strategy for all three pollutants (i.e., mercury, SO2 and NOx), Illinois concluded 

that even greater emissions reductions and public health benefits can be achieved 

than under a strategy that solely focused on mercury control technologies. 

The Illinois EPA has had numerous discussions with U.S. EPA regarding the acceptability of the Illinois mercury rule as part of its state plan for mercury control 

to ensure compliance with the federal CAMR. The U.S. EPA has indicated that they 

can accept Illinois’ mercury rule as demonstrating compliance with CAMR through 

2017. However, U.S. EPA has expressed concern that the Illinois mercury rule may 

not ensure compliance with CAMR beyond 2018. The Illinois EPA adamantly disagrees with this assessment and strongly believes that its mercury rule results in 

mercury reductions well beyond the federal CAMR even after 2018. U.S. EPA appears to have taken a position that for Illinois to obtain approval for years after 

2018, we need to amend our mercury rule to include mercury emissions caps on 

each of the coal-fired powerplants. We are against such caps at this stage and do 

not believe they are necessary. Both our projection of actual mercury emissions and 

an additional conservative projection (sensitivity analysis) of mercury emissions 

show that the Illinois mercury rule will result in mercury emissions well below the 

CAMR emissions caps from the beginning of the rule out to 2020. Illinois has proposed to provide an annually updated 10-year mercury emission projection to U.S. 

EPA and to take significant measures should our emissions projection ever forecast 

an exceedance of the CAMR caps, including taking steps to amend the rule to include caps. Furthermore, the Illinois state plan contains corrective action measures 

to be implemented should an exceedance of the CAMR caps ever actually occur. 

Under the corrective action plan, the State has committed to amending its rule to 

include unit by unit emission caps and purchasing in the market and retiring mercury allowances to cover any emissions over the annual budget. 

It is important to note that the Illinois EPA projects emissions in 2020 to be 

around 880 lbs of mercury as compared to 1,258 lbs for the CAMR budget. Moreover, during the first eight years of CAMR, Illinois is expected to have accumulatively reduced mercury emissions by 12,628 pounds more than would have occurred 

under the federal CAMR. Since mercury is a bio-accumulative pollutant these earlier and greater reductions will continue to benefit public health and the environment going forward. We believe U.S. EPA should this factor when evaluating the 

appropriateness and timeliness of Illinois’ actions to remedy any projected or actual 

exceedances of the CAMR caps in later years. Illinois is considering its options 

should U.S. EPA formally decide to disapprove its state plan for the years after 

2017. 

Question 2. EPA declared in it final mercury rules for powerplants that it was not 

only ‘‘unnecessary’’ but also ‘‘inappropriate’’ to regulate mercury emissions from 

powerplants under the Clean Air Act’s stringent air toxics provisions in section 112. 

Hasn’t EPA long regulated mercury from other types of industries, however, under 

this same stringent Clean Air Act authority? And if so, what has the experience 

been there? Does it make sense to you that it is appropriate to regulate mercury 

emissions from some types of industries using the law’s most protective tools, but 

‘‘inappropriate’’ to do so when it comes to powerplants? 

Response. It is accurate that U.S. EPA has historically regulated mercury emissions under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). For example, mercury emissions 

from Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) and Medical Waste Incinerators (MWI) 

are both subject to Maximum Achievable Control Requirements (MACT) established 

under section 112 authority. 

Illinois’ plan for large MWC was approved by U.S. EPA in December 1997. Illinois 

has no municipal waste combustion units affected by the small MWC emissions 

guideline. However, the MWC regulations affected two large sources in Illinois, i.e., 

Northwest Waste to Energy (Northwest) and Robbins Resource Recovery Company 

(Robbins). Northwest shutdown incinerator operations during the regulatory development process, and Robbins shutdown incinerator operations in 1998. Thus, Illinois 

does not have any mercury emissions from the municipal waste combustors category. 

Illinois believes that the Clean Air Act requires that U.S. EPA regulate powerplant mercury emissions under section 112 of the CAA as well. In fact, Illinois has 

elaborated this position to U.S. EPA on at least two circumstances: (1) Illinois EPA 

submitted comments in response to a January 30, 2004, U.S. EPA proposed rulemaking, and (2) on May 27, 2005, the State of Illinois filed Petitions for Review with 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenging 

CAMR. 
108 

Coal-fired powerplants are the largest source of man-made mercury emissions, 

and there is nothing unique about mercury emissions from this source category. As 

such, the timing and level of mercury control should be prompt and stringent. The 

only policy reason to treat this source category differently from other industrial 

sources is the goal of allowing mercury control to be achieved as a co-benefit of the 

control of NOx and SO2. The Illinois EPA understands this goal, as it is reflected 

to a degree in our multi-pollutant agreements with Illinois’ largest powerplant systems. However, this goal should not result in undue delay of achieving mercury reductions at ‘‘MACT-levels’’, i.e., 90 percent, nor some units escaping any level of 

mercury control. Moreover, the cap and trade program under CAMR cannot guarantee each unit will install appropriate mercury control technologies or even that 

the level at which a plant or State is capped is actually met. If the owner or operator chooses, they may comply with the CAMR cap at a given unit or plant using 

emission allowances rather than reducing mercury emissions. Such a compliance 

strategy does not provide the appropriate protection for public health and the environment for those affected by the plant’s emissions and does not ensure that mercury emissions reduction goals in a State are achieved. 

Question 3. In addition to the regulation of powerplants, I understand that your 

state and other states have been recycling products containing mercury, like auto 

switches and thermometers. Do you know what happens to the mercury once it has 

been sent to the recycler? What do you think about closing the loop by banning the 

export of mercury that is recycled is not then used in ways that pollute the environment? 

Response. Mercury recyclers reclaim mercury from products by using a multistage process to volatilize the mercury and then condense it back to elemental mercury. The collected mercury is a commodity which is typically sold for reuse. Illinois 

EPA does not know specifically to whom our contracted recyclers sell the mercury 

that is collected through state-sponsored household hazardous waste collection and 

school chemical cleanout programs. More than likely some of it is exported for use 

in other countries. 

Illinois EPA supports a ban on the export of mercury. We would like to point out 

that in 2001, the Environmental Council of the States formed the Quicksilver Caucus to collaboratively develop holistic approaches for reducing mercury in the environment. Illinois EPA endorses the principles for management of commodity grade 

elemental developed by the Caucus. These principles include the following elements: 

• Reuse of elemental mercury should only be utilized in processes or products 

deemed essential. 

• Following the collection and recycling (retorting) of used mercury-containing 

products, the mercury should be sequestered and safely stored within the United 

States. 

• The United States should support mechanisms to better track international 

trade of mercury, mercury compounds, and mercury-containing products. 

• The United States should be a leader in proper use and management of elemental mercury by not exporting any mercury-containing products to other countries unless it is related to an essential use. Exporting surplus elemental mercury 

to developing countries where it can result in unsafe exposure should be prohibited. 

Elemental mercury should only be exported to other countries for essential uses 

where it can be demonstrated that the country does not have sufficient domestic 

sources of secondary (recycled) mercury. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much. Your full statement will be 

in the record. 

The first question I have, and Mr. Schanbacher, I am going to 

ask you to just answer this quickly, if you will, but you were good 

to give us a little bit of a primer, if you will, on the different kinds 

of coal that we have; the different kinds of mercury that is created, 

one type which goes up into the air which is transported around 

the world, and another type that does not go all around the world, 

and comes down, in many cases, a lot closer to the place from 

where it is emitted. 

My understanding is that one of the types of mercury is easier 

to capture as it leaves the powerplants, and another is more difficult to capture. Just come back and sort of tie that together for 

us with respect to, or just revisit again what you said about bitu-
109 

minous coal, sub-bituminous, and the elemental mercury and 

divalent mercury. Just take a moment to go through this. I think 

it is important for us to understand this. 

Mr. SCHANBACHER. Okay, I will try to do this as quickly as possible. Bituminous coal, which is primarily burned in the eastern 

part of the United States, has a lot of chlorine in it. The chlorine, 

when you burn the coal, helps convert mercury from elemental, 

which is sort of chemically stable, to divalent, which has an electric 

charge associated with it. Divalent mercury attaches more easily to 

particles, and also it is water soluble. So in the typical control devices that we use for powerplants, it is a lot easier to catch that 

kind of mercury than the elemental mercury. 

The lignite and sub-bituminous coals that are burned primarily 

in the western United States don’t have a lot of chlorine. So the 

mercury is not converted in the burning process. Most of it is elemental mercury, which basically is not water soluble and tends to 

pass through a lot of control devices, because it doesn’t attach to 

particles or wash out in rain. It tends to enter the global mercury 

pool and travel long distances. Eventually, it would settle out, but 

it takes quite some time. As I think was previously mentioned, we 

kind of contribute about 1 percent of the mercury pool. 

So the divalent mercury is the stuff that is more likely to cause 

immediate concerns and local deposition. It is much easier to control divalent mercury from bituminous coal because it is upwards 

of 80 to 90 percent of the emissions. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Scott, a question coming back to really the statements and 

the concerns voiced by Senator Voinovich, really. When you presented these requirements and the expectation that the utilities 

were going to have to dramatically cut their mercury emissions 

within a relatively few years, my understanding is that they did 

not react warmly to that suggestion. 

Mr. SCOTT. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. In the end, I think I heard you say there was 

one utility that indicated that they could comply, and that subsequently others decided that they could as well. Talk a little bit 

about that process. 

Then I am going to ask you to reflect on what these rules, what 

your rules in your State are going to do with respect to cost of electricity or the impact on consumers, shifting from coal to natural 

gas, because you have a lot of coal in your State, but just start off 

by the initial reaction of the utilities, the one that said we think 

we can do this, and how that snowballed from there. 

Mr. SCOTT. It started off, as you accurately portrayed, with almost universal rejection by the power producing companies of our 

rule. 

Senator CARPER. What did they say? 

Mr. SCOTT. They were saying that they couldn’t get to 90 percent. Not so much that it would be too expensive, although we 

heard some of those arguments, but more that the technology was 

not available for them to be able to reach 90 percent. So I had a 

meeting with all of the power companies in which I suggested to 

them that we were also interested in multi-pollutant solutions. If 
110 

one of them was so inclined, or any of them were so inclined, that 

we would be willing to work with them on that. 

Shortly, again, after we presented our case in front of the Pollution Control Board, we were approached by Ameren, one of the 

companies in our State, and we subsequently were able to negotiate an agreement with them. 

Again, I think the key for them is that while we believe that they 

can achieve those rates of 90 percent by 2009, you know, I may 

take heed of the statement that Senator Voinovich made in that he 

is correct. There are not a lot of companies that will guarantee that 

right now. So that certainty was very important for both Ameren 

and for the other companies. 

So we negotiated in the multi-pollutant solution, giving them a 

little bit more flexibility, a little bit more time. They have to install 

all the equipment that we would recommend that we think will get 

them to 90 percent, but they don’t necessarily have to hit that 

number until a later date. In exchange for that, they were willing 

to give us much greater reductions of SO2 and NOx. 

We don’t believe that it is going to result in fuel switching to natural gas at all, in any of our discussions with any of these companies. 

Senator CARPER. Is that a view that is shared by the companies 

themselves? 

Mr. SCOTT. That was shared with us by the companies. In fact, 

one company, most of them don’t burn Illinois coal, surprisingly 

enough. Most of them are burning western coal, to get back to Mr. 

Schanbacher’s point, but not because of mercury. They don’t burn 

Illinois coal because of the sulfur content in there. It is much more 

expensive to remove that. But actually, one of the companies told 

us that with a couple of their plants, they continue to burn Illinois 

coal as part of this agreement as well. So no real talk of fuel 

switching at all from any of the companies that were involved 

there. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Is Illinois coal cheaper than western 

coal? 

Mr. SCOTT. Actually, it is not necessarily cheaper. It is more expensive in many respects to burn because of the extra measures 

that have to be taken to remove the sulfur dioxide. It is our hope 

that with this and with lots of the equipment that is going to be 

installed as a result of the multi-pollutant solution, it is our hope 

that more of the plants will be able to actually burn Illinois coal 

because they are installing the equipment that will actually allow 

them to burn it and to still meet the requirements that we have 

set up with them. 

Senator CARPER. So what I understand from you, you are saying 

initially the targets for the mandates, if you will, rejected, maybe 

with one exception by the utility companies. You entered into a dialogue and negotiation with them, and by sort of combining the approach with SOx, NOx, as well as with mercury, and showing some 

flexibility, you were able to eventually bring them on board. You 

don’t think that there is going to be a shifting from coal to gas? 

Mr. SCOTT. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER. You don’t see a significant spike in the cost of 

electricity? 
111 

Mr. SCOTT. The interesting thing about cost, with respect to mercury, we did model the mercury cost because we were doing that 

as part of our presentation for the rule in order to give weight and 

testimony behind the rule. We anticipated that that would be less 

than $1.50 a month for the average consumer in terms of the mercury equipment that was put on there. We think that is a very conservative measure. 

With respect to the other equipment that is put on as part of the 

multi-pollutant solution, that is much more expensive equipment. 

There, you are talking about baghouses and scrubbers and other 

equipment that is much more expensive than the injection process 

to remove mercury. But we did not model those in terms of price 

because we weren’t trying to approve the rule. We had agreement 

from the companies. 

Obviously Illinois is a large power exporter as well, and so most 

of the power, at least by one of the companies that we negotiated 

with, is not going to end up in Illinois. It is going to be sold out 

of State, and they are competing with other States and other power 

companies to sell into the grid. They firmly believe that they are 

going to be able to do that economically. So that was the part of 

our discussion with them, but we didn’t model those costs. 

Senator CARPER. Great. Thanks. 

Ms. Wolfe, we have time for another round. I am going to come 

back and ask you a question or two as well. 

Senator Voinovich? Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Both in Illinois and in New Jersey, you have 

done differently than what we have in the rule that came out from 

the EPA. Ms. Wolfe, in New Jersey, you require a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions from powerplants by the end of this 

year. Is that right? 

Ms. WOLFE. Correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. But the rule allows an additional 5 years of 

mercury emissions reductions or phase-in with concurrent reductions of particulate sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The question 

is: Isn’t this very similar to what the EPA rule allows today? Can 

you quantify the differences? For example, what is the State’s requirement for sulfur dioxides versus the Federal requirement, or 

for nitrogen oxide? I know these are kind of technical questions, 

but can you help me on that? 

Ms. WOLFE. Yes. First of all, I would like to apologize on behalf 

of Commissioner Jackson for not being able to make it here today. 

She had an emergency with those wild fires down in South Jersey, 

so please accept my apology on her behalf. 

Getting to your point about, is our rule different than the CAMR 

rule. I believe it is significantly different than the CAMR rule. The 

CAMR rule requires reductions of mercury of 20 percent by the 

year 2010. Our rule requires 90 percent by 2007, but for those facilities with 50 percent of their capacity have to meet that 90 percent reduction, and then for the remaining 50 percent, if they enter 

into an enforceable agreement with the State, they then get the additional 5 years to come up with the multi-pollutant controls. So 

they do have to control 50 percent of their capacity by 2007, the 

end of this year. 
112 

In terms of what the NOx and the SO2 standards are, they are 

similarly based, I believe, on CAIR. Those standards are CAIRbased. We have had success with one of our facilities, actually, 

which has entered into a multi-pollutant agreement with us, 

PSE&G. I believe that their tests are currently achieving our mercury standards by meeting the multi-pollutant standards for SO2

and NOx in particulates. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Isn’t the reason why, and I say the same 

thing in Illinois, they come back and say, look, the cost of putting 

in this technology for mercury is very expensive and uncertain; we 

would prefer to do NOx and SOx because we are much more confident of the equipment that is there that has been around for a 

while; we know we can really make a difference there; and as a result of that, you are going to get some real significant co-benefits 

in terms of the mercury; so overall, in terms of our costs to our customers, this is a more reasonable approach for us to take. 

Ms. WOLFE. If I might just add, Senator Voinovich. We have had 

tremendous success in the solid waste incineration area, where we 

are requiring ACI, activated carbon injection, where we have had 

tremendous success at not such significant costs. We were told 

when we first adopted our regulations back in 1994 that garbage 

would be on the streets in Camden because we had such strict regulations. Instead, the technology seemed to follow the regulation, 

and we were able to have such controls. 

