TITLE 326 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

SECOND NOTICE OF COMMENT PERIOD

LSA Document #05-116

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has developed draft rule language for a new rule, 326 IAC 24-4, concerning mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants to implement the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). By this notice, IDEM is soliciting public comment on the draft rule language. IDEM seeks comment on the affected citations listed and any other provisions of Title 326 that may be affected by this rulemaking.

First Notice of Comment Period: June 1, 2005, Indiana Register (28 IR 2815).

On May 18, 2005, U.S. EPA issued the first federal rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants serving a generator larger than 25 megawatts that produces electricity for sale. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) builds on U.S. EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to significantly reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, the largest source of mercury emissions in the nation. The Air Pollution Control Board final adopted CAIR on November 1, 2006.

When fully implemented CAMR will reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury from 48 tons a year to 15 tons, a nationwide reduction of nearly seventy percent (70%). The CAMR establishes "standards of performance" limiting mercury emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants and creates a market-based cap and trade program that will reduce utility emissions of mercury in two phases. The first phase nationwide cap is 38 tons, due in 2010, with emissions reductions that are considered "co-benefit" reductions. These are mercury reductions that will be achieved by reducing sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions under CAIR. In the second phase, due in 2018, coal-fired power plants will be subject to a second cap, which will reduce emissions to 15 tons upon full implementation. New coal-fired power plants will have to meet new source performance standards (NSPS) in addition to being subject to caps (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da).

U.S. EPA has assigned each state and two tribes an emissions "budget" for mercury. Indiana's annual electric generating unit mercury budget in CAMR is 2.097 tons in years 2010 through 2017, a 15% reduction from 2002 levels, and 0.828 tons in 2018 and thereafter, a 66% reduction from 2002 levels. IDEM has estimated that the 2010 and 2018 caps are a 43% and 77% reduction, respectively, compared to uncontrolled emissions. Using the co-benefit controls that existed in 1999 and the associated U.S. EPA control efficiency for those controls, IDEM has estimated uncontrolled emissions at 7,396 pounds. The cap is permanent, regardless of growth in the coal-fired electric utility sector. The trading program promotes reductions at the sources with the lowest control costs, typically the larger sources. The flexibility of allowance trading creates financial incentives for coal-fired power plants to look for new and low cost ways to reduce emissions and improve the effectiveness of pollution control equipment.

Reducing the amount of mercury emitted into the air is an important step in improving the health of Indiana's citizens. Once mercury is released to the air from coal combustion and other sources, it can fall to the earth through rain and snow (wet deposition) or dust particles (dry deposition). After it settles in lake or river sediments, mercury can be converted by bacteria into methylmercury, a more toxic form of mercury. Methylmercury readily accumulates in the food chain and can build up in fish tissue. Mercury in fish, both freshwater and marine, is then consumed by people and wildlife. Women of childbearing age are considered the population of greatest concern for mercury exposure, because the developing fetus is most sensitive. Children are at risk as well since their nervous system is still developing. According to the U.S. EPA, more than 300,000 children born every year nationwide may have some risk of neurological impairment from mercury exposure. At nearly 2.5 tons per year, Indiana ranks fourth in the nation for amount of mercury emitted from power plants. In order to provide maximum public health protection, Indiana has a conservative fish consumption advisory standard. The application of this standard has resulted in fish consumption advisories for mercury for certain species of fish harvested from all Indiana rivers, streams, and over 47,000 lake acres. Indiana's fish consumption advisory levels suggest that consumption of white tuna, halibut, lobster, shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and tile fish should also be limited because of their mercury content.

U.S. EPA's modeling shows that CAMR will significantly reduce mercury deposition from coal-fired power plants in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition from coal-fired power plants is currently the highest. U.S. EPA evaluated the impact of CAMR on mercury deposition in 2,150 watersheds encompassing the United States and found the deepest reductions in deposition would be in places where utilities had the biggest impact. By 2020, utility emissions will account for not more than 20% of deposition in any one watershed. This is a reduction from the maximum 55% contribution in the 2001 base case. On average, U.S. utilities will contribute 2.5% to deposition rates in 2020 after CAMR, CAIR, and other Clean Air Act programs are in place.

CAMR includes a model cap and trade program (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HHHH) that states can adopt to achieve and maintain the mercury emission budget. Emission monitoring and reporting requirements ensure that monitored data are accurate, reporting is consistent among sources, and that the emissions reductions occur. Each state must submit a state plan detailing how it will meet its budget for reducing mercury from coal-fired power plants by allowing their sources to participate in a national cap and trade program or by developing some other regulatory system. State plans were due November 17, 2006. IDEM plans to submit a state plan to U.S. EPA once this rulemaking process is completed.

