1. Georgia Environmental Protection Division Mercury Planning in Georgia Daniel Cohan Georgia Air Quality & Climate Summit May 4, 2006

2. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 2 Schematic of Hg Power plant->water->fish http://home.comcast.net/~hollywastewater/Mercury.htm

3. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 3 Mercury Emissions: Global Data from Seigneur et al., ES&T 2004

4. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 4 Chart from U.S. EPA Mercury Emissions: U.S. Coal power plants are largest emitting sector, after stringent control of incinerators & combustors

5. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 5 Map from Dr. Mark Cohen (NOAA); Data from US EPA (1999) and Environment Canada (2000) Emissions of Ionic Mercury

6. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 6 Source: US EPA Mercury Deposition Network Mercury Wet Deposition (2003)

7. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 7 Each year, U.S. power plant mercury causes an estimated: $1.3 billion lost earnings potential from incremental IQ losses 1 316,588 – 637,233 U.S. births/year with IQ losses from mercury exposure overall 1 231 excess cases of mental retardation at birth 2 Up to $4.9 billion in cardiovascular effects 3 Other unquantified impacts to humans: genotoxic, immunotoxic, reproductive, renal and hematological 4 Impacts to birds, mammals, fishing and recreation Mercury Health Impacts 1 Trasande, L et al. (2005). “Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain.” Environmental Health Perspectives 113, 590-596. 2 Trasande, L. et al. (2006). “Mental retardation and prenatal methylmercury toxicity.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49, 153-158. 3 Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (2005). “Economic valuation of human health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants.” 4 National Research Council (2000). “Toxicological effects of methylmercury.” National Academy Press, 368 pp.

8. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 8 Clean Air Mercury Rule Overview December 2000: EPA issues finding that coal power plants should be subject to maximum achievable control technology for mercury –Similar to regulation of other major emitters of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act March 2005: EPA reverses finding, issues Clean Air Mercury Rule –National cap-and-trade market for mercury –Each state assigned mercury emissions budget May join national cap-and-trade program –Options for how to allocate allowances May achieve budget by alternate in-state approach

9. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 9 Adapted from U.S. EPA graph Note: 1999 emission estimate for utility coal boilers is based on 1999 Information Collection Request (ICR); 1990 and 1996 are based on different methodology. Projected with CAMR Projected with no further regulation Projected with CAIR CAMR Budget U.S. Power Plant Mercury Emissions under CAIR and CAMR

10. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 10 Georgia EGU Mercury Emissions Trends and CAMR Budgets

11. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 11 Mercury Planning in Georgia Review available information: Health & environmental impacts Emissions, fate & transport Control technologies Interaction with CAIR and attainment planning Stakeholder process: Meetings and working sessions Written comments Drafting of rule options Adoption of rule and submission for EPA approval

12. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 12

13. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 13 Fish Species With Restricted Consumption Recommendations In 2006 Due To Mercury (Total Number of Locations Sampled: 227) SUNFISH/PANFISH SPECIES - 17 Restrictions Spotted Sucker Largemouth Bass Redfin PickerelSpotted Seatrout Channel Catfish Redbreast SunfishBlack Crappie BASS SPECIES - 117 Restrictions SUCKER SPECIES - 31 Restrictions CATFISH SPECIES - 35 Restrictions ESTUARINE/MARINE SPECIES - 25 RestrictionsOTHER FRESHWATER SPECIES - 7 Restrictions

14. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 14 Mercury Emissions: Georgia

15. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 15 Preliminary Georgia EPD Modeling of Georgia EGU Mercury Deposition Images from Maudood Khan

16. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 16 Multi-pollutant Approach Series of controls targeting precursors of ozone & particulate matter: SCR for nitrogen oxides ESP or baghouse for particles Scrubber for sulfur dioxide Together, remove 85-95% mercury 1 1 US EPA Office of Research & Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,” Feb. 2005 Figures: U.S. EPA

17. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 17 Inject sorbent such as activated carbon to remove mercury Alternate configurations and sorbents may be needed depending on facility and coal characteristics, or to preserve fly ash value Costs: <0.1 up to 0.2 cents/kWh 1 Installation time with existing ESP: 6 months – 1 year 1 Mercury-specific Control 1 US EPA Office of Research & Development, “Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update,” Feb. 2005 Figures: U.S. DOE

18. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 18 NOTE: Future scenarios scaled from 2004 TRI emissions, assuming 29% capture (except 3% at Scherer sub- bituminous) in base year. “On-the-way” assumes 90% capture by SCR+FGD (error bars show 80%). CAMR Budgets “On-the-Way” Projections 2004 Potential Caps Georgia Mercury Emissions Scenarios

19. Georgia Environmental Protection Division 19 Georgia Mercury Rule Options February 2006: Georgia EPD issued mercury rule options for stakeholder comment Option 1: In-state mercury limits 80-85% statewide average capture efficiency by 2010 90% beginning sometime between 2012-2015 Possible provisions for compliance flexibility Option 2: Adopt federal CAMR cap-and-trade March-April 2006: Three stakeholder meetings discuss above options as well as alternative approaches Upcoming: Development of proposed rule for DNR Board adoption and EPA approval