We have upwards of 99 percent control on the municipal solid 

waste industry. We believe that that technology can be transferred 

and has been transferred to activated carbon injection at various 

levels, which is up to the facility. We gave the facilities 5 years in 

order to experiment with trying to figure out what the appropriate 

levels of carbon injection would be. We have had tremendous success, and we believe that that success at reasonable costs can be 

applied to the coal-fired power units. 

Finally, I want to add that when we adopted our rules that set 

a 90 percent standard by the end of the year, none of our powerplants challenged our regulation as being technologically or economically unfeasible. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Schanbacher, I would like you to comment on what you have just heard in terms of the state of the technology that is available for mercury. 

Mr. SCHANBACHER. Well, I wouldn’t compare waste incineration 

to coal-fired powerplants. I think there are significant differences. 

I wouldn’t look at success there. 

Activated carbon injection has been pretty successful with bituminous coal in controlling mercury emissions. I don’t know about 

90 percent, but I suppose it is possible. That is part of the issue 

with the different coal ranks, because activated carbon injection 

certainly has not proven to be effective on elemental mercury. 

One of the things that is being experimented with is injecting 

chlorides or other halogens in with the activated carbon to try to 

convert the elemental mercury to divalent mercury so it can be 

more easily controlled. One of the points I tried to make earlier 

was if your capture rate is not 100 percent, you run the risk of taking, I don’t want to say benign, but certainly a less urgent form of 

mercury, elemental mercury, and converting it into divalent. If you 
113 

don’t control it, then you run the risk of actually have more deposition. 

I do agree that eventually technology is going to catch up. It is 

possible it could happen on a faster basis than CAMR anticipates, 

but we don’t know right now. Quite frankly, that is one of the reasons we in Texas always go back and look at the underlying risk 

to see how urgent it is. Given the extensive CDC data, corroborated 

by Texas data, we don’t believe getting out ahead of it is in the best 

interests of the people. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I am glad you do that because we are not 

allowed to do that on the Federal level. 

Mr. SCHANBACHER. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We can do it with water, but we can’t do it 

with air, according to the Supreme Court. So we don’t do the cost 

benefit analysis, and then the last thing because we have to go 

over and vote, but it would be interesting to me to know what 

metrics New Jersey and Illinois have in place to really determine 

in the next 5 years whether or not this is really making a difference in terms of your water quality. Do you believe that 5 years 

from now, you are going to be able to remove the signs that say 

if you are pregnant, you ought not to eat this fish more than once 

a month, or whatever your particular advisory is. 

I know when I was chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, we always were debating, one State versus the other, because we had different rules about warning people about how much 

fish that they could eat, and also the different types of fish. But 

I would really be interested if there is any way you can find out 

whether or not all of what you are doing is really going to make 

a difference, particularly when you know that a lot of mercury is 

coming from other places. 

Senator CARPER. Okay. Senator Voinovich, if it is okay with you, 

I think I am inclined to excuse this panel. We have three votes 

coming up. We should be back within about 40 minutes to go. I 

would say to our panelists, thank you, especially Ms. Wolfe for 

pinch-hitting. Mr. Schanbacher and Mr. Scott, thank you for being 

here to present to us. It was very informative. 

We are going to be asking you some questions, probably some follow-up questions in writing. To the extent that you can respond to 

those promptly, we would be most grateful. 

The subcommittee stands in recess until the completion of these 

votes. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARPER. I want to thank our panelists for sticking 

around, so we can hear from you and have a chance to ask you 

some questions. Senator Voinovich is coming back from the Floor. 

We have finished our last of three votes, at least for now. My hope 

is that we will be able to conclude this panel without further interruptions. 

First of all, let me take a moment just to briefly introduce our 

witnesses, and ask them to go ahead and testify, not all at once, 

but in this order please. We will start with Martha Keating from 

the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences down 

at Duke. Welcome. We are glad that you are here. I told Ms. 
114 

Keating that we share an interest in the name Martha. My wife’s 

name is Martha and she is also from North Carolina. 

And Guy Pipitone is here, the senior vice president of Operations, Strategy and Development at First Energy. Where do you 

live? 

Mr. PIPITONE. In Akron, OH. 

Senator CARPER. Akron, OH, home of the Zips. Good. All right. 

Well, welcome. 

And David Foerter. He is executive director of the Institute of 

Clean Air Companies. It is good to see you again. Thanks for joining us today, David. 

And Dr. Leonard Levin. Just like Carl Levin, Senator Carl Levin. 

Yes. He is from the Electric Power Research Institute. Welcome. 

We are happy that you are here today. 

We will ask you to keep your testimony to around 5 minutes. If 

you get up over 15 minutes, I will probably gavel you down, so stay 

fairly close to 5 minutes. We would be grateful. 

Ms. Keating, I don’t know if there is anyone in the audience you 

would like to introduce, but I see a couple of guys back there that 

I think you brought along. We are glad they are here, too. Ms. 

Keating, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA HASTAY KEATING, ASSOCIATE IN RESEARCH, CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INITIATIVE, NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND 

EARTH SCIENCES, DUKE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

occasion to address the subcommittee this morning. 

Senator CARPER. Are they brothers, the two in the audience that 

I alluded to? 

Ms. KEATING. My husband, Art Keating, is here with me today, 

as well as my son Tim. He is hoping to get some extra credit on 

civics. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Which is the husband? 

Ms. KEATING. My sister, Mary Jane Medeiros. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. This is a family affair. Welcome. 

Ms. KEATING. Thank you again for the invitation. My name is 

Martha Keating. I am an associate in research with Duke University’s Children’s Environmental Health Initiative. However, my testimony today reflects only my views. 

Humans are exposed to methylmercury almost exclusively from 

eating fish and shellfish. The primary source of this contamination 

is industrial mercury emissions, which ultimately deposit from the 

atmosphere to land in water, where they are converted by bacteria 

to methylmercury. Methylmercury readily bio-accumulates in the 

aquatic food chain to levels that make the fish unsafe for humans 

and wildlife to eat. 

Forty-four States currently have fish consumption advisories for 

mercury contamination. According to EPA’s latest estimates, coalfired powerplants are responsible for more than 45 percent of the 

country’s industrial mercury emissions. Children are the most vulnerable to mercury’s effects, whether exposed in utero or as young 
115 

children, because methylmercury disrupts the developing brain. 

Mercury’s effects may manifest in school age children as vision and 

hearing difficulties, delays in language acquisition and fine motor 

skills, lower IQ, and memory and attention deficits. These effects 

translate into a wide range of learning difficulties in the classroom. 

There is also evidence that exposure to methylmercury can have 

adverse effects on the developing and adult cardiovascular system. 

Based on blood monitoring data collected by the Centers for Disease Control, an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 children born in the 

United States each year have been exposed to mercury levels in 

utero high enough to put them at risk of neurological effects. 

To address powerplant mercury emissions, EPA developed the 

Clean Air Mercury Rule, or CAMR. However, CAMR is so legally 

suspect in its cap and trade approach that dozens of environmental 

groups and States have filed lawsuits, and so lenient in its emission caps and time frames that 22 States have developed programs 

that are more stringent. 

Two investigations by EPA’s Inspector General, one by the Government Accountability Office, and two reviews by the Congressional Research Service all have highlighted serious deficiencies in 

EPA’s analyses. The fact that this subcommittee is holding this 

hearing 2 years after issuance of the final rule illustrates the degree to which EPA has failed in its mission. 

A legislative approach integrating requirements for all of the 

major pollutants submitted by powerplants would address many of 

CAMR’s shortcomings by incorporating the following for mercury: 

a stringent national cap, accompanied by a percent reduction requirement or efficiency-based emission rate at each boiler; the 

same emission rates for each coal type; time frames that are realistic, but tight enough to encourage technology development and innovation; regulatory flexibility in the form of averaging times and 

safe harbor provisions; and a national monitoring program and residual risk analysis. 

Why not a cap and trade program for mercury? A cap and trade 

approach allows facilities to purchase mercury pollution credits, instead of reducing their emissions. The question, then, is whether 

a regulatory scheme that does not require all sources to reduce 

emissions will improve local hotspots or worsen them. 

The Agency’s argument that hotspots are unlikely to occur relies 

on computer modeling and prior experience with SO2 trading. However, SO2 emissions from powerplants are regulated by at least five 

other regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act, not just the 

trading program, but no such minimum standards exist as a backstop in the mercury cap and trade rule. 

Further, EPA’s computer modeling results are not supported by 

monitoring studies. A comprehensive study in Steubenville, OH 

and a 10-year study of hotspots in the Northeast measured mercury deposition at levels significantly higher than EPA’s modeled 

estimates for the same areas. The bottom line is that mercury 

emissions from powerplants do affect local ecosystems and local 

hotspots. 

And lastly, multi-year studies in Wisconsin, Florida and Massachusetts found that fish mercury levels decline rapidly in response 

to local reductions in mercury emissions, thus bolstering the case 
116 

1http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/advisories/fs2004.html#synopsis 

2 U.S. EPA, 2002 National Emissions Inventory. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

eiinformation.html 3 Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Board on Environmental Studies 

and Toxicology. Commission on Life Sciences. National Research Council. Toxicological Effects 

of Methylmercury, 2000. National Academy Press. Online. Available: http://www.nap.edu/ 

books/0309071402/html/ 4 Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Board on Environmental Studies 

and Toxicology. Commission on Life Sciences. National Research Council. Toxicological Effects 

for States to either impose more stringent mercury limits or for 

Congress to unify this patchwork of State laws with comprehensive 

legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Keating follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA HASTAY KEATING, ASSOCIATE IN RESEARCH, CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH INITIATIVE, NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND

EARTH SCIENCES, DUKE UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee—thank you for 

the invitation to address the Subcommittee this morning. My name is Martha 

Keating and I am an Associate in Research with Duke University’s Children’s Environmental Health Initiative. However, my testimony today reflects only my views. 

My interest in testifying stems from many years of working on mercury issues, first 

as an EPA scientist where I was the project director for the Agency’s 1997 Report 

to Congress on Mercury. From 1998 until October of 2006, I was a scientific consultant to numerous environmental advocacy groups on mercury regulatory issues and 

represented these groups as a member of the EPA’s Utility MACT Working Group. 

My comments this morning will address mercury health effects, the EPA’s Clean Air 

Mercury rule, and my thoughts on federal legislation. 

MERCURY AND FISH CONTAMINATION

Outside of occupational settings, methylmercury is the most toxic form of mercury 

to which humans are regularly exposed and methylmercury exposure is almost exclusively from eating fish and shellfish. The primary source of methylmercury in 

fish and shellfish is the atmosphere. 

From the atmosphere, mercury is ultimately is deposited to land and water where 

it can be converted by bacteria to methylmercury, a form that is especially toxic to 

humans and wildlife. Fish absorb methylmercury from the water as it passes over 

their gills and as they feed on plants and other organisms. As larger fish eat contaminated prey, methylmercury concentrations increase in the bigger fish, a process 

known as bioaccumulation. The concentration of methylmercury in these fish can be 

up to 10 million times higher than the surrounding water and reach levels that 

make the fish unsafe for humans and wildlife to consume. Elevated levels of 

methylmercury in fish have prompted concerns about the public health hazards 

from methylmercury exposure. Despite the known nutritional and health benefits 

from eating fish, in 2004, public health agencies in 44 states issued fish consumption advisories warning citizens to limit how often they eat certain types of fish because the fish are contaminated with high levels of mercury.1 According to EPA’s 

latest estimates, coal-fired powerplants are responsible for more than 45 percent of 

the country’s industrial mercury emissions.2

MERCURY EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Methylmercury is a neurotoxin—a substance that damages, destroys, or impairs 

the functioning of nerve tissue. It poses the greatest hazard to the developing fetus. 

It passes easily through the placenta and impairs the development of the brain and 

nervous system. Prenatal methylmercury exposure from maternal consumption of 

fish can cause later neurodevelopmental effects in children.3 Infants appear normal 

during the first few months of life, but later display subtle effects. These effects include poor performance on neurobehavioral tests, particularly on tests of attention, 

fine motor function, language, visual-spatial abilities (e.g., drawing) and memory. 

These children will likely have to struggle to keep up in school and might require 

remedial classes or special education.4
117 

of Methylmercury, 2000. National Academy Press. Online. Available: http://www.nap.edu/ 

books/0309071402/html/ 5 U.S. EPA, 1997b. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume VII: Characterization of 

Human and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States. EPA–452/R–97–009 6 U.S. EPA, 1997b. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume VII: Characterization of 

Human and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States. EPA–452/R–97–009 7 Hightower, J.M., A. O’Hare, G.T. Hernandez, 2006. Blood mercury reporting in NHANES: 

Identifying Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, and multiracial groups. Environmental 

Health Perspectives, Volume 114, Number 2, February. 8Muir, T. and M. Zegarac, 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and 

health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Envr. Health 

Perspect. Volume 109, Sup. 6, pp. 885–903. December. 9Muir, T. and M. Zegarac, 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and 

health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Envr. Health 

Perspect. Volume 109, Sup. 6, pp. 885–903. December. 10Muir, T. and M. Zegarac, 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and 

health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Envr. Health 

Perspect. Volume 109, Sup. 6, pp. 885–903. December. 11Trasande, L., P. Landrigan and C. Schechter, 2005. Public health and economic consequences of methylmercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environ Health Perspect: 

doi:10.1289/ehp.7743. [Online 28 February 2005] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/7743/abstract.html 12 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Economic valuation of human 

health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired powerplants. February, 

2005. 

Methylmercury exposure prior to pregnancy is as critical as exposure during pregnancy because methylmercury stays in the body for months and is slowly excreted. 

Many of the critical stages of brain and nervous system development occur during 

the first two months after conception and since many women do not know they are 

pregnant during that time, the fetus may be exposed to high levels of 

methylmercury. Because of the risk methylmercury poses to the developing fetus, 

women of childbearing age (i.e., 15 to 44 years of age) who might become pregnant 

and pregnant women are the most important members of the population in terms 

of mercury exposure.5

Infants and children are also at risk. Infants may ingest methylmercury from 

breast milk and children are exposed through their diet. Children and infants may 

be more sensitive to the effects of methylmercury because their nervous systems 

continue to develop until about age 16. Children also have higher methylmercury 

exposures than adults because a child eats more food relative to his or her body 

weight than an adult does. As a result, they have a higher risk for adverse health 

effects.6

Based on blood monitoring data collected by the National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey (administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 children born in the United States each year 

have been exposed to mercury levels in utero high enough to put them at risk of 

neurological effects.7

What do these staggering numbers mean for childhood development, for our education system and for our society? Developmental and learning disabilities, including loss of IQ points, have negative impacts not only on individuals, but also have 

long-term consequences for the population and society as a whole.8 Chemical contamination of the brain affects not only the educational attainment, economic performance and income of the individual, but it also has an impact on the performance 

of the economy as a whole by affecting society’s potential production, rate of technical progress, and overall productivity.9

Lowered IQ has a documented relationship with economic outcomes such as lifetime earnings.10 Even small decrements in IQ have been linked with lower wages 

and earnings. Two recent studies have attempted to calculate the societal cost of 

methylmercury exposure in the U.S. and the related economic benefits of reducing 

such exposure. The Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Mt. 

Sinai School of Medicine concluded that exposure to methylmercury causes lifelong 

loss of intelligence in hundreds of thousands of American babies born each year. 