The Air Pollution Control Board was petitioned by the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) in June of 2004 to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The HEC petition requested mercury limits for coal-fired electric generating units of six-tenths pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (0.6 lbs Hg/TBtu) or an emissions rate equal to 90% reduction of mercury from the measured inlet conditions, regardless of coal type. The HEC petition did not allow for emissions trading among sources and required compliance by July 2008. The initial petition was later revised in September 2005 to require compliance by 2010, allow site-specific emissions averaging, and limit the applicability to electric generating units serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than 25 megawatts and produces electricity for sale. From September 2004 through June 2005, IDEM convened a Mercury Workgroup to collect information on mercury, which later became the Utility Rules Workgroup for both the mercury rule and the CAIR. During these last two years, IDEM has received many comments that high mercury levels in fish due to air deposition is a very important concern for the citizens of Indiana. Citizens are concerned about both the risk of neurological impairment of newborns from methylmercury exposure, and the fact that some studies have shown that high levels of mercury in adult males are associated with higher rates of heart attacks and death. Since fish have significant nutritional benefits and have been shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks, a rule to reduce the level of mercury in fish will have important benefits.

Both IDEM and the Indiana Utility Group (IUG) have estimated the emissions reductions and the costs of CAMR and the HEC petition. IUG is comprised of the Indiana Electric Association and individual nonmember companies: Dominion State Line Energy, Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation, and Hoosier Energy REC, Inc. IDEM estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $26 million (IUG $1 million) in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $64 million (IUG $68 million) in 2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect. The emissions reductions ranging between 2,883 lbs (IDEM) and 3,392 lbs (IUG) in 2018 compared to the 1999 estimated levels would be achieved at a $/lb cost ranging from about $20,000/lb (IUG) to $22,000/lb (IDEM).

The HEC petition is estimated to result in emissions equal to 1,095 lbs (IUG) and 1,260 lbs (IDEM) beginning in 2010. IDEM's emissions estimates for 2010 are slightly higher because IDEM allowed for site-specific averaging in the fiscal analysis for the HEC petition. This amounts to emissions reductions ranging from about 74% and 78% compared to 1999 estimated levels. IDEM estimated that the HEC petition would cost $207 million year (90% control or 0.6 lb/TBtu, whichever is readily achievable and allowing plantwide averaging) to implement and IUG estimated that the HEC petition would cost $373 million a year (assuming that electrostatic precipitator (ESP), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and a scrubber would not meet 90% reduction and activated carbon injection would be required on all units). The emissions reductions ranging between 3,624 lbs (IDEM) and 3,789 lbs (IUG) compared to 1999 estimated levels are estimated at a $/lb cost ranging between $57,000/lb (IDEM) and $98,000/lb (IUG). IDEM is required to adopt a regulation at least as protective as CAMR; therefore, IDEM and the Purdue University State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) evaluated the cost of the additional reductions, due to the HEC petition. In 2018, these reductions range between 397 lbs (IUG) and 741 lbs (IDEM) and are estimated to be achieved at an incremental $/lb cost ranging between $193,000/lb (IDEM) and $768,000/lb (IUG). This assumes the HEC petition emissions and costs remain unchanged in 2018. In terms of electricity rate impacts, SUFG estimated that due to the HEC petition rates would increase by 2.8% (IDEM) to 5% (IUG), incremental to CAMR.

The other part of the cost equation is the cost to society that results from adverse health effects due to mercury emissions. Using information submitted to IDEM by HEC, health care costs apportioned down to the state level based on 1999 mercury emissions from Indiana power plants are estimated at $15,970/lb for IQ loss, $41,464/lb for cardiovascular effects, $3,071/lb for mental retardation, for a total of $60,500/lb. References for the HEC health care costs can be found at the end of the Response to Comments section. The cost/benefit of the HEC petition can be estimated by using the estimated health care costs associated with mercury emissions, the estimated cost of complying with the HEC petition, and the pounds of mercury emissions reduced by the HEC petition compared to CAMR. This is the marginal benefit of the HEC petition since IDEM is required to adopt a rule at least as stringent as CAMR. Assuming a linear relationship between health benefits and reductions in power plant emissions, the incremental benefit/cost ratio due to the HEC petition is estimated to range between 0.08 (IUG) and 0.38 (IDEM).