This loss of intelligence exacts a significant economic cost to American society—a 

cost that they estimate to be in the hundreds of million dollars each year.11

In a different study, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

(NESCAUM) in collaboration with the Harvard School of Public Health quantified 

how decreasing mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants would result in less 

methylmercury exposure and consequently, IQ point gains for the population of children born each year.12 According to this study, a 70 percent decrease in coal-fired 

powerplant mercury emissions by 2018 would result in benefits to society of between 

$119 million to $288 million every year. Consequently, a reduction in emissions of 
118 

13 Axelrad, D.A., D.C. Bellinger, L.M. Ryan, and T.J. Woodruff, 2007. Dose-response relationship of prenatal mercury exposure and IQ: An integrative analysis of epidemiologic data. Environ Health Perspect.; 115(4): 609–615. 14Muir, T. and M. Zegarac, 2001. Societal costs of exposure to toxic substances: economic and 

health costs of four case studies that are candidates for environmental causation. Envr. Health 

Perspect. Volume 109, Sup. 6, pp. 885–903. December. 15 U.S. EPA, 1997b. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Volume VII: Characterization of 

Human and Wildlife Risks from Mercury Exposure in the United States. EPA–452/R–97–009. 16 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Economic valuation of human 

health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired powerplants. February, 

2005. 17 U.S. EPA, 2005. Office of Inspector General. Additional analyses of mercury emissions needed before EPA finalizes rules for coal-fired electric utilities. 2005–P–00003, February 3, 2005. 18 U.S. EPA, 2006. Office of Inspector General. Monitoring needed to assess impact of EPA’s 

Clean Air Mercury Rule on potential hotspots. 2006–P–00025, May 15, 2006. 19 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005. Observations on EPA’s cost-benefit analysis 

of its mercury control options. GAO–05–252. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO–05–252. 20 Congressional Research Service, 2005. Mercury emissions from electric generating units: A 

review of EPA analysis and MACT determination. CRS Report RL 32744, January 21, 2005. 21 Congressional Research Service, 2006. Mercury emissions from electric powerplants: An 

analysis of EPA’s cap-and-trade regulations. CRS Report RL 32868, January 13, 2006. 

more than 70 percent would result in even greater benefits. Extrapolating these results, a 90 percent reduction in emissions would result in benefits to society worth 

more than $370 million per year. 

Effects on IQ however, may be just the tip of the iceberg13. A lower IQ may be 

the easiest to quantify and put a dollar value on, but this effect may not be the most 

serious in terms of life and career outcomes. Toxicants like methylmercury that affect the nervous system, alter a person’s ability to plan, organize, and initiate ideas 

and which may induce problems with attention, distractibility, impulsive behavior 

and inability to handle stress and disappointments. These effects could be far more 

serious with respect to success in school and life.14

There is also evidence in humans and animals that exposure to methylmercury 

can have adverse effects on the developing and adult cardiovascular system, blood 

pressure regulation, heart-rate variability, and heart disease.15 The benefit of reducing these adverse health outcomes has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars.16

EPA’S CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE

It was public health impacts that concerned Congress when in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act EPA was directed to investigate mercury and other hazardous air pollutant emissions from coal-fired utility plants, and to determine 

whether regulation of these pollutants was appropriate and necessary. As you know, 

EPA has since ‘‘revised’’ its positive regulatory finding, removed coal-fired utility 

boilers from the list of source categories that emit hazardous air pollutants, and finalized a cap and trade rule. The paper trail in the docket for this rule revealed: 

• EPA’s verbatim use of language from industry memoranda in numerous sections of the Federal Register notice to justify regulatory decisions, 

• the emission limits in the rule were pre-selected by EPA management to mirror 

the caps in President Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative, and 

• EPA’s models estimated that only a 50 percent reduction in emissions would 

occur by 2020, not a 70 percent reduction by 2018 as claimed by the Agency. 

Two reports by EPA’s Inspector General concluded that EPA’s regulatory process 

was ‘‘compromised’’, there was a lack of transparency in the regulatory process, and 

that EPA did not fully analyze the rule’s impacts on children’s health.17 The IG also 

found that the EPA did not fully address the potential for hotspots and has no plan 

in place to monitor for such hotspots.18 A report by the Government Accountability 

Office highlighted serious deficiencies in EPA’s cost-benefit analysis of mercury control options.19 The Congressional Research Service questioned why the proposed 

rule was not more stringent given that the benefits of the rule far outweighed the 

costs20, and in a follow-up report wondered exactly what EPA’s estimated control 

costs even represent given that so few mercury control installations were predicted.21

Two years have already passed since EPA finalized the Clean Air Mercury Rule. 

However, CAMR is so legally suspect in its cap and trade approach that dozens of 

environmental groups and states have filed lawsuits, and so lenient in its emission 

caps and timeframes that 22 states have developed programs that are more stringent. This patchwork approach is the wrong one for a national problem, especially 

for a pollutant where emissions from one state may affect citizens in other states. 
119 

22Keeler, G.J., M.S. Landis, G.A. Norris, E.M. Christianson and J.T. Dvonch, 2006. Sources 

of mercury wet deposition in Eastern Ohio, USA. Environ, Sci, Tech, 40, 5874–5881. 23 U.S. EPA, 2005. Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule: Air 

Quality Modeling. Downloaded from: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/aqm—oar–2002– 

0056–6130.pdf 24 Evers, D. and Charles Driscoll. ‘‘The Danger Downwind’’, New York Times, Op-Ed, April 

26, 2007. 

The fact that the Subcommittee is holding this hearing illustrates the degree to 

which EPA has failed in its mission. 

A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION

A legislative approach that integrates requirements for all of the major pollutants 

emitted by powerplants would address many of the shortcomings of CAMR rule by 

including the following requirements for mercury: 

• A stringent national cap accompanied by a percent reduction requirement or efficiency-based emission rate at each boiler. 

• The same emission rates for all coal types, not more lenient standards for our 

nation’s most polluting coals. 

• Timeframes that are realistic, but tight enough to encourage technology development and innovation, not a wait-and-see attitude. 

• Regulatory flexibility in the form of averaging times and safe harbor provisions. 

• A requirement for EPA to assess the effectiveness of the standard both through 

a national monitoring program and residual risk analysis. 

HOTSPOTS AND CAP-AND-TRADE

Why not a cap and trade program for mercury? First, let’s set aside questions of 

whether a cap and trade program for mercury is legal under the Clean Air Act, or 

whether such a program is prudent public health policy for a persistent, bioaccumulative neurotoxicant. A concern with this approach is that some facilities will not 

reduce their mercury emissions, preferring instead to purchase mercury pollution 

credits. Thus, emissions at a given facility might stay the same or even increase. 

The public health and environmental question then is whether mercury hotspots 

(areas of high mercury deposition, or water quality parameters that favor mercury 

methylation and high levels of mercury in biota) exist today, and whether a regulatory scheme that does not require all sources to reduce emissions will improve 

these areas or worsen them. 

The Agency’s argument that hotspots are unlikely to occur relies on prior experience under the Clean Air Act’s sulfur dioxide trading in the Acid Rain program. 

However, the Clean Air Mercury Rule is not comparable to the Acid Rain program. 

Sulfur dioxide emissions from powerplants are regulated by at least 5 other regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act, not the trading program alone (for example, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Source Review, New Source Performance Standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, and haze rules). No 

such minimum standards exist as a back-stop in the mercury cap-and-trade rule. 

The EPA also relies on the results of a computer model that predicts that much 

of the mercury emitted from a given facility disperses into the atmosphere and does 

not deposit in the local vicinity, thus there is no risk of hotspots either occurring 

or becoming worse. However, EPA’s computer modeling results are not supported 

by monitoring results. A comprehensive multi-year EPA-funded study in Steubenville, Ohio measured the amount of local deposition that can be attributed to local 

coal-burning sources. Contrary to EPA’s results that most mercury deposition in the 

U.S. is from global sources, not local sources, the Steubenville study found that in 

an area dominated by coal-fired powerplants, 70 percent of the mercury deposition 

could be attributed (by taking measurements, not by computer modeling) to local 

sources.22 These findings are particularly significant because not only do these findings contradict the computer modeling EPA used in developing the Clean Air Mercury Rule,23 they highlight the potential for reducing local and regional mercury 

deposition by controlling local sources. 

Further, in a just completed 10-year study of hotspots in the northeastern U.S. 

and southern Canada, researchers found numerous instances of wildlife with blood 

mercury levels high enough to be poisonous and one hotspot in New Hampshire, 

downwind of several coal-fired powerplants with mercury deposition five times higher than EPA’s modeled estimates for the same area.24 Given the extent of mercury 

fish contamination across the country, we can reasonably assume that other such 

deposition hotspots exist. Therefore, the nation as a whole will not benefit from a 

cap and trade rule that reduces mercury emissions in some locations, but not all. 
120 

25 Hintellmann, H., et al. 2002. Reactivity and Mobility of New and Old Mercury Deposition 

in a Boreal Forest Ecosystem during the First Year of the METAALICUS Study. Environmental 

Science & Technology 36(23):5034–40. 26 Bariarz, C.L., et al. 2003. A Hypolimnetic Mass Balance of Mercury From a Dimictic Lake: 

Results from the METAALICUS Project. Journal De Physique IV 107:83–6. 27 Hrabik, T.R. and C.J. Watras, 2002. Recent declines in mercury concentration in a freshwater fishery: isolating the effects of de-acidification and decreased mercury deposition in Little 

Rock Lake. The Science of the Total Environment, 2002. 28Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2003. Integrating atmospheric mercury 

deposition and aquatic cycling in the Florida Everglades: An approach for conducting a Total 

Maximum Daily Load analysis for an atmospherically derived pollutant. Integrated Summary: 

Final Report. October. 29Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2006. Massachusetts Fish Mercury 

Monitoring Studies: Long-Term Monitoring Results, 1999–2004. http://www.mass.gov/dep/ 

toxics/stypes/hgres.htm#monitoring 

Addressing the question of how fish concentrations respond to reductions in mercury emissions and deposition are multiyear studies in Wisconsin, Florida, and Massachusetts. These field studies correlated control of local emission sources with decreases in mercury deposition and subsequent reductions in fish mercury concentrations. Notably, in each case, the reductions in fish tissue concentrations were far 

greater and occurred much faster than scientists thought the reductions would 

occur. In fact, research now shows that newly deposited mercury is more reactive 

in the environment than previously deposited mercury. Thus, aquatic systems can 

respond rapidly to changes (e.g., decreases) in mercury deposition.25, 26 In Wisconsin, 

researchers found that changes in atmospheric mercury deposition had rapid effects 

on fish mercury concentrations.27 A 10 percent decline in mercury deposition correlated with a 5 percent decline in fish mercury concentration over a period of 1 

year. Researchers measured a 30 percent decline in fish mercury concentration over 

a 6-year period. 

In South Florida, local mercury emission rates from waste incinerators decreased 

by more than 90 percent since peaking in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result 

of pollution prevention and the issuance of stringent State emission limits. As a result, mercury in the fish and wildlife of the Everglades has declined by more than 

75 percent since the mid-1990’s—a recovery that the researchers called ‘‘remarkable’’ (for both the extent of the recovery and how quickly it occurred).28 From the 

time emissions started to decrease, it took from 6 to 36 months before decreases in 

largemouth bass mercury concentrations were detected. 

While industry critics claim that the results in South Florida are not applicable 

to other parts of the U.S. because of the unique attributes of the Everglades system, 

these results have been duplicated in Massachusetts as well. In February 2006, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts released the findings from the first 5 years of a 

multi-year monitoring effort designed to gauge the effectiveness of mercury pollution 

controls in reducing fish mercury concentrations in local lakes.29 The study found 

that declines in fish mercury concentrations correlated with the decline in mercury 

emissions after the installation of mercury controls on incinerators in Northeastern 

Massachusetts. The most significant decline in fish mercury concentrations (a decrease of about 47 percent from 1999 to 2004) occurred where numerous local point 

sources either ceased operation or achieved substantial reductions in mercury emissions. 

These studies indicate that fish mercury levels may respond rapidly to changes 

in mercury deposition, thus bolstering the case for either States to impose more 

stringent mercury limits on a tighter timeframe than the more lenient federal Clean 

Air Mercury Rule, or for Congress to unify this patchwork of state laws with comprehensive powerplant air pollution legislation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

RESPONSES FROM MARTHA H. KEATING TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR SANDERS

Question 1. The Bush administration argues that one of the reasons it has not 

been as aggressive on regulating domestic sources of mercury is because a large portion of the mercury in the U.S. originates from global sources. What, if anything, 

has the Bush administration done in the international arena to help or hinder reductions in global sources of mercury? 

Response. First, I would like to address the Bush administration’s argument 

about the contribution of global sources to mercury deposition in the U.S. Scientists 

agree that mercury deposition in any one location is a function of mercury emissions 

from local, regional, and global sources. However, the influence of any one source 

type (i.e., local, regional or global) varies widely by location. In particular, domestic 
121 

1Seigneur, Christian, K. Vijayaraghavan, K. Lohman, P. Karamachandani, and C. Scott, 2004, 

Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 

38, 555–569. 2 Cohen, Mark, R. Artz, R. Draxler, P. Miller, L. Poissant, D. Niemi, D. Ratte, M. Deslauriers, 

R. Duval, R. Laurin, J. Slotnick, T. Nettesheim, and J. McDonald, 2004, in press, Modeling the 

atmospheric transport and deposition of mercury to the Great Lakes, Environmental Research. 3Keeler, G.J., M.S. Landis, G.A. Norris, E.M. Christianson and J.T. Dvonch, 2006. Sources 

of mercury wet deposition in Eastern Ohio, USA. Environ, Sci, Tech, 40, 5874–5881. 4 Evers, D. and Charles Driscoll. ‘‘The Danger Downwind’’, New York Times, Op-Ed, April 26, 

2007. 5 Bullock, O. R., K. A. Brehme, and G. R. Mapp, 1998, Sci. Total Environ., 213,1. Dvonch, J., 

J. Graney, G. Keeler, and R. Stevens, 1999, Use of elemental tracers to source apportion mercury in South Florida precipitation, Environ. Sci. Technol, 33, 4522–4527. 6Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2003, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2003/nov/pdf/mercury—report.pdf 

mercury sources have been shown to significantly affect numerous regions in the 

country. • One study estimated that sources within North America contributed more than 

60 percent of the mercury deposition to sections of the northeastern U.S., with 

northeastern New Jersey estimated to receive over 80 percent of its mercury deposition from North American sources.1

• Detailed modeling found that approximately one half to two thirds of the mercury deposited to the Great Lakes is emitted by sources within the U.S.2 For Lake 

Erie and Lake Ontario, over half of the deposition was estimated to originate from 

sources closer than 1,000 kilometers from each lake. • A comprehensive multi-year EPA-funded study in Steubenville, Ohio measured 

the amount of local deposition that can be attributed to local coal-burning sources. 

The Steubenville study found that in an area dominated by coal-fired powerplants, 

70 percent of the mercury deposition could be attributed (by taking measurements, 

not by computer modeling) to local sources.3

In a just completed 10-year study of hotspots in the northeastern U.S. and southern Canada, researchers found numerous instances of wildlife with blood mercury 

levels high enough to be poisonous and one hotspot in New Hampshire, downwind 

of several coal-fired powerplants with mercury deposition five times higher than 

EPA’s modeled estimates for the same area.4

These and other studies5, 6 indicate that, in general, regions in the U.S. with the 

highest mercury deposition are the same regions where local and regional sources 

make significant contributions to the total mercury load. 

Thus, U.S. emissions are responsible for a significant part (or, in some areas, an 

overwhelming part) of the U.S. deposition problem. 

Given the Administration’s position that it is largely global sources of mercury 

that are impacting the U.S., one would be inclined to think that the Administration 

would be fully supportive of binding international agreements that would require reductions in mercury emissions worldwide. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. 

The Administration has consistently argued against any agreements to reduce emissions if the agreement included binding targets. 

The U.S. Government has focused its work on global mercury largely through participation in UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) deliberations. UNEP 

has made mercury a priority since it issued a Global Mercury Assessment in 2003. 

Unfortunately, our government’s participation has not been constructive; to the contrary, it has opposed efforts by the European Union, Norway and Switzerland, and 

other countries to develop a coordination global mercury reduction plan. It has vehemently resisted development of a binding treaty like the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty to reduce the use of this toxic metal. It has even resisted the 

development of quantitative reduction goals (aspirational goals) to guide activities 

around the world. 

EPA and the State Department have promoted voluntary partnerships as the sole 

mechanism to achieve mercury reduction goals. Although there is nothing wrong 

with voluntary initiatives per se, they need to be designed carefully and quite deliberately in order to achieve any progress. Partnerships to date have been the opposite; there are no quantitative reduction goals, no identification of key affected parties for membership, or any other measures that would measure progress. UNEP 

has recently renewed efforts to revitalize these partnerships with the hope that they 

may someday contribute to actual mercury reductions, but this optimism is surely 

a triumph of hope over experience; to date the performance of these partnerships 

has been dismal. 

Most recently, EPA has taken a stand on legislation introduced in both the House 

of Representatives and the Senate to ban the export of surplus mercury into com-
122 

merce. This initiative is quite similar to an initiative in the European Union and 

is widely considered one of the most important things that industrialized nations 

can do to reduce mercury use in global commerce. EPA did not strongly oppose the 

bill, but chose to focus on a series of hypothetical problems that the legislation could 

inadvertently trigger. The bottom line of the EPA testimony was that we should 

focus on reducing demand instead of supply, a position that was contradicted by 

both ECOS (Environmental Council of State Governments) and the national environmental community who testified at the same hearing. It is also a position that 

contradicts the recent UNEP declaration on mercury, which called for reductions of 

both supply and demand at the same time in order to reduce mercury use and pollution. 

Question 2. EPA declared in it final mercury rules for powerplants that it was not 

only ‘‘unnecessary’’ but also ‘‘inappropriate’’ to regulate mercury emissions from 

powerplants under the Clean Air Act’s stringent air toxics provisions in section 112. 

Hasn’t EPA long regulated mercury from other types of industries, however, under 

this same stringent Clean Air Act authority? And, if so, what has the experience 

been there? Does it make sense to you that it is appropriate to regulate mercury 

emissions from some types of industries using the law’s most protective tools, but 

‘‘inappropriate’’ to do so when it comes to powerplants? 

Response. Section 112(d) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments requires the application of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to major sources of 

hazardous air pollutants. Congress provided the list of hazardous air pollutants 

(which includes mercury and compounds) and EPA devised the list of major source 

categories. (EPA added coal-fired electric steam generating units to the source category list in December 2000, and then summarily de-listed them in March 2005 

under the Clean Air Mercury Rule.) Had EPA adhered to the mandates of section 

112(d) since 1990, there would be numerous success stories to report. However, the 

Agency has been only partially successful in reducing mercury emissions using the 

authority of this section. For example, the Agency did issue substantive MACT 

standards limiting mercury emissions from hazardous waster incinerators (a source 

category that includes commercial and onsite incinerators, cement kilns burning 

hazardous waste, lightweight aggregate kilns, and boilers). On the other hand, 

EPA’s MACT standard for cement kilns not burning hazardous waste took the position that maximum achievable control technology was ‘‘no control’’—an approach 

that has since been rejected by the courts. The MACT standard for industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers results in a paltry 17 percent reduction in mercury 

emissions. Overall, the Agency’s record under section 112(d) is mixed. 

The Agency’s true success stories in regulating mercury emissions are the standards for medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors. Each of these 

rules required about a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions, and in practice, 

far higher reductions have been achieved. While these standards were issued under 

section 129 of the 1990 amendments, it is noteworthy that the statutory language 

of CAA section 129 is identical to the MACT requirements of section 112(d). 

The success of these standards in reducing mercury emissions can largely be attributed to the use of activated carbon injection at these sources. Numerous opponents of stringent regulations for coal-fired powerplants consistently point out that 

mercury control at waste combustors are so efficient because these units can operate 

at lower temperatures, have a smaller volume of stack gas to treat, and have higher 

a higher chlorine content in the waste than is present in the coal. All of these factors contribute to high capture rates of mercury in waste combustor stack emissions. 

I agree with each of these points. This does not mean however that the same technology cannot achieve equivalent capture rates at coal-fired powerplants. The emissions data from full-scale tests of the latest technologies (including halogenated carbon and other advancements) continue to demonstrate that mercury can be reduced 

efficiently and affordably at powerplants. 

EPA had the same concerns about the reliability and efficiency of technology when 

the municipal waste combustor rule was developed. In fact, the Agency had test 

data from only two combustor facilities, compared to the dozens that are available 

today for coal-fired powerplants. To address this uncertainty, EPA included a safe 

harbor provision in the combustor rules that allowed for a different emission limit 

if the technology did not perform as designed. A similar approach could certainly 

be taken for coal-fired powerplants. To date, not a single medical waste incinerator 

or municipal waste combustor has needed the safe harbor provision. 

Finally, as I submitted previously, I believe that the cap and trade approach for 

regulating mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants is inappropriate. A multipollutant legislation that includes a stringent national cap with emission limits at 

each boiler, a reasonable timeframe, and regulatory flexibility in the form of a safe 
123 

harbor provision, would address the many shortcomings in EPA’s Clean Air Mercury 

Rule. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Keating, thank you so much. 

Mr. Pipitone, welcome. 

Senator Voinovich, this fellow is from Akron, OH. 

STATEMENT OF GUY L. PIPITONE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

OF OPERATIONS, STRATEGY, AND DEVELOPMENT, 

FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION 

Mr. PIPITONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Voinovich. My 

name is Guy Pipitone. I am senior vice president, Operations, 

Strategy and Development for the FirstEnergy Corporation, which 

is headquartered in Akron, OH. We are a diversified energy company. 

I have been with the company for more than 30 years, the majority of that time spent on the powerplant side of our operations. We 

believe that one of the promising mercury removal technologies out 

there is electro-catalytic oxidation, or we refer to it as ECO for 

short. It is a multi-pollutant removal process that has been developed by a New Hampshire-based energy company, a technology 

company named Powerspan. FirstEnergy has a 25 percent interest 

in Powerspan, and I have served on Powerspan’s board of directors 

since 1998. 

Another major supporter of the ECO process has been the Ohio 

Coal Development Office. They have contributed $5.5 million towards the development of this technology. 

Powerspan has been operating in an ECO commercial demonstration unit at FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant, which is located on the Ohio River near Shadyside, OH. That plant has been 

operating for 3 years now. ECO has proven to be effective in reducing sulfur dioxide, mercury, fine particulate, and nitrogen oxides. 

We have ordered a 325 megawatt ECO unit for installation on our 

system, and it is scheduled for startup in the first quarter of 2011. 

The ECO process works by sending an electrical charge into a 

proprietary reactor, and this reactor oxidizes the pollutants, including mercury. Next an ammonia-based scrubber is used to capture 

the oxidized gaseous pollutants. The byproduct from the ECO process passes through a highly efficient carbon filter to remove most 

of the remaining mercury before it is crystallized into ammonium 

sulfate fertilizer, which is a very marketable byproduct. 

Our test results over these past 3 years have shown ECO’s mercury removal rate to average about 83 percent. However, with additional design refinements, a 90 percent removal rate may be 

achievable. By comparison, at our Bruce Mansfield Plant in Pennsylvania, about 85 percent of the mercury is removed by the combination of our SCR and scrubber systems that are installed there. 

Since Powerspan’s ECO unit began operating at Burger in 2004, 

a number of coals and coal blends have been tested. The fuels 

ranged from 100 percent high sulfur eastern bituminous coal, to 80 

percent Powder River Basin with a 20 percent eastern coal blend. 

The testing indicates that as long as the coal blend is 20 percent 

or more of eastern bituminous fuel, over 80 percent of the mercury 

will be removed. 
124 

We haven’t done testing at the plant with 100 percent Powder 

River Basin, but Powerspan’s laboratory testing of the western 

fuels at 100 percent show that about 50 percent to 65 percent of 

the mercury is removed for 100 percent Powder River Basin. 

While we are long time supporters of ECO, we know that it has 

its limitations, as do all of the current pollution control technologies that are out there. 

Along with the ECO process, Powerspan is developing an exciting 

carbon capture process, and it is referred to as ECO2. The pilot of 

this system will be installed at our R.E. Burger Plant and the goal 

of this first of a kind project is to capture powerplant-generated 

carbon dioxide, transport it to an 8,000 foot deep well that has just 

been drilled, and then sequester that carbon dioxide underground. 

These activities are part of FirstEnergy’s participation in the multiyear regional carbon sequestration research program that is sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. 

The ECO2 pilot program is scheduled to begin by either the end 

of this year, just 7 months or so from now, or in the first quarter 

of 2008. So this is near term. It may be the first such program in 

the world to demonstrate both CO2 capture and sequestration at 

one conventional coal-fired powerplant. 

I will conclude my remarks by saying that we have determined 

that ECO is a viable alternative compared with other technologies. 

I thank you for the opportunity to talk about FirstEnergy’s effort 

in this area. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pipitone follows:] 

STATEMENT OF GUY L. PIPITONE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS STRATEGY

AND DEVELOPMENT, FIRSTENERGY CORP. 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Guy Pipitone 

and I am the Senior Vice President, Operations Strategy & Development for 

FirstEnergy, which is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. 

I have been with the company for more than 30 years, with the majority of my 

career spent on the powerplant side of our operations. I appreciate the opportunity 

to testify before this subcommittee regarding the current state of mercury technology here in the United States. 

We believe that one promising mercury removal technology is the Electro-Catalytic Oxidation, or ECO technology, a multi-pollutant control system developed by 

Powerspan, a New Hampshire-based energy technology company. FirstEnergy has 

a 25-percent ownership interest in Powerspan, and I have served on its board of directors since 1998. 

Another major supporter of ECO has been the Ohio Coal Development Office, a 

program of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority. It has contributed more 

than $5.5 million to the project. 

Powerspan has been operating an ECO demonstration system for the past three 

years at FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant, located along the Ohio River near 

Shadyside, Ohio. Through this demonstration, ECO has proven to be effective in reducing SO2, mercury, acid gases, fine particulate matter, and nitrogen oxides. 

The process works by sending an electrical charge into the proprietary ECO reactor that oxidizes pollutants, including mercury. Next, an ammonia scrubber is used 

to capture the oxidized gaseous pollutants and SO2. The byproduct from the ECO 

process then passes through a highly efficient carbon filter to remove all of the mercury before it is crystallized into ammonium sulfate fertilizer, which is a marketable 

end product. Annually, this filter, with the captured mercury, has to be sent to a 

permitted hazardous waste facility. This is ECO’s only waste. In other words, this 

process creates a useful fertilizer rather than more landfills. 

Test results have shown ECO’s mercury removal rate to average about 83 percent. 

However, with additional design and engineering refinements, a 90-percent removal 

rate may be achievable. By comparison, FirstEnergy’s Bruce Mansfield Plant in 

Shippingport, Pennsylvania was one of the first powerplants in the world to be built 
125 

with scrubbers as original equipment. Our testing indicates that about 85 percent 

of the mercury is removed by its selective catalytic reduction and scrubber systems. 

Since the ECO unit began operating at Burger in 2004, a number of coals and 

coal blends have been burned in the units supplying the flue gas to the ECO unit. 

The fuels ranged from 100-percent high-sulfur eastern bituminous coal, to blends 

with up to 80-percent low-sulfur Powder River Basin western coal. 

The testing indicates that as long as some eastern coal is included in the mix, 

the mercury will be oxidized and can be mostly removed by ECO. Laboratory testing 

also shows that burning 100-percent Powder River Basin coal only nets about a 50- 

to 65-percent mercury removal rate through ECO. This is probably because western 

coal has a high percentage of elemental mercury and is low in chlorine. It is chlorine 

that combines with the elemental mercury to produce an oxidized form that is easier 

to remove in the ECO process. 

Throughout the testing process, the Electric Power Research Institute has monitored ECO’s results. This includes testing of pollutant removal, audits of analyzer 

readings, fertilizer sampling, and a reliability study, which concluded that ECO is 

as reliable as a conventional wet flue gas scrubber system. 

While we are long-time supporters of ECO, we know that it has its limitations, 

as do all pollution control technologies. For example, some powerplants might not 

have the physical space to accommodate an ECO unit and its associated fertilizer 

plant. 

Along with ECO’s multi-pollutant removal capabilities, Powerspan also is developing a carbon capture process—known as ECO2—that can be added to the existing 

ECO unit. The goal of this first-of-a-kind project is to capture powerplant CO2, 

transport it to an 8,000-foot test well that was drilled at the Burger Plant earlier 

this year, and then sequester it underground. These activities are part of 

FirstEnergy’s participation in a multi-year regional carbon sequestration research 

program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy to determine if CO2 can be 

stored deep underground in suitable rock formations. 

The ECO2 pilot program is scheduled to begin by the end of this year, or early 

2008. The projects will provide an opportunity to test an integrated CO2 capture, 

handling and transportation, and injection system at our Burger Plant, which may 

be the first to demonstrate both CO2 capture and sequestration at a conventional 

coal-fired powerplant. 

These all are issues I am sure this committee will debate and discuss at length. 

I will conclude my remarks by saying we have determined ECO to be a viable alternative compared with other technologies. 

Thank you for the opportunity to talk about FirstEnergy’s experience with ECO. 

I’d be pleased to answer your questions at this time. 

POWERSPAN ECO2 TECHNOLOGY UPDATE

Powerspan has been working to develop the ECO2 CO2 capture process in its New 

Hampshire laboratory. The ECO2 process is designed to work in conjunction with 

the ECO multi-pollutant control process. After the incoming flue gas has nearly all 

of the SO2, NOx, mercury and the particulate removed in the ECO2 system, it is 

sent to the ECO2 absorber vessel. ECO2 uses an ammonium carbonate reagent absorber and regenerator system to capture CO2 in the powerplant flue gas stream, 

strip off the CO2 for final cleanup, compress and sell or sequester the CO2 and send 

the reagent back into the ECO system. No additional reagent is used in ECO2 than 

is already used in the ECO system. 

Laboratory results have shown that ECO2 can capture up to 90 percent CO2 in 

the flue gas stream. Measurement techniques have been developed to confirm these 

results. The process is continuing to be refined to develop design information for a 

1 MW ECO2 pilot unit at FirstEnergy’s Burger Power Station, where a 30 MW demonstration of the ECO system has been in operation for about 3 years. The ECO 

pilot is scheduled to be added by the end of 2007, or early 2008. It is scheduled to 

operate at least through 2008, capturing approximately 20 tons per day of CO2. 

The captured CO2 is to be permanently sequestered in an on-site well recently 

drilled to a 8,000-foot depth at the Burger Power Station as part of the Midwest 

Regional Carbon Sequestration Project. This may be the first project to capture and 

sequester powerplant CO2 in the world. 
126 
127 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pipitone, thank you for sharing all that you 

are doing there. We look forward to asking you some questions 

about that to follow up. 

All right. Mr. Foerter, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. FOERTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INSTITUTE OF CLEAN AIR COMPANIES 

Mr. FOERTER. Good morning. My name is David Foerter. I am 

the executive director for the Institute of Clean Air Companies. 

ICAC is a national trade association of nearly 100 companies that 

supply air pollution control and monitoring technologies for electric 

powerplants and other stationary sources across the United States. 

The industry develops and deploys control technologies for all 

pollutants, including all criteria pollutants, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. 

ICAC would like to thank the subcommittee for the invitation to 

talk about the status of control technologies today. As you are 

aware, air pollution control technologies follow and respond to regulatory drivers. As you will hear from others today, the synergy of 

State-specific actions and Federal requirements create a control 

technology market with considerable certainty as to when and 

what technologies will be needed. ICAC members and the industry 

at large are responding with an ever-increasing suite of technologies to achieve these mercury control requirements. 

All powerplants are not created equally. All are engineered for 

specific conditions and needs. Likewise, there is no single mercury 

control technology that will achieve the reductions needed for all 

types of coals and powerplant configurations. 

Rather, there is an expanding suite of control technology options 

being deployed today. In addition, flexibility within regulations, including tiered approaches and soft landings or safe harbors, are 

good for technologies, such that the risks are reduced and the lower 

cost options can be developed and deployed. 

Today, I am going to focus on two primary options, one a mercury-specific injection technology; and the other the collection of 

technologies that integrate to control mercury emissions as a collateral or co-benefit when controlling for other pollutants. 

In general, the science and understanding of mercury control 

technology has moved rapidly from research through development, 

demonstration, and into full system deployment. We have been 

here before with other pollutants and have already applied similar 

mercury controls on the municipal solid waste sources. What is different today is that there is a broader range of available control 

technologies and the experience of our industry in deploying these 

technologies. 