Due to uncertainties over the achievability of 90% control, reductions in actual mercury exposure levels, cardiovascular health effects, and the low benefit/cost ratio, IDEM is proceeding with a rulemaking based on CAMR. IDEM is proposing to implement CAMR by adopting the CAMR cap and trade program with modifications to the allocation methodology in Article 24: Trading Programs. All options for a mercury rule are still open for comment, however, and IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.

To ensure consistency, states participating in the national cap and trade program are required to adopt the following key operational elements: allowance management; banking without restriction; accountability for affected sources; and enforcement requirements. The model cap and trade rule does allow states to modify language to best suit their unique circumstances with regard to allocation methodologies. Mercury allocation methodology elements for which states have flexibility include: 1) the cost of the allowance distribution (e.g., free distribution or auction); 2) the frequency of allocation (e.g., permanent or periodically updated); 3) the basis for distributing the allowances (e.g., heat-input or power output); and 4) the use of allowance set-asides and their size, if used (e.g., new unit set-asides or set asides for energy efficiency, for development of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology generation, for renewables, or for small units).

The draft rule includes several changes to the allocation methodology in the model rules for the mercury trading program. Where possible IDEM is proposing to make the allocation methodology consistent with the recently adopted CAIR.

IDEM is proposing a methodology that includes a six year allocation, six years in advance, allocation cycle. The initial allocation would only be for five years awarding allowances for 2010 through 2015 to be consistent with CAIR. This is slightly different than the model rule that provides for states to make an initial allocation for Phase I (2010-2014) and then make annual submissions of allocations six years in advance. While a more frequent allocation methodology allows new units to draw from the main pool of allowances more quickly, most affected sources have commented that they were in favor of longer allocations cycles that provide greater certainty on the number of available allowances for planning purposes.

The allocation methodology makes a proportional allocation of allowances to individual EGUs based on heat input to the boiler, which is a measure of fuel usage and heat content of the fuel. The draft rule updates baseline heat input for subsequent allocation cycles using the most current eight years of heat input data. The longer look back period for the initial allocation (1998-2005) is more appropriate than the time frame in the model rule (2000-2004) because many Indiana sources were installing equipment to comply with the NO_x SIP Call, which would not be representative of "normal" operations. U.S. EPA's model rule did not include a baseline that would be updated over time; retired units would continue to receive allowances forever and existing units would have allocations based on data that is eventually decades old. The draft rule provides that the most recent operational data would be used for calculations and that a retired unit would eventually stop receiving allowances.

IDEM is proposing a fuel neutral approach for calculating adjusted heat input values for different coal ranks. This approach will treat all coal types the same, and will be more simple to implement. The model rule included a fuel adjustment factor of 1.0 for bituminous coal, 1.25 for sub-bituminous coal, and 3.0 for lignite coal. New units use electrical output data to convert output into heat input for the determination of the baseline. The draft rule retains the output-based provision for new units in the model rule, but modifies the electrical output to heat input conversion factor to provide a greater benefit for more efficient units.

The draft rule includes a new unit set-aside of 5% of the budget for years 2010 through 2014 and 3% of the budget for year 2015 and after.

IDEM invites comments and suggestions on the draft rule language.As stated previously, all options for a mercury rule are open for comment and IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.

No element of the draft rule imposes either a restriction or a requirement on persons to whom the draft rule applies that is not imposed under federal law. All changes to the CAMR model rule included in the draft language are modifications to the allocation methodology that are allowed under the federal CAMR.

This rulemaking will exceed the $500,000 threshold requiring a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) under IC 4-22-2-28, although the following costs are not above and beyond what would incur from the federal program. Both IDEM and the Indiana Utility Group (IUG) have estimated the cost of CAMR using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) by ICF Consulting Inc. IPM is a multiregional, dynamic, deterministic linear programing model of the U.S. electric power sector. It provides forecasts of least cost capacity expansion, electricity dispatch, and emission control strategies for meeting energy demand and environmental, transmission, dispatch, and reliability constraints. IDEM and IUG used IPM with different assumptions for input parameters, such as electricity demand growth, fuel costs, and pollution control costs and effectiveness. Cost estimates include the fiscal impact of capital costs (retrofit controls), fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs, continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), and allowance trading. IDEM estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $26 million in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $64 million in 2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect. IUG estimates that CAMR will result in a net annual revenue of $1 million in 2010 due to allowance trading from CAIR co-benefit controls and annual costs of $68 million in 2018 when the Phase II cap is in effect.