We have also overturned some of the assumptions on sub-bituminous coal, the western coals, where we thought they originally 

would be more difficult or the most difficult and most expensive to 

control. That has been completely overturned in the last couple of 

years. 

Today, control technology vendors are actively installing mercury 

control systems across the United States, particularly in States 

with more aggressive implementation schedules and more stringent 

requirements than those mandated by Federal rule. In 2007, State 
128 

programs in Massachusetts and New Jersey go into effect with systems and control strategies in place to meet these requirements. 

Also there will be a few newly built plants that begin operation 

in 2007, and mercury control has been integrated into their design. 

In addition, the combination of installed controls designed for NOx 

control and for SO2 control already achieve mercury control as part 

of the integrated co-benefits approach. There are reports of high 

performance of megasystems. However, at a minimum all mercury 

control systems are designed to meet the regulatory requirements, 

as well as incorporating any flexibility in regulations. Again, technologies follow and respond to the regulatory drivers. 

Over the past year, ICAC members reported booking new contracts for nearly three dozen coal-fired powerplant boilers. These 

contracts are for new and existing boilers, burning bituminous and 

sub-bituminous coals, with different equipment configurations. The 

commercial sales are the result of Federal and State regulations, 

including new source permit requirements under consent decrees. 

By the end of this year, vendors anticipate they will have approximately 50 more orders that would come in due to these regulatory 

drivers. 

As previously reported by ICAC, mercury-specific sorbent injection systems became commercially available after being demonstrated at full scale on various coal-fired boilers, coal types, and 

mission control equipment configurations. Typically, these mercury 

control systems require relatively small capital investments for materials storage handling and delivery systems. Initially, the sub-bituminous coals posed the greatest challenge to our industry for sorbent injection technology. Today, these challenges have been largely overcome and the technical challenges are mostly now on bituminous coal systems. 

It is noteworthy that when you have an injection system, a sorbent injection system, you can change or tweak that system to get 

different levels of mercury control, by changing the types of carbons 

or the amounts of carbons that are being used in them. So the 

same kind of control technology you might put in for 70 percent 

could also be used for 90 percent. 

It is also noteworthy that while I am discussing activated carbon 

as one technology, there are other different types of sorbents that 

are being developed and deployed. 

It is also evident that significant amounts of mercury are being 

removed from existing control technologies, or the collateral benefits. When you combine technologies like the particulate and the 

SO2 and the NOx controls, and put them together, you ultimately 

will get some other types of emissions reductions. Although these 

processes were not originally intended, designed nor optimized for 

mercury capture, the collateral mercury control is often sufficient 

to meet current requirements. Because mercury is captured as a cobenefit from these control technologies, the reductions are cost effective. 

Many other powerplants are anticipated to install combined controls over the next several years. We have seen some recent information from EPA projecting out to 2020 that there will be 260 

gigawatts of power that will be scrubbed, and this is in the context 

of 330 gigawatts of coal-fired power. 
129 

Similarly, for the NOx control, we are looking at about 220 

gigawatts of SCRs by 2020. So there is a lot more of these combinations that are coming, and EPA is making those predictions. 

Plants are likely to meet the requirements through integrated cobenefit approaches, with the potential to add additional mercuryspecific control technologies as needed. Once you have a co-benefit 

program, you could put in activated carbon injection on top of that. 

There is nothing in the science that says you cannot do that. Integrated multi-pollutant control systems can also be optimized in 

many ways to achieve greater amounts of mercury. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Foerter, you are about 7 minutes into your 

statement. I need to ask you to wrap it up. Senator Voinovich has 

to leave at 12:30, and I just want to make sure he has his chance. 

So could you go ahead and wrap it up? 

Mr. FOERTER. Okay. A paragraph or two, and I am done. 

Recognizing the market demand for activated carbons is driven 

by regulations, the industry has been developing more carbon. We 

have a number of different projects. One is the largest activated 

carbon manufacturing facility in the United States. It is a $280 

million project. It is designed to produce 50 percent of the activated 

carbon under any potential rule and legislation that is being looked 

at right now, by 2015. So trends are now in the investments being 

made in those sites in Texas, Louisiana and North Dakota. Texas 

and North Dakota are sitting on lignite coal, which is used to 

produce activate carbon. 

So they are looking at about 600 million pounds per year of this 

activated carbon by 2010, and about 1 billion pounds of activated 

carbon by 2015. 

There is an issue of fly ash and commingling with activated carbon. It is being addressed. We have a lot of success going on there. 

EPRI, who speaks after me, will talk a little about two of their 

technologies, and we think they have been very successful and 

have a lot of potential for keeping fly ash good for other things. 

We are working responsibly with powerplant operators to create 

the reliable mercury control systems that are integrated into facility designs. 

I thank you very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foerter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. FOERTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF

CLEAN AIR COMPANIES

Chairman Carper, Senator Voinovich and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Good morning, my name is David Foerter and I am the Executive Director for the 

Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC). 

ICAC is the national trade association of nearly one-hundred companies that supply air pollution control and monitoring technologies for electric powerplants and 

other stationary sources across the United States. The industry deploys control technologies for all air pollutants, including all criteria pollutants, air basics, and greenhouse gases. 

ICAC would like to thank Chairman Carper and Senator Voinovich for the invitation to participate in the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety hearing 

on ‘‘The State of Mercury Regulation, Science, and Technology.’’ It is my privilege 

to present this testimony on our current understanding of mercury control technologies for coal-fired powerplants and their application to meet regulatory requirements. 

As you should be aware, air pollution control technologies follow and respond to 

regulatory drivers. As you will hear from others today, the synergy of state-specific 

actions and federal requirements have created control technology markets with con-
130 

siderable certainty as to when and what technologies will he needed. ICAC members, and the industry at large, are responding with an ever increasing suite of technologies to achieve these mercury control requirements. All powerplants are not created equally; all are engineered for specific conditions and needs. Likewise, there 

is no single mercury control technology that will achieve the reductions needed for 

all coal types and for all electric powerplant configurations. Rather, there is an expanding suite of control technology options being deployed today. In addition, flexibility within regulations including tiered approaches are good for technologies such 

that risks are reduced and lower cost options can be developed and deployed. In 

these comments, I will focus on two of the primary control options; one a mercury 

specific sorbent injection technology and the other a collection of technologies integrated to control mercury emissions as a collateral, or co-benefit when controlling 

for other pollutants. 

In general, the science and understanding of mercury control technology has 

moved rapidly from research through development, demonstration and into full system deployment. The success of this rapid progression is the result of strong support 

from federal and public-private partnerships, and the ability of regulators, particularly in the states, to enact regulatory programs that harnessed the suite of control 

options in a flexible regulatory framework. For example, the strong research and 

demonstration program conducted through the U.S. Department of Energy overturned the previous assumption that sub-bituminous coals would be the most difficult and expensive to control. Through the demonstration program, the better understanding of western, sub-bituminous coals led to successes in dramatically reducing the cost of controlling mercury emissions while increasing the control effectiveness. Today, technology vendors are addressing challenging issues surrounding sorbent injection technology as it applies to eastern, bituminous coals, particularly in 

the presence of sulfur trioxides (SO3). 

Today, control technology vendors are actively installing mercury control systems 

across the United States, particularly in states that have called for more aggressive 

implementation schedules and more stringent requirements than those mandated by 

the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule. In 2007, state programs in Massachusetts and 

New Jersey go into effect, with systems and control strategies in place to meet these 

requirements. Also a few newly built powerplants begin operation in 2007 and mercury control has been integrated into their design. In addition, the combination of 

installed selective catalytic reduction (SCR), primarily designed for NOx control, and 

wet flue gas desulfurization (wet FGD), primarily designed for SO2 control, already 

achieve mercury control as pan of the integrated co-benefits approach. There have 

ve been reports of high performance of many systems, however, at a minimum all 

mercury control systems are designed to meet the regulatory requirements as well 

as any regulatory flexibility mechanisms. Typically, technology performance guarantees will be written around the performance requirements of regulations. 

Over the last year, ICAC members reported booking new contracts for mercury 

control equipment for nearly thirty-six coal-fired powerplant boilers. These contracts 

are for controlling mercury on new and existing boilers, burning bituminous and 

sub-bituminous coals, with different particulate captire equipment such as fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators (ESP). The contracts for commercial mercury control systems are attributed to federal and state regulations, including new source 

permit requirements and consent decrees, which specify high levels of mercury capture. By the end of 2007, vendors anticipate approximately another fifty contracts 

for mercury control systems will have been awarded. 

As reported by ICAC as the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule was being promulgated and as states prepared their response, and in many cases their own programs, 

mercury specific control technologies such as sorbent injection systems have been 

commercially available after being demonstrated at full-scale on various coal-fired 

boilers, coal types, and emissions control equipment configurations. Typically, these 

mercury control systems require relatively small capital investments for material 

storage, handling and delivery systems. Initially, sub-bituminous coals posed the 

greatest challenge for sorbent injection technology. Today these challenges have 

been largely overcome, and the technical challenges are mostly for bituminous coal 

systems. 

Once a sorbent injection system is installed, the sorbent, typically powdered activated carbon is delivered into the flue gas where it mixes with the gas and flows 

downstream. This provides an opportunity for the mercury in the gas to contact the 

powdered activated carbon and he removed. This is called ‘‘in flight’’ capture. The 

sorbent is then collected in the particulate control device where there is a second 

opportunity for sorbent to contact the mercury in the gas. Many sorbent injection 

systems have already been installed, although deployment of the systems will typically conform with the regulatory schedule. It is noteworthy that the same sorbent 
131 

injection system can be used to achieve different levels of mercury control, with the 

level of control modified by the type and amount of the sorbent injected into the 

flue gas. It is also noteworthy that sorbents other than activated carbon continue 

to be tested for application to full-scale deployment. 

As predicted based on technology demonstrations, significant amounts of mercury 

are being removed through the use of existing control technologies. Installed technologies including fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, flue gas desulfurization, 

selective catalytic reduction, and others currently achieve high levels of mercury reductions. Although these processes were not originally intended, designed, nor optimized for mercury capture, the collateral mercury control is often sufficient to meet 

current requirements. Because mercury is captured as a co-benefit from these control technologies, the reductions are cost effective. Many other powerplants are anticipated to install SCR and FGD in response to the Clean Air Interstate Rule over 

the next several years, and are likely to be able to meet requirements through these 

integrated co-benefit approaches, with the potential to add additional mercury-specific control technologies as needed. Integrated systems can also be optimized to 

achieve greater amounts of mercury. For example, catalyst manufacturers can reformulate catalysts to increase the oxidation of mercury, making it more soluble for 

wet removal, or change catalyst formulations to lower the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide. 

Given that a number of powerplants sell flyash that is captured in a particulate 

control device such as an electrostatic precipitator (analogous to a large scale home 

electric air cleaner), the presence of activated carbon in flyash became a challenge. 

Notably, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) developed two control systems to meet these challenges including: TOXECONTM and TOXECON IITM. TOXECON allows flyash to be collected by the electrostatic precipitator, then injects 

the sorbent downstream where it is collected in a fabric filter. This preserves the 

flyash for sale, and controls mercury emissions. A full scale demonstration at the 

Presque Isle powerplant in Marquette, Michigan, demonstrated a 90 percent mercury control at relatively low activated carbon injection rates (2.5 pounds per million 

cubic feet). In a second system, TOXECON IITM injects the sorbent between the last 

two fields in an electrostatic precipitator, allowing at least 90 percent of the flyash 

to be sold and only 10 percent of the flyash to be commingled with activated carbon 

The activated carbon can be either regenerated, recycled or disposed of with the 

flyash. Both systems continue to be tested to optimize their performance, and both 

systems preserve most of the flyash for sale for cement manufacturing. 

Recognizing the market demand for activated carbon driven by regulations, the 

air pollution control industry continues to make plans and investments into new 

and expanded production facilities. Activated carbon is manufactured using lignite 

coal as the raw material, and manufacturing is typically performed close to this 

source of coal. For example, the largest powdered activated carbon plant in North 

America is now in the pre-construction permitting stage to build on multiple sites 

up to four production lines. The goal of this $280 million project is to manufacture 

enough product to satisfy 50 percent of the U.S. market in 2015. Facilities would 

be constructed in close proximity to mine sites in Louisiana, and two in North Dakota. The total activated carbon market in the U.S. is anticipated to be less than 

600 million pounds per year in 2010 and approximately 1 billion pounds per year 

in 2015. 

The air pollution control industry continues to work responsibly with powerplant 

operators to ensure that mercury control systems are integrated into the facility’s 

design and specific coal requirements, and that any operational issues can be addressed. Significant advances continue to be made in mercury control technology 

performance and commercial deployment is ongoing. 

Thank you for the privilege to testify before the Subcommittee on these critically 

important matters. 

Senator CARPER. We thank you very much for your testimony 

and for the good work you all are doing. 

Dr. Levin, welcome and thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD LEVIN, TECHNICAL EXECUTIVE, AIR 

QUALITY HEALTH AND RISK ASSESSMENT, ELECTRIC 

POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Senator. 

I am Dr. Leonard Levin, technical executive at the Electric 

Power Research Institute, EPRI. EPRI is an independent nonprofit 
132 

research organization based in Palo Alto, CA. Our research programs have investigated all aspects of environmental mercury fate, 

effects, and controls for more than 20 years, at up to $20 million 

per year on these efforts. 

In the last several years, EPRI research has focused on quantifying the environmental and health benefits that would follow regulatory cuts in U.S. utility mercury. Much of this work has examined what might follow from some States adopting control levels of 

90 percent, compared to the national 70 percent cut due to EPA 

regulations. 

EPRI has also been extensively involved in testing and demonstration of mercury controls, working with the U.S. Department 

of Energy, EPA and many others. 

The potential health effects of mercury are almost exclusively 

due to consumption of fish containing excess levels of the substance. Fetuses are the ones most sensitive to this exposure due to 

their developing nervous systems. Thus, fish consumption by 

women of childbearing age is of greatest concern. From national 

survey data, we know that about 92 percent of the fish consumed 

in the United States are from global ocean areas. At least threequarters of that marine portion is from the Pacific, essentially 

upwind from the United States. For that reason, changes in U.S. 

mercury emissions are most likely to impact only the 8 percent of 

the fish consumed that may come from domestic freshwater resources. 

There is, in essence, a built-in floor bounding how low mercury 

exposure can be driven by controlling U.S. sources alone. EPRI research found that the greatest drop in exposure under the EPA 

CAMR rule will be about 7 percent for some women. Interestingly, 

EPA reached a similar conclusion, that the greatest exposure drop 

they could find would be 14 percent. These are essentially identical 

numbers in risk terms. 

These results on how much benefit can be derived from utility 

mercury controls alone were indirectly confirmed by the work of 

Dr. Trasande and his colleagues at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. In their studies of mercury’s impacts on IQ levels, they found 

that U.S. utility mercury is responsible for 0.4 percent of the overall IQ effect. Thus, an independent investigation reached the same 

conclusion that EPRI did. 

There is a limit to how much benefit should be expected from any 

controls on utility mercury. The data used by Dr. Trasande, from 

the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 

have shown a consistent, statistically significant, and so far unexplained drop in women’s mercury exposure in the United States. 

The number of women with mercury levels above the EPA health 

threshold dropped from more than 7 percent in 2000 to below 2 

percent in 2004. Yet reported fish consumption has increased over 

that time. 

Overall, EPRI and others have found that once utilities reach the 

EPA 70 percent national control level, further controls on mercury 

have a declining payback in public health improvement. Nevertheless, it is important to seek viable control measures for utility mercury. Those efforts are now bearing fruit, focusing on two issues: 
133 

can controls able to achieve 90 percent mercury reductions across 

the board be developed; and are such controls commercially ready? 

Control performance: Based on collaborative work with many 

partners, EPRI concludes that mercury controls to date perform 

quite differently on different powerplants. Plants burning eastern 

bituminous coals and equipped with nitrogen and sulfur controls 

for CAIR compliance, capture up to 90 percent of the mercury in 

the coal. These are the plants generally emitting higher proportions 

of divalent mercury, the kind that is most soluble in water. 

Current research is aimed at improving this to a consistent 90 

percent-plus level. Plants burning western coal, such as Powder 

River Basin coals, can be controlled by injecting bromine-impregnated activated carbon. Tests have found that up to 94 percent 

mercury removal can be gained at some of these plants. Other 

plants, however, show continuing issues with both operating lifetime and control efficiency. 

Commercial readiness: Regulations necessitating 90 percent mercury removal will require vendor guarantees of that level on every 

plant. To date, there have been no such assurances made. Additionally, major questions remain about impacts of carbon injection on 

powerplant operations. 

To summarize, some configurations of fuels and controls appear 

capable of 90 percent mercury removals, but many are not. EPRI 

is working diligently to expand the range of powerplants that can 

maintain removals at these high levels. 

Further reducing mercury emissions from 70 percent to 90 percent, as shown in the charts that I provided the committee, will not 

significantly reduce deposition, however, since most of that mercury emitted after CAMR is reached is elemental mercury, which 

plays little role in U.S. deposition. Furthermore, we face the possibility that post-regulatory measurements to detect declines in mercury in U.S. waters or fish may be masked by significant mercury 

deposition from distant non–U.S. sources. 

In summary, first, data show that mercury exposure in women 

of childbearing age has declined over the past decade, quite significantly, while fish consumption has increased. Second, controls of 

mercury more stringent than the EPA’s 70 percent national control 

level appear to have diminishing returns, primarily due to non-U.S. 

mercury imports and the form of mercury remaining in utility 

emissions after the EPA CAMR rules. Third, EPRI cannot yet say 

with confidence that 90-percent effective mercury control technologies are commercially available for all powerplants. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:] 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Levin, thank you very much. 

Let me just start off by asking Ms. Keating if there is anything 

that you would like to comment on with respect to Dr. Levin’s testimony. Is there anything at all? 

Ms. KEATING. Yes, I would like to comment on a few things that 

Dr. Levin said. 

Senator CARPER. I thought I saw you writing furiously over 

there. 

Ms. KEATING. Yes, I was making a few notes. 

First of all, as regard to the NHANES results with blood mercury 

levels, declining over the past 3 years. I would like to think that 

is a good news story, that these levels are declining, but I would 

like to say a couple of things about the NHANES survey itself. I 

am not sure that my colleague who is a statistician, Dr. Eric 

Tassone, would agree that three points on a line is a trend, but 

let’s assume that that is a good thing over the last 3 years of that 

survey. 

What the survey shows is that fish consumption levels and blood 

mercury levels differ significantly by race and by geographic area. 

The NHANES samples only 26 places across the country, for each 

survey. So you can get different results from each survey depending on where they are sampling. 

In addition, we see far greater exposure to women that are Native American and Asian. You can argue about the number of 2 

percent, 3 percent, 6 percent, but the numbers for the other populations that are grouped all together is more like 25 percent above 

the EPA’s reference dose. So that is one point about the NHANES. 

I would like to say, a couple of years ago I heard Bill Wehrum 

speak at a symposium here in D.C., and he said 2 percent, 3 percent, this is still a large number of children. There has been an emphasis on quantifying the benefits due to lower IQ, but I would 

have to say that that is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms 

of mercury effects. The cognitive effects that are much harder to 

quantify and so are oftentimes left out of that benefits equation, 

may be the effects that have a much greater affect in life and relationships and so on than a slightly lower IQ. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Foerter, let me go back to something that you said not once, 

but I believe twice. As you know, technologies follow and respond 

to regulatory drivers. Let me just say to you, when you look at 

what FirstEnergy has done and the investments they have made. 

What is the name of the company that you all have invested in? 

Mr. PIPITONE. Powerspan. 

Senator CARPER. Powerspan, yes. I presume the technologies that 

Powerspan is developing are not responding directly to regulatory 

drivers. You must be doing this for some reason. Maybe it is to develop the technology that, when we do have the regulatory requirements in place, that you have the technology there ready to help 

deliver the results. But maybe the idea of all these new coal-fired 

powerplants that are coming on line in China, when they finally 

get serious about reducing emissions that you will be there with a 

technology that we can export and use. 
149 

But your thoughts on the comment from Mr. Foerter, as you 

know, technologies follow and respond to regulatory drivers, particularly in the context of how your companies are behaving. 

Mr. PIPITONE. Our company, we started with Powerspan back in 

the late 1990s because we recognized that coal was such an important part of our energy mix in the United States, and invested in 

the technologies in anticipation that multi-pollutant requirements 

would be coming down the road. It wasn’t specifically at that time 

looking at mercury, but it was primarily focused on SO2, acid 

gases, fine particulate, and nitrous oxides. 

So we did it in anticipating more stringent regulations and to get 

a competitive advantage in our business, because we are a completely deregulated entity, and FirstEnergy Solutions part of our 

generating company. So we compete in a market. We don’t get a 

regulated rate of return on our investments. So that was the driver 

for our efforts starting in the late 1990s. 

Senator CARPER. Okay. Do you believe when Mr. Foerter says 

technologies follow and respond to regulatory drivers? Do you subscribe to that? 

Mr. PIPITONE. I believe there is a relationship, no question about 

that, and more investment would go towards where the potential 

regulations are. Of course, there are a lot of risks involved with developing new technologies. The capital investment and the markets 

are so important to the economy that it is a risky set of circumstances and issues that are being dealt with. But investment 

will go towards those regulations over time. 

Unfortunately, the result and the timing of the result, as we experienced with Powerspan, is very unpredictable. When we started 

with Powerspan in 1998, we thought by 2001 we would have a commercial product. In fact, really, to prove it to ourselves that we had 

a commercial product, it took us until last year. I think that is very 

typical for new technology. The risks are just so high in relation 

to the investment and the impacts on the economy that that is the 

nature of it. 

Senator CARPER. Let me yield to Senator Voinovich. I will come 

back to you for some follow-up questions. Thanks. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you all for coming. 

Mr. Pipitone, is Powerspan applicable to both newly built plants 

and old plants with other emission control equipment such as 

scrubbers? That is one thing. The other is, for the old plants with 

existing equipment for 90 percent mercury, what about the stranded costs and who would pay for these costs? 

Mr. PIPITONE. Let me address the question about the applicability of the equipment. For a plant, whether it would be a relatively new installation or old equipment that has been in service 

a long time, for equipment that has already been fitted with the 

combination of SCRs and scrubbers, adding a Powerspan ECO unit 

would not be economical. 

Senator VOINOVICH. SCRs and scrubbers? 

Mr. PIPITONE. Selective catalytic reduction. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, that is right. They are the ones that 

deal with the nitrous oxides? 

Mr. PIPITONE. Nitrous oxides. Yes, I am sorry. It takes the combination of those two technologies to achieve the co-benefits that 
150 

have been discussed here today. SCR alone does not do it, and a 

scrubber alone does not do it. So having both technologies installed, 

selective catalytic reduction, SCR, for NOx, and scrubber for SO2

results in the co-benefits that we have been speaking of. 

To add an ECO Powerspan technology to a unit—— 

Senator VOINOVICH. The indirect benefits, where does that take 

you to in terms of reduction of mercury? 

Mr. PIPITONE. On eastern coals, our experience has been that it 

has been in the 80 percent to 85 percent range. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Okay. When you add the ECO, what happens then? 

Mr. PIPITONE. If we look at ECO independently as a stand-alone 

technology, it has been 83 percent in our experience to date. We 

would not add an ECO unit to a unit that already has a scrubber 

and SCR because in fact we would be duplicating the SO2, NOx 

and NOx removal portion, and then the SCR and the scrubber 

would become unusable, which I think addresses the question on 

stranded cost. That would, in fact, be stranded investment and 

would double the cost of pollution control, if you tried to add an 

ECO unit to a unit that already had SCR and scrubbers. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Okay. Do most of your units have SCR and 

scrubbers? 

Mr. PIPITONE. No, they do not. We currently have three units, 

2,400 megawatts total, which is about one third of our fossil fleet, 

with SCR and scrubbers. We are adding another 1,200 megawatts 

right now that we are building of additional SCR and scrubbers, 

which would bring us up to about, in round numbers, 50 percent 

of our coal-fired fleet. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Right. But the fact is that in those cases, 

you would not be reaching a 90 percent number. 

Mr. PIPITONE. That is correct. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The question is, and this gets back to Dr. 

Levin, because I know we debated this on the Floor of the Senate 

and I defended the rule that came out of the EPA. In other words, 

others wanted to go to 90 percent over a shorter period of time. 

When you looked at it in terms of the costs that would be involved 

to go to 90 percent, and then looked at the benefit that would be 

derived from going to 90 percent, versus what you are getting, say, 

at 83 percent with your SCRs. I think if you put the Powerspan 

on this plant that AmpOhio is going to build, what do you think 

that will bring them to on mercury? 

Mr. PIPITONE. Based on our testing, in the neighborhood of 85 

percent. 

Senator VOINOVICH. About 85 percent. So the point is, under any 

circumstance, you are not going to get to the 90 percent. 

The next issue is, going from 83 percent to 90 percent, or 85 percent to 90 percent, what benefits are going to accrue in terms of 

the issue that Ms. Keating has been talking about? Dr. Levin or 

anybody? Dr. Levin, do you want to comment on that? 

Mr. LEVIN. The issue of going from 70 percent mercury controls 

by an additional 20 percent, up to 90 percent control, should really 

be addressed in terms of the health benefits, which is the ultimate 

goal of any regulation. That health benefit relates directly to how 

much less mercury will be deposited as a result of the control steps. 
151 

In the case of stepping from 70 percent to 90 percent nationally, 

the national gain in deposition is only about 2 percent less mercury 

being deposited nationally. Now that, of course, will vary point by 

point. There will be some locations where there will be a further 

drop in deposition of more than 10 percent, but in general there 

will be very little additional national gain in terms of health benefits, related to mercury by lowered deposition translating into less 

mercury in fish and lower mercury exposure to women of childbearing age and their children. 

Senator VOINOVICH. The other issue that came up, and I have 

been told, for example, in the Great Lakes that 20 percent of the 

mercury comes from overseas. If you calculate what China is doing, 

particularly on the West Coast, I think not only should we be concerned about what we are doing here, but they are building these 

new facilities over there, and I would be interested to know, Dr. 

Levin, do you know anything about what they are doing with these 

new coal-fired plants that they are building? Are they dealing with 

NOx and SOx? Are they going to get co-benefit from that, or are 

they doing SCRs? 

Mr. LEVIN. Purely by coincidence, I met with a number of representatives of the Chinese coal and utility industries last week at 

a meeting hosted by the University of Utah. At this point, the Chinese are not engaging in any significant retrofitting of existing coal 

facilities with new controls for the standard pollutants, SO2, NOx, 

and particulate matter, and none at all specifically for mercury. 

Senator VOINOVICH. So they wouldn’t be doing scrubbers or 

SCRs? 

Mr. LEVIN. There has been no introduction of SCRs at all. There 

is control of particulate matter on new coal facilities that are being 

built, many of them with the assistance of other countries. The retrofitting of their existing coal fleet, which is a far broader range of 

industrial facilities than just powerplants, is proceeding slowly. 

Powerplants in China use only about one-half or so of the coal production as opposed to the United States, where power production 

uses about 90 percent or more of the coal produced. 

So there are broadly scattered coal facilities of all sorts throughout China, and none of them are being retrofitted at this point, 

while all indications are that Chinese mercury emissions (from inventories that have been done over the last few years) are increasing steadily year after year by at least 3 or 4 percent per year. In 

some years, mercury emissions from China have actually jumped 

by 8 percent to 10 percent over a single year. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Pipitone, you say in your testimony, and I 

am going to just read it, it says, ‘‘test results have shown ECO’s 

mercury removal rate to average about 83 percent. However, with 

additional design and engineering refinements, a 90 percent recovery rate may be achievable. By comparison, FirstEnergy’s Bruce 

Mansfield Plant in Pennsylvania was one of the first powerplants 

in the world to be built with scrubbers as original equipment. Our 

testing indicates that about 85 percent of the mercury is removed 

by selective catalytic reductions and scrubber systems.’’ 
152 

Then you go on to say how at the unit operating in Burger, 

where they use different kinds of coals and get pretty good results, 

as long as you have some eastern coal that is included in the mix. 

Senator Voinovich and I in our old jobs, we focused a whole lot 

on how do we preserve existing jobs and go to new jobs. We are 

always interested in providing a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. One of the ways that you do that is to 

have lower costs of energy. Another thing is access to good health 

care and affordable health care. 

There is a tradeoff here, or at least there has been to some extent in the past, where we have a fair amount of cheap energy, but 

a lot of bad stuff up in the air. We breathe in and it hurts our 

health and drives up our health care costs. I don’t know if we always can have our cake and eat it too, but it sounds to me like in 

your testimony you are saying that it is possible to get 83 percent 

to 85 percent of the mercury without costing consumers an arm 

and a leg, and at the same time to develop a technology, when we 

think of all these coal plants coming online in China, to actually 

have a technology that we can export, that we can sell to them. 

Am I missing something here? Is that pretty much what you are 

saying? 

Mr. PIPITONE. It is possible, as has been demonstrated, Mr. 

Chairman, that we get co-benefits from SCRs and scrubbers that 

are averaging in the neighborhood of 85 percent. Again, as you 

mention, or less, depending on the coal mix; 85 percent is the 

upper end on pure eastern coals. That is the best that it gets. 

Senator CARPER. That is with current technology? 

Mr. PIPITONE. That is with current technology. You quoted my 

testimony correctly that it may be possible through further refinements to have the ECO process get up to 90 percent. Time will tell 

whether that happens. 

The issue becomes, though, whether SCRs and scrubbers must be 

installed on every coal-fired powerplant versus the powerplants 

that currently exist that are large and base-loaded. When I look at 

our fleet, which is very typical of fossil-fired fleets, we have a mixture of units that serve different roles that are necessary to match 

the customer demands. 

We have what are called mid-merit coal-fired plants that have 

relatively low usage over a given year, and they are used only 

when the customer demand is high. Of course, they turn down at 

night or come off at night. To install scrubbers and SCRs on those 

units, in our system we have a number of units that, based on the 

current economics and the current markets, would likely be taken 

out of service and shut down, rather than have that investment be 

put in them. 

So investment in SCRs and scrubbers is possible on the large 

baseload units that we tend to all focus on, but the other units, 

mid-merit units, are absolutely essential to serving customer needs, 

and they very possibly could be shut down. In our system, we have 

a number of those. 

Senator CARPER. All right. 

Mr. Foerter, given what Mr. Pipitone has testified to, with their 

technology getting them to maybe 83 percent, maybe even 85 percent, perhaps 90 percent reduction of mercury in time, are there 
153 

other technologies that could be used in conjunction with ECO that 

you might be aware of that are coming about? It sounds like actually with current technologies, we are pretty close to at least 80 

percent, 85 percent. We are just knocking on the door of 90 percent. 

We are looking at legislation that some of us have introduced 

that by 2015 to have in place systems throughout the country that 

reduce emissions from coal-fired plants by 90 percent. But given 

what they have developed through Powerspan, their ECO technology, and given other technologies that are coming online, how 

realistic or unrealistic, and how cost effective can the 90 percent 

goal be? 

Mr. FOERTER. For their technology, it is an integrated technology, where they have integrated everything basically in a box, 

so to speak. So they tend to be conventional technologies, but the 

integration is the innovation on it. Because they are relying on cobenefits for the mercury, there are ways to actually optimize the 

co-benefits. They can use oxidizing catalysts, which will help move 

the mercury into a form that can be picked up a little bit better 

from a web scrubber, less elemental goes into the air if it is caught 

by scrubber and taken out of the system. 

I don’t know if they have used others, like sorbent injection technologies in there. I think it does have a wet electrostatic precipitator at the end, so there are some polishing devices in there. I 

don’t pretend I know their technology fully, but I would expect that 

there are ways. He seemed to have some optimism about being able 

to optimize it with a little bit more work. So I will share his optimism. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. My time has expired. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I haven’t given Ms. Keating a chance to talk. 