An external workgroup, referred to as the "OAQ Utility Rules Workgroup," has been established to discuss issues involved in this rulemaking. The workgroup is made up of a variety of stakeholders and is convened by IDEM, Office of Air Quality staff. If you wish to provide comments to the workgroup on the rulemaking, attend meetings, or have suggestions related to the workgroup process, please contact Susan Bem, Rules Section, Office of Air Quality at (317) 233-5697 or (800) 451-6027 (in Indiana). Please provide your name, phone number, and e-mail address, if applicable, where you can be contacted. The public is encouraged to participate in the workgroup process. You can also request to be put on the OAQ Utility Rules Workgroup email distribution list to obtain information related to the rulemaking or workgroup meetings.

IDEM requested public comment from June 1, 2005, through July 5, 2005, on alternative ways to achieve the purpose of the rule and suggestions for the development of draft rule language. IDEM received comments from the following parties by the comment period deadline:

Amy Chinn (AYC)

Betty Wrigley (BYW)

Brian Kautz (BK)

Carl Lowry (CL)

Christine A. Carver (CAC)

Chuck and Kathy Brinkman (CKB)

Citizens Thermal Energy (CTE)

Dominion (DM)

Edward Brady Hansel (EBH)

Eugene F. Wallace (EFW)

Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC)

Improving Kids' Environment (IKE)

Indiana Office of Consumer Counselor (OUCC)

Indiana University Purdue University – Department of Public Health (IDH)

Indiana Energy Association/Utility Group (IEA)

Indiana Michigan Power Company, dba American Electric Power (AEP)

Indiana Municipal Power Agency (IMPA)

Indianapolis Power  &  Light Company (IPL)

Iris S. Carr (ISC)

J. Dan Webster (JDW)

Janet Braun (JTB)

Jean and Philip C. Ross (JPR)

Jeff Barnd (JFB)

Jeffrey V. Cefali (JVC)

John Braun (JNB)

Kenneth G. Reinhardt (KGR)

Kim Fisher (KF)

Kristina Lindborg (KAL)

Lucy Carver-Gay (LCG)

March of Dimes (MOD)

Marcia Campbell (MC)

Marian Cooley (MNC)

Martha V. Smith (MVS)

Mary Boghwalts (MYB)

Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIP)

P. M. Pizzo (PMP)

Pat Berna (PTB)

Paul B. Overhauser (PBO)

Protect Our Rivers Now! (PRN)

Purdue University (PU)

Rosemarie M. Jeffery, M.D. (RMJ)

Sue Robinson (SER)

University of Notre Dame – Department of Biological Sciences (UND)

Valley Watch, Inc. (VWI)

Whitewater Valley Land Trust, Inc. (WVL)

Yvonne Lupear (YL)

Shanna Huff (SAH)

Cynde Connelley (CEC)

Barbara Searcy (BAS)

Julia Karr (JAK)

Linda Harmon (LAH)

Krystal Moriarty (KLM)

Rhonda Wolfe (RAW)

Rachel Koch (RLK)

Pam Morman (PMM)

Justin Schoof (JNS)

Melanie Loehwing (MEL)

Susan S. (SNS)

David Show (DDS)

Elizabeth Johnson (EHJ)

Barbara S. (BAS)

Sarah Vecker (SHV)

Charlotte Aldenhagen (CEA)

Bonnie H. (BEH)

Michelle Purvis (MEP)

John Pacer (JNP)

Jeana Toy (JAT)

Sam Shar (SMS)

Robert Winters (RTW)

Nathan Johnson (NNJ)

Jason Sucec (JNS)

Laura Sucec (LAS)

Miles Enright (MSE)

Robert Richardson (RTR)

Pamela McGinley (PAM)

Kourtney West Sanders (KWS)

Matthew Mossey (MWM)

Kevin Johnson (KNJ)

Courtney Williams (CYW)

A. Wilson (AW)

R. Eaton (AE)

Crystal Templeton (CLT)

Marilyn Nobbe (MNN)

J. Myers (JM)

Barb Ruess (BBR)

Laura Neiss (LAN)

Venita Wimbleduff (VAW)

Greg Swallow (GGS)

Nami Swallow-Novak (NSN)

Madeline Swallow (MES)

Marsha Cederquist (MAC)

Anna Feesa (AAF)

Cynthia Yanez (CAY)

Kathleen Moreland (KNM)

David Boone (DDB)

Sarah Ashcraft (SHA)

Angela America (AAA)

John Boyd (JNB)

Leslie Miller (LEM)

David Harrell (DDH)