You have heard this testimony, and I heard your testimony. From 

a health benefit, if we can get 80 percent to 85 percent, and I don’t 

know, it will take you, what, a couple of years to know about the 

ECO and whether it is doing its thing or not. I know we are talking 

about, this is a big plant in Ohio, AmpOhio, I think it is going to 

be a 1,000 megawatt plant. They are going to use the Powerspan 

technology. You are basically saying right now that about 85 percent, but maybe it could be more. 

Mr. PIPITONE. We won’t know until 2012 or 2011. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. So the question I have is this, is that 

if that is the status of where we are, in other words the level, what 

kind of additional health benefits are we going to get if we go from 

85 percent to 90 percent, where 90 percent seems to be a little bit 

difficult to reach right now? 

Ms. KEATING. Yes. Well, first I would like to say based on these 

gentlemen’s testimony that I think it lends itself to going forward 

with a multi-pollutant approach, where you control SO2 and NOx 

and mercury and maybe something else at the same time, because 

as it stands now, you have the CAMR rule and the CAIR rule, 

which are related, but in fact nothing is required under the CAIR 

rule to reduce mercury. So you might in fact have a plant that decides to scrub one unit and not another and so on, or in the case 

of a plant in North Carolina, installing NOx controls in the form 
154 

of an SCR, which would actually increase oxidized mercury emissions from that plant and potentially exacerbate a hotspot in that 

region. 

So I think this discussion lends itself to looking at the comprehensive Federal legislation. 

Now, with respect to your direct question about the health benefits, I think that one misperception that I have heard is that the 

elemental mercury that is left over that is more difficult to control, 

admittedly, disappears into the global pool and never affects the 

United States. I would differ on that. Not a lot is known about the 

atmospheric chemistry of that particular mercury becoming 

oxidized in regions of high ozone, when it hits the coastal marine 

environment, depositing there, affecting ocean fish and so on; as 

well as dry deposition. I would like to point out that a study in 

Underhill, VT, where there are no local coal-fired powerplant 

sources, they are measuring and back-calculating emissions from 

Midwest powerplants that are affecting that region. 

So presumably, these would be elemental mercury emissions that 

weren’t deposited locally. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the question I have, though, is from a 

percentage point of view, if you look at what we see the technology 

to be. 

Ms. KEATING. Is that 5 percent? 

Senator VOINOVICH. The question is how much health benefit are 

you going to derive from that 5 percent? Yes. 

Ms. KEATING. Yes. I think that is going to vary by location. I 

think that some of the regions in the country that are most highly 

affected, like the Northeast States, are affected by lower deposition 

than we have in the Southeast. Yet, their fish levels are very high, 

based on water chemistry parameters and land use patterns and 

such as that. So I think it is going to vary by location. On a national average, it probably would not be the extra 5 percent, but 

I believe in some areas it would be more than that. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you have the ability to measure it? 

Ms. KEATING. No, because we don’t have the monitoring network 

in place that Senator Collins was advocating for. Whether you 

think that 70 percent is the right number or 90 percent is the right 

number, you can’t answer that question without this infrastructure 

in place. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, it is a big deal because what we want 

to do is balance, as I said earlier. You can look at your energy 

needs and look at your economic needs and you look at your environmental concerns and public health. You have to kind of put 

those all together and figure out how do you best get the job done. 

Ms. KEATING. Right. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Then one other issue, and that is, and I am 

sure you are just as concerned as I am about what is going on in 

some other places in the world today. We really have to get on this. 

At one time, we were the real culprit, but now what is happening 

is that we have other places that we have to be very concerned 

about. 

Ms. KEATING. Right. I understand. I think it lends itself to even 

looking at other sources like products and closing the loop on that 

export of mercury for incineration and product use in other coun-
155 

tries like India and so on. So there are lots of complicating issues 

with this pollutant, besides the one in front of us. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. I would like 30 seconds if I could to kind of, not 

give the benediction, but sort of give the benediction. 

This has been an encouraging hearing for me, and I hope for my 

friend Senator Voinovich. We know that there is too much mercury 

going up in the air, not just here, but around the world. I am very 

much encouraged, Mr. Pipitone, by the work that you all have done 

at Powerspan and your integration of that technology into the real 

world. 

I am encouraged by what Mr. Foerter tells us that other technology companies are beginning to develop. It is his belief that if 

we actually say through regulations that we have to do better, that 

the technology will follow. 

I am intrigued at how FirstEnergy seems to be ahead of that 

curve, and actually helping to develop the technology in anticipation of the requirement to meet it. They are going to be there. They 

are going to be there not only with lower emissions at FirstEnergy, 

but they are going to be there with technology that will help reduce 

emissions at other plants across this country and potentially 

around the world. 

As we see one new coal-fired powerplant coming online almost 

weekly in China, spewing all kinds of bad stuff up into the air, I 

think we have the opportunity to actually, instead of them always 

exporting products to us, we can export a product to them, and 

they will export a lot less mercury in our direction, which would 

be a great thing for all of us. 

Any closing words? 

Senator VOINOVICH. That’s it. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Our thanks to each of you. I would 

ask that if you get some questions from us in the week or two 

ahead that you just respond promptly to us. We are grateful for 

your testimony and for your being here with us today and the good 

work that you are doing. Thank you so much. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Green building is one of those things that makes sense on so many levels that 

it is truly unbelievable that we haven’t already passed strong federal legislation on 

the topic. From the tracking done by those working with the Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design program, commonly referred to as LEED, we know that 

certain green building methods not only reduce energy use—thereby reducing energy costs associated with the upkeep of a building—but also offer significant public 

health benefits. For example, no one can argue with the fact that children learn better when they are in an environment that provides natural lightening and higher 

quality indoor air, both of which are basic to green building methods. And, as we 

work to get serious about responding to the greatest environmental threat we have 

ever faced, global warming, we have to look to our buildings to be as energy efficient 

as possible. In fact, I have been a strong proponent of weatherizing houses for my 

entire political career and the concrete benefits of true green building efforts get my 

interest in a similar way. This is because we have an opportunity to be smarter 

about the way we do something—and in the process help people save money in the 

long term and promote a better environment. More specifically, we can help people 

use less energy, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and reduce wasteful water use. 
156 

So, let’s get down to business on this issue. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator 

Lautenberg’s Green Buildings bill, S. 506. I hope that this Committee will soon 

mark up Green Building legislation and I am sure that today’s hearing will be the 

basis for such action. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Carper, Ranking Minority Member Voinovich and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to come before you today 

and provide New Jersey’s perspective on the threat that the hazardous air pollutant 

mercury poses to our nation, as well as our state’s efforts to address this threat. 

While New Jersey is proud of its leadership role in regulating sources of mercury, 

in many ways we were forced into that position through a lack of federal leadership. 

I congratulate this committee on highlighting the continuing impacts of mercury on 

both public health and the environment and hope that New Jersey’s perspective is 

beneficial to your efforts. 

MERCURY IMPACTS

Mercury is a highly toxic heavy metal and a potent neurotoxin that attacks the 

nervous system. It is particularly insidious because its human health impacts focus 

on the most vulnerable members of our society: infants and fetuses developing in 

their mothers’ wombs. Mercury can cause permanent brain damage to a developing 

system. It can hurt the ability of children to pay attention, remember, talk, draw, 

run, see and even play. In New Jersey alone, we estimate that more than 5,000 

newborns every year are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in utero, and our 

testing has revealed that at least 1 in 10 pregnant women in the State has concentrations of mercury in their hair samples that exceed safe levels. Nationwide, the 

USEPA has estimated that between 200,000 and 400,000 children are born each 

year in the United States with pre-natal exposure to mercury sufficient to put them 

at risk for neurological impairment. 

New Jersey and the rest of the mid-Atlantic and northeast regions of the country 

have been particularly impacted by mercury. powerplants are the single largest 

source of the country’s mercury emissions, emitting almost 50 tons of the neurotoxin 

per year. The significant number of powerplants, combined with prevailing wind 

patterns, result in large amounts of mercury being deposited into our soils and watersheds. Recent decades have seen a four- to six-fold increase in the mercury deposited in the northeastern United States. 

Human exposure to the most toxic form of mercury comes primarily from eating 

contaminated fish and shellfish. In aquatic systems, mercury is quickly taken up 

into larger animals through the food chain, and those animals retain the mercury 

in their bodies. Levels of methylmercury in fish are typically 100,000 times those 

in the water in which they swim. High concentrations of mercury in the fish in New 

Jersey’s waterways has led to 100 percent of our lakes, streams and reservoirs being 

placed under either statewide or regional mercury advisories. This totals more than 

4,100 waterbodies in New Jersey alone and is indicative of the grave threat we all 

face. 

Much of the mercury deposited from the air in New Jersey is emitted from sources 

in upwind states. Even in the remote waterways in the Pinelands, a relatively undeveloped area with no localized industry, we have detected significantly high levels 

of mercury in fish. This underscores the need for comprehensive protections on the 

national level that address mercury (and other hazardous air pollutants) that can 

drift beyond localized areas to affect downwind states. 

By no means is New Jersey alone in dealing with the impacts of mercury. Nationwide, 45 states have mercury fish consumption advisories. These advisories cover 

more than 13 million acres of lakes, and 750,000 miles of rivers. Research has documented the continued existence of ‘‘hotspots’’ of mercury pollution—areas where concentrations of mercury in animals consistently exceeds safe levels. Confirmed or suspected hotspots have been identified throughout the Northeast, in New Jersey, 

Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and Connecticut. It is apparent that 

these are really ‘‘hot regions,’’ not small areas that might be implied with the term 

‘‘hot spots.’’ 
157 

FEDERAL MERCURY REGULATION

Through the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress sought to address 

the unique problem of hazardous air pollutants, requiring that EPA set the ‘‘most 

stringent standards achievable’’ for sources of a specific list of 188 hazardous pollutants, including mercury. The standards must be based on ‘‘the maximum reduction 

in emissions which can be achieved by application of [the] best available control 

technology’’ and came to be known as MACT standards, which is short for Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology. Under the revised hazardous air pollutant section 

of the Act, Congress required EPA to set such MACT standards for all source categories of the pollutants by the year 2000. 

Unfortunately, in 2005 EPA chose to disregard this Congressional mandate and 

instead exempted powerplants from the stringent MACT standards of the Act. 

EPA’s plan, entitled the ‘‘Clean Air Mercury Rule’’ or ‘‘CAMR’’ has several fundamental problems. First, in violation of the Clean Air Act, CAMR removes powerplants from the typical hazardous air pollutant regulations without meeting the 

clear statutory requirements for such an exemption. Second, CAMR attempts to set 

up a cap-and-trade system for mercury. Trading a potent neurotoxin has never been 

done before and is inherently dangerous, as it will allow certain facilities to purchase emission credits and escape any reduction in their mercury emissions. People 

living nearby such polluters will be exposed to continuing high levels of mercury for 

decades. Third, CAMR will take decades to implement. Because emission credits can 

be banked, the Congressional Research Service reported that full implementation 

may not occur until 2025 or later. This provides little protection to the thousands 

of newborns suffering from mercury exposure every year. Finally, even at full implementation in 2025, CAMR requires levels of emission reductions that do not even 

reflect today’s MACT. 

STATE LEADERSHIP ON MERCURY REGULATION

Lack of constructive EPA action to address mercury has forced many states to 

take independent action. In New Jersey, a Mercury Task Force was created in 1992, 

and a new task force was convened in 1998, to review and study sources of mercury 

pollution, its impact on health and ecosystem and to develop a mercury pollution 

reduction plan. The Task Forces were composed of representatives from various sectors, including academia, business and industry, utilities, environmental groups, 

and federal and local governments. They reviewed mercury emissions data from 

over 30 source categories in New Jersey. 

In the end, the Task Forces recommended a strategic goal of an 85 percent decrease of in-state mercury emissions from 1990 to 2011. This goal was based on the 

acknowledged threat posed by mercury and the Task Force’s determination that significant reductions of mercury from various sources are achievable in New Jersey. 

It should be highlighted that the Task Force evaluated the feasibility of addressing 

the whole range of sources of mercury, from powerplants and iron and steel smelters, to mercury switches in automobiles, to amalgam for teeth fillings. 

As a result of the Mercury Task Forces’ recommendations, in December 2004, 

New Jersey established stringent new restrictions on mercury emissions from coalfired powerplants, iron and steel smelters, and medical waste incinerators; and 

tightened existing requirements for municipal solid waste incinerators. Those rules 

will reduce in-State mercury emissions by over 1,500 pounds annually, reflecting: 

(1) over 75 percent reduction from the State’s six iron and steel smelters by 2009; 

and (2) over 95 percent reduction below 1990 levels from the State’s five municipal 

solid waste incinerators by 2011. Details of the iron and steel smelter and municipal 

solid waste incinerator regulations are attached as an appendix to this testimony. 

COAL-FIRED BOILERS

New Jersey’s powerplant mercury regulations apply to the ten coal-fired boilers 

in the State. These electric generating units in New Jersey emit approximately 700 

pounds of mercury per year in the State. The source of the emissions is from the 

mercury contained in the coal. This industry is the second largest source category 

of mercury emissions in New Jersey. The new rule gives the New Jersey powerplants until December 2007 to begin keeping 90 percent of the mercury in coal from 

being emitted into the air or to meet a strict regulatory limit (3 milligrams per 

megawatt hour) that achieves comparable reductions. 

Every plant will have to reduce emissions without emissions trading. A company 

that commits to reducing substantially air pollution that causes smog, soot and acid 

rain, as well as mercury, will earn an additional 5 years to comply if mercury emission reductions are phased in with concurrent reductions of particulates, sulfur diox-
158 

ide and nitrogen oxides. The Department expects the new rule to result in a reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers of greater than 400 pounds per 

year by the end of 2013. 

I would like to highlight the particulate component of New Jersey’s multipollutant 

strategy. With the addition of carbon dioxide, New Jersey will have a five pollutant 

strategy for coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Carbon dioxide and particulate distinguish New Jersy’s multipollutant strategy from USEPA’s three pollutant 

strategy. Coal EGUs are one of the largest source categories of heavy metals and 

fine particulates. Many coal EGUs have outdated and poorly performing particulate 

control. This control needs to be upgraded for: 

a. Mercury Control 

b. Other toxic heavy metal control 

c. Fine particulate control 

As you debate whether the federal government should adopt regulations that mirror New Jersey’s 90 percent mercury emission requirement, you of course must examine whether this policy is achievable, both economically and technologically. I am 

here to state to you unequivocally that, based on New Jersey’s experience, this reduction target is indeed achievable. Our powerplants, who it should be noted did 

not challenge this rule, have not given any indications that they will not be able 

to meet the requirements. 

New Jersey’s mercury rules reflect the ability of currently available control technologies to achieve significant reductions in mercury emissions from the major 

sources of the pollutant—including powerplants. USEPA’s Utility MACT Working 

Group, the Mercury Study Report to Congress and the pilot tests conducted in New 

Jersey at coal-fired boilers for control of mercury emissions all reflect that mercury 

reductions exceeding 90 percent can be achieved by powerplants across the country. 

Furthermore, while New Jersey’s rules are some of the most stringent, comparable standards are being adopted by numerous other states. Massachusetts is 

now requiring 85 percent reduction by 2008 and 95 percent by 2012. Connecticut 

is requiring 90 percent reduction by July 2008 while Maryland is calling for reductions of 80 percent by 2010 and 90 percent by 2013. All these states clearly feel that 

large reductions in mercury from powerplants are not only essential to protect public health, but are fully achievable now. Similarly, STAPPA–ALAPCO (now 

‘‘NACAA’’), the association of state and regional air regulators from around the 

country, came out with a model mercury rule in November 2005, that calls for a 

90–95 percent reduction in mercury from powerplants by 2012. The conclusion 

seems clear, these reductions not only should be implemented, but they in fact can 

be done. Most telling, EPA’s own database, used in the CAMR rulemaking, acknowledged that the cleanest, currently operating powerplants, burning every type of coal, 

are performing better than CAMR will require them to perform in 2025. 

It is now time for the EPA to come to the same conclusion. 