T. Miller (TM)

Brent Winter (BTW)

Bridget Yoder (BTY)

Jaime Pearce (JEP)

Joe Staut (JES)

Ashley Chambers (AYC)

Brittany May (BYM)

Natalie Swedenberg (NES)

Tristin Olson (TNO)

Michael Maple (MLM)

Kassady Olson (KYO)

Jillian Short (JNS)

Joseph Short (JHS)

Kristi Short (KIS)

Dorothy Chandler (DYC)

Jason Sell (JNS)

William Carlson (WMC)

Elisabeth Henn-Carlson (EHC)

Barbara Rudomski (BAR)

Sharon Tranbarger (SNT)

Ray Tranbarger (RYT)

Sydney Miller (SYM)

Tammy Sajdyk, Ph.D (TYS)

William Johnston (WMJ)

Lesa Beals (JAB)

Harvey Siuschlag (HYS)

Cara Retz (CAR)

C. Shannon Brown (CSB)

Luciane Baier (LEB)

Robert Neal (RTN)

Susan Maslow (SNM)

Amy Connell (AYC)

Brian Wheat (BNW)

Lisa Strachota (LAS)

Tim Reasoner (TMR)

Therese Byerly (TEB)

John Ward (JNW)

Christopher Grashoff (CRG)

Adam Southerland (AMS)

Karen Carmichael (KNC)

Brandon Kindley (BNK)

Clinton Winkler (CNW)

Rachel Schmidt (RLS)

Betty Unger (BYU)

Lisa Widner (LAW)

Linda Easter (LAE)

Jennifer Hulen (JRH)

Kellie Hoffa (KEH)

Adolf Koshik (AFK)

Mark Richardson (MKR)

Christina  &  James Fletcher (CJF)

Dave Lawson (DEL)

Sheree Webster (SEW)

Mr.  &  Mrs. Schaffer (MMS)

Donald  &  Phyllis Campo (DPC)

Jamie Craddock (JEC)

Cynthia Keller (CAK)

Kris Goens (KSG)

John Noel (JNN)

Kathleen Comerford (KNC)

Naomi Landis (NIL)

Heather Cannella (HRC)

Jonathan Chambles (JNC)

Kim Curtis, PT (KMC)

Franklin Henderson (KNH)

Patircia Henderson (PAH)

Amy McInenary (AYM)

John McInenary (JNM)

Donna McInenary (DAM)

Jeanen Walton (JNW)

Christopher Walton (CRW)

Carl Walton (CLW)

Emily Szewczyk (EYS)

Marc Szewczyk (MCS)

Paul Szewczyk (PLS)

Nancy Trullinger (NYT)

Shelby Richardson (SYR)

Renee Richardson (RER)

Shone Richardson (SER)

Kailey Richardson (KYR)

Shelby Richardson (SYR)

Renee Richardson (RER)

Shone Richardson (SER)

Jami Fields (JIF)

Merigail Anderson (MLA)

Edward Foggs (EDF)

Louis Kersh (LSK)

Robin Kersh (RNK)

Jimmy Mallon (JYM)

Kate Mallon (KEM)

Jason Kersh (JNK)

Bob Lancaster (BBL)

Shelley Lancaster (SYL)

Alex Lancaster (AXL)

Thomas Williams, MD (TSW)

Kathleen Williams, RN (KNW)

Brittney Dick (BYD)

Corey Dick (CYD)

Jamie Rickard (JER)

Erin Hansen (ENH)

Rebecca Tyrrell (RAT)

Mark Sneegas (MKS)

Gretchen Sneegas (GNS)

John Sneegas (JNS)

Karla Sneegas (KAS)

Steve  &  Kelly Alley (SKA)

Candace Draper (CED)

Delnaz Daruwala (DZD)

Kaizad Daruwala (KDD)

Lowhorn Family (LNF)

Stephanie  &  Minh Nguyen (SMN)

Dianna Luther (DAL)

Mark Luther (MKL)

Victoria Luther (VAL)

Olivia Luther (OAL)

Charlene Everett (CEE)

Phillip  &  Jessica Cann (PJC)

Alexander Woods (CRW)

Corbin Laque (CNL)

Sophia Laque (SAL)

Layla Laque (LAL)

Angela Laque (AAL)

Craig Laque (CGL)

Damien Grey (DNG)

Connie Grey (CEG)

Alex (ALE)

Lori (LOR)

Nathan (NAT)

Ruth Ann Schroeder (RAS)

Emma Schroeder (EAS)

Candace (CAN)