MULTI-STATE CHALLENGE TO FEDERAL MERCURY REGULATION

New Jersey did not originally plan to propose New Jersey-only rules for our major 

sources of mercury emissions. It was only after it became apparent that EPA would 

be proposing either weak or nonexistent standards for our major emitters that New 

Jersey and other states were put in a position of having to do their own rules. Numerous other states have decided to opt-out of EPA’s CAMR approach, implementing instead an array of regulations more protective of public health than the 

EPA’s. 

States, however, should not need to expend valuable resources on a problem that 

is best addressed consistently nationwide, and New Jersey is proud to lead a coalition that is challenging EPA’s failures in court. Seventeen states, including subcommittee members’ states such as Delaware, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, 

have filed suit in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, asserting that CAMR violates the requirements of the Clean Air Act. It is disappointing that this legal action was required as the flaws with CAMR were repeatedly pointed out by countless commenters during the rulemaking process. 

It is even more disappointing that the mercury litigation is just one in a series 

of actions by the states to compel EPA to meet its basic responsibilities under the 

Clean Air Act. 

CONCLUSION

New Jersey’s experience with mercury regulation can serve as a model for effective national regulation. Today, a total of approximately 1,800 pounds per year of 

mercury is being emitted in New Jersey from the 13 municipal solid waste incinerators, three medical waste incinerators, ten coal-burning units, and six iron and 
159 

steel scrap melting plants. This is down from about 6,200 pounds per year from 

these sources in 1990—a seventy percent reduction already and many of the milestone dates are still to come. We expect emissions to be further reduced to about 

300 pounds by 2013, after full implementation of New Jersey’s rules. If New Jersey’s 

regulations on powerplants were applied nationally, mercury emissions from coalfired powerplants would decline from approximately 48 tons to about five tons annually. 

The leadership of individual facilities and states around the country has shown 

that the technology is available to meet the legally required standard today and that 

powerplants can comply with a MACT standard for mercury that protects public 

health significantly more than EPA’s CAMR. For the sake of the health of our children and communities, a more protective standard is warranted that limits exposure 

to this hazardous air pollutant as soon as possible. Implementing the real maximum 

achievable protections is simply the only moral and ethical choice available if we 

are to meet our responsibility as public officials entrusted to protect the nation’s environment and health for this generation and the generations that follow. 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 

RESPONSES BY LISA P. JACKSON TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SANDERS

Question 1. Your state has gone well beyond EPA’s ‘‘Clean Air Mercury Rule’’ by 

requiring faster and deeper mercury reductions from powerplants. Please tell us 

what you concluded about the current and future state of mercury pollution control 

technologies during the period in which your rule will be carried out that led you 

to believe utility owners could achieve the mercury standards in your law. What, 

if any, communications have you received from EPA regarding your state mercury 

standards? 

Response. The Department provided detailed comments to USEPA several times 

in the past concerning proposed USEPA mercury rules for Electric Utility Steam 

Generating Units (on June 24, 2004), Large Municipal Waste Combustors (on February 7, 2006), and Iron and Steel Foundries (on May 17, 2007). Copies of these 

comments are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, & C. 

New Jersey’s state plan for mercury emissions reductions from powerplants was 

based on the efforts of two mercury task forces and years of successful regulation 

of several of the State’s other major sources of mercury. New Jersey created its first 

Mercury Task Force in April 1992, to review and study sources of mercury pollution, 

its impact on health and the ecosystem and to develop a mercury pollution reduction 

plan for municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWIs) in New Jersey. As a result of 

the first Task Force recommendations, standards for municipal solid waste incinerators were promulgated in 1994, at NJAC 7:27–27: Control and Prohibition of Mercury Emissions. All of New Jersey’s MSWIs met the mercury standard within 1 

year. Mercury emissions from MSWIs have been reduced by about 97 percent over 

the last 12 years. The MSWIs use Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) to achieve these 

results. 

In New Jersey, there is over a decade of successful use of ACI for MSW combustion. Some incinerators with baghouse control and ACI have achieved 99 percent 

mercury control. Transfer of such technology to other source categories is clearly 

feasible from an engineering and cost perspective. ACI use on coal combustion has 

shown similar emission reduction efficiencies as for MSW incinerators, with the 

same relationship to the two particulate control devices in widest use by both coalfired EGUs and MSW incinerators; that is baghouses and electrostatic precipitators. 

For MSW incinerators with baghouses, mercury emission levels in the vicinity of 

New Jersey’s coal-fired emission limits have been attained, even though MSW incinerator uncontrolled mercury concentrations are much higher. This indicated it was 

logical that a coal-fired EGU could also meet these emission limits, which has been 

proven with testing of ACI on coal-fired EGU’s in New Jersey and elsewhere. In essence, if a MSW incinerator can meet an emission level with 99 percent control, a 

coal-fired EGU with 1⁄10 the uncontrolled mercury can meet the same emission level 

with 90 percent control efficiency. 

Also, USDOE cost analyses indicate that retrofitting the coal-fired boilers with activated carbon injection and baghouses (or polishing baghouses) can achieve 90 percent mercury emission reduction. ACI has a low capital cost. It also has low operating costs if baghouse technology is used. Retrofitting baghouses is a substantial 

capital cost, but serves to also reduce fine particulate emissions and other heavy 

metals, in addition to mercury. (Testing of pilot ACI system on coal-fired EGUs with 

baghouses in New Jersey has shown compliance with the New Jersey mercury 

limit). 

Data also show that ACI is effective with electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), although more carbon is needed, and the operating cost is higher. Two of New Jersey’s 

MSWI facilities have ESPs and use ACI to effectively control mercury. (Also, testing 

ACI this year at a coal-fired facility with ESPs indicates compliance with the New 

Jersey mercury limits). 

As with any air pollution control system, plant-specific operating parameters may 

affect the operation of a carbon injection control system. Those effects can only be 

conclusively determined by installation of a system on a specific unit and determining the best carbon distribution and feed rates for that unit and whether chemically treated carbon is useful. Extended demonstration periods at other plants, while 

comforting, are not needed or conclusive with respect to the exact operation of a system on another plant. The capital cost of carbon injection technology is sufficiently 

low that the best way of determining its effectiveness on a unit is to install a system 

and test various injection rates with different types of carbon. The Department’s experience with MSW incinerators shows carbon injection technology can be installed 

in a matter of months at relatively low cost compared to the cost of the emission 

unit. There currently is sufficient demonstration of carbon systems on many types 

of plants, including coal-burning plants, to design and install a carbon injection sys-
171 

1Pub. L. 91–604, § 4(a), 84 Stat. 1685. 

tem, which will be highly effective at reducing mercury emissions, with reasonable 

adjustments of the system to maximize effectiveness. 

In 1998, the Department established a second Mercury Pollution Task Force to 

develop and recommend a comprehensive multimedia mercury pollution reduction 

plan for the State of New Jersey, including recommendations on mercury emission 

controls and standards for major sources. Based on the Task Force recommendations, on December 6, 2004, the Department revised its mercury emission regulations for municipal solid waste incinerators and adopted new mercury emissions 

limits for coal combustion, iron and steel scrap melting, and medical waste incinerators. 

New Jersey’s rules require all 10 boilers at seven coal-fired facilities in the State 

to install mercury control by December 2007, or December 2012 if there is a multipollutant control commitment. Our December 2004 rule specifies that the mercury 

emissions from any coal-fired boiler shall not exceed 3 milligrams per megawatt 

hour (mg/MW-hr) or in the alternative, a coal-fired boiler must achieve 90 percent 

reduction in mercury emissions across the air pollution control apparatus. The control deadline can be extended to December 2012, for a company that commits to 

major reductions in emissions of NOx, SO2, and particulate, along with mercury and 

controls at least 50 percent of its coal-fired capacity by December 15, 2007. These 

emission reductions are based on New Source Review (NSR) consent agreements, 

which are more stringent than CAIR. In short, the New Jersey rules achieve greater 

mercury emission reductions in a shorter timeframe than USEPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rules and achieve those results without emission trading, ensuring mercury 

emission reduction at every plant in New Jersey and no hotspots. 

The New Jersey experience shows that mercury emission standards are achievable for coal-fired powerplants. In fact, none of New Jersey’s powerplants challenged 

the state standards, a telling indication of the standard’s achievability PG&E National Energy Group’s coal-fired units are already below or close to the New Jersey 

mercury standard of 3 milligrams per megawatt hour (mg/MW-hr) without activated 

carbon injection. Some plants in the USA, including these in New Jersey, have already met the New Jersey standards with no mercury-specific control technology, 

as documented in USEPA’s information collection request (ICR), which resulted in 

the testing of about 80 coal-fired boilers in the USA in 1999. Scrubbers and 

baghouses in current use at these New Jersey coal-fired powerplants, in conjunction 

with low NOx burners and selective catalytic reduction to control emissions of nitrogen oxides, have achieved mercury reductions of more than 90 percent (98 percent 

tested at one plant). 

Additionally, ‘‘preliminary’’ results at New Jersey coal-fired powerplants, which 

are installing ACI to meet our 12/15/2007 deadline, indicate promising results for 

carbon injection as shown in Attachment 1. Official compliance tests are not due 

until March 2008, and New Jersey allows until 12/15/2008 to optimize the mercury 

control system. The sum of New Jersey’s experience is that, using either ACI or 

more traditional controls such as low NOx burners, SCR, scrubbers and baghouses, 

powerplants can achieve reductions of their mercury emissions far exceeding the requirements in EPA’s CAMR. 

Question 2. EPA declared in its final mercury rules for powerplants that it was 

not only ‘‘unnecessary’’ but also ‘‘inappropriate’’ to regulate mercury emissions from 

powerplants under the Clean Air Act’s stringent air toxic provisions in section 112. 

Hasn’t EPA long regulated mercury from other types of industries, however, under 

this same stringent Clean Air Act authority? And if so, what has the experience 

been there? Does it make sense to you that it is appropriate to regulate mercury 

emissions from some types of industries using the law’s most protective tools, but 

‘‘inappropriate’’ to do so when it comes to powerplants? 

Response. The 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) added section 

112 to the Act and specified that the EPA Administrator must list each ‘‘hazardous 

air pollutant for which he intends to establish an emission standard.’’1 When EPA 

failed to meet this mandate—listing only seven pollutants in 20 years—the 1990 

Amendments to the Act restructured section 112 and required EPA to set emission 

standards for all major sources of a list of 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)— 

including mercury. Emission standards promulgated under section 112 require the 

maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAPs or the maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT). 

For HAPs, other than mercury, section 112 has generally been an effective regulatory tool for reducing HAPs in our environment. MACT standards located at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/mactfnlalph.html have been promulgated for sources 
172 

2 New Jersey and coalition of 16 states are challenging EPA’s mercury rules in the Circuit 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The brief in that matter highlights the legal 

shortcomings of EPA’s rules, and is attached as Exhibit D. 

other than EGUs under section 112. However, despite the general success of section 

112, EPA has failed to regulate mercury effectively under this section. EPA has yet 

to set effective MACT limits for coal-fired electric generating units; coal-fired industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers; and iron and steel swap melters, 

which are amongst the major sources of mercury emissions in the USA. The only 

MACT limit that refers to mercury is for ICI boilers, where mercury is combined 

in a limit for other HAPs that is set too high to result in mercury emission reductions being required. For iron and steel melters, EPA did not even set an emissions 

limit for mercury, but relied entirely on a work practice standard involving source 

separation. Even where Congress specifically provided for mercury regulation of municipal solid waste incinerators (MSWI) in section 129 of the Clean Air Act, EPA 

did not adopt mercury rules for such incinerators until 5 years after New Jersey 

adopted its first MSWI mercury rules in 1994, and these standards are less stringent than New Jersey’s standards. 

When Congress amended section 112 in 1990, it included a specific provision, section 112(n), for the regulation of HAPs from electric utility steam generating units 

(EGUs). Under this section, Congress required EPA to study the hazards to public 

health reasonably anticipated to occur as a result of HAP emissions from EGUs. 

This section also required EPA to regulate EGUs under section 112, if EPA concluded that such regulation was ‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ after considering the 

results of the study. In February 1998, EPA completed its study, and in December 

2000, concluded that it is ‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ to regulate EGUs under section 112. Despite this finding, EPA’s recent Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) fails 

to establish an effective MACT standard for HAPs such as mercury under section 

112 for EGUs, and instead regulates mercury under a cap-and-trade program promulgated under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.2

For source categories other than EGUs, Congress did not require EPA to make 

the ‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ finding prior to setting a MACT standard, but rather required EPA to list source categories pursuant to section 112(c) that emit HAPs 

listed in section 112(b), and to set emission standards that reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions, as required by section 112(d). As stated above, 

EPA has failed to set effective MACT standards for mercury reductions from coalfired industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, and iron and scrap melters. 

Since mercury represents a potent neurotoxin, which has been proven to cause serious neurological and developmental impacts, including loss of IQ in infants and 

children, it should be regulated in the most rigorous manner as provided for under 

section 112. Since EPA made the finding that it was ‘‘appropriate and necessary’’ 

to regulate mercury emitted from EGUs and cannot justify delisting EGUs as a 

source category under section 112(c), it must regulate this pollutant in accordance 

with section 112. Once this finding was made, there is simply no justification to regulate mercury from EGUs differently from any other industry that emits mercury 

or any other HAP. Congress directed EPA to regulate mercury in a manner that 

represents MACT, and EPA should act in a manner that fulfills that statutory mandate for all source categories of mercury. 

Question 3. In addition to the regulation of powerplants, I understand that your 

state and other states have been recycling products containing mercury, like auto 

switches and thermometers. Do you know what happens to the mercury once it has 

been sent to the recycler? What do you think about closing the loop by banning the 

export of mercury so that mercury that is recycled is not then used in ways that 

pollute the environment? 

Response. Pursuant to New Jersey’s Mercury Switch Removal Act of 2005, which 

became effective March 23, 2005, manufacturers of motor vehicles sold in New Jersey have developed and are now implementing a plan to remove mercury-containing 

switches from end-of-life vehicles. These switches are sent to a mercury recycling 

facility, with mercury retorting equipment, where they are heated until the mercury 

vaporizes, and then the vapor is condensed as pure mercury. Other mercury-containing items, including thermostats, are recycled in the same manner. There are 

several mercury retorting facilities in the U.S. In addition to the mercury recycled 

from discarded switches, etc., mercury is supplied by gold mines in the western U.S. 

where it is produced as a byproduct. It also enters the marketplace in significant 

quantities in the U.S. through the decommissioning of mercury cells at chlor-alkali 
173 

plants, which occurs periodically as these units are phased out in favor of newer 

membrane cell technologies. 

According to a November, 2006 report, Summary of supply, trade and demand information on mercury prepared by the United Nations Environment Programme: 

Chemicals, the United States is currently a net exporter of mercury. This report also 

states that a major portion of mercury that enters the international market is used 

to amalgamate and extract gold particles from soil and gravel in the relatively unregulated artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector, and that this use of mercury 

is the largest global source of mercury releases to the environment, accounting for 

650 to 1,000 metric tons of mercury releases per year, equivalent to about one-third 

of all global anthropogenic releases. The report notes that this use of mercury, 

which is largely limited to the developing world, involves serious occupational 

health hazards and ‘‘has generated thousands of polluted sites, with impacts extending far beyond localized ecological degradation, often presenting serious, long-term 

environmental health hazards to populations living near and downstream of mining 

regions.’’ 

The Quicksilver Caucus organization formed by state environmental associations 

(http://www.ecos.org/section/committees/cross—media/quick—silver), to foster the 

development of holistic approaches for reducing mercury in the environment, has developed a set of principles regarding trade in mercury. These principles indicate that 

mercury should be stored and not exported, unless it is clearly going to an essential 

use. Essential uses include lamp manufacture, and the manufacture of selected 

pieces of scientific or technical apparatus. 

The Department also understands that the European Union, which expects to see 

many of its chlor-alkali plants phase out their mercury cells over the next few years, 

is likely to soon ban mercury exports. A similar ban by the U.S. could help reduce 

the current ready availability of mercury in the international market to dispursive 

uses such as that of the artisanal and small-scale gold mining sector, and thus help 

lower mercury pollution internationally. 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 

Æ