Jonnie Bacon (JEB)

Gloria Bacon (GAB)

Kristi Schrock (KIS)

Maddy  &  Sandra Tipton (MST)

Christine Officer (CEO)

Kattlyn Thomas (KNT)

Kimberly Thomas (KYT)

Bonnie Knapp-Wild (BKW)

Caroline Taylor (CET)

Sarah Longfellow (SHL)

Christine Tilly (CET)

Michael Butler (MLB)

Jeri Smith (JIS)

June Holt (JEH)

Nancy Brown (NYB)

Amanda Applegate (AAA)

Jennifer Dye (JRD)

Billie Babb (BEB)

Julie Martin (JEM)

James Martin (JSM)

Erin Braden (ENB)

Ben Melvin (BNM)

Susan Melvin (SNM)

Benjiman Melvin (BNM)

Holly Settles (HYS)

Jason Settles (JNS)

Andrew Olson (AWO)

Paul Miller (PLM)

Max Schmitt (MXS)

Steve Sullivan (SES)

Janet (JAN)

Kaylie Brooks (KEB)

Mr.  &  Mrs. David Berthold (MDB)

Debbie Irwin (DEI)

Sabrina Faust (SAF)

Sandra Ziebold (SAF)

Freda Beccue (FAB)

Kate M. (KEM)

Steve Curtis (SEC)

Carol Cox (CLC)

Tara Sheringer (TAS)

Pauline Danda (PED)

Brian Johnson (BNJ)

Lisa Johnson (LAJ)

Luann Haddin (LNH)

Judy McClure (JYM)

Mr.  &  Mrs. Ron Lovett (MRL)

Kent Morrison (KTM)

Michael Schekenfelder (MLS)

Susan Arvin (SNA)

Cynthia Goldberg (CAG)

Michael Julian (MLJ)

B. Adam Zeigler (BAZ)

Frank Rosenthal (FKR)

Robert Welch (RTW)

Julius Finch (JSF)

Donna Hatton (DAH)

Jeff Grafton (JFG)

Patrick Huhn (PKH)

Mike Skaggs (MES)

John  &   Becky Reyes (JBR)

Maggie Lewis (MEL)

Mary Sausmann (MYS)

Thomas Pacheco (TSP)

Kathie Smith (KES)

Melissa Ash (MAA)

Theresa Anderson (TAA)

Emily Voorhis (EYV)

Tom Foacade (TMF)

Lydia Bauer-Martinez (LBM)

Rene Martinez (REM)

Catherine Bauer (CEB)

Kelly Everitt (KYE)

A. Wells (AWS)

Michael A. Jordan (MAJ)

Lynda Kosberg (LAK)

Michael A. Jordan (MAJ)

Jean Reich (JNR)

P.R. Cordray (PRC)

Jonathan Kirschner (JNK)

Chuck Hardcastle (CKH)

D. Mathews (DMS)

Sarah Abel (SHA)

A. Starks (AST)

Anthony P. (AYP)

Lori Hirsch (LIH)

Charles Harpenan (CSH)

Janie Robinson (JER)

Florence M. (FEM)

Carol Jenks (CLJ)

Louise Lowery (LEL)

Michele  &  Scott Tying (MST)

Douglas Heavilin (DSH)

Stacey Julious (SYJ)

Bernice Anthony (BEA)

Nicolas Ebtinger (NSE)

Becky Demma (BYD)

Jenn Paul (JNP)

Jay Oswatt (JYO)

Jamie K. (JEK)

M. Lauer (MLR)

Holly (H)

Craig (C)

Jiangmei Wu (JIW)

Judy Colyer (JYC)

Mary C. Smith (MCS)

Amy Whittemore (AYW)

Karen Scott (KNS)

Valerie Moore (VEM)

Andrea Hayes (AAH)

Jack Chambers (JKC)

Kim Einstein (KME)

Elward R. Cardora (ERC)

Tammy Smith (TYS)

Cynthia Jones (CAJ)

Rev. Mary Frances Haberkern (MFH)

Kari Townsend (KIT)

Lisa Monfred (LAM)

Robyn LeRows (RNL)

Jessica H. (JAH)

Brenda Hamm (BAH)

Steve S. (SES)

Erin-Leigh Smith (ELS)

Tim Robinson (TMR)

Stephanie Lloyd (SEL)

Steve Beard (SEB)

Karen Vaugh (KNV)

Tina Bays (TAB)

Peggy Mitchell (PYM)

Radic Bennett (RCB)

Jessica Salvators (JAS)

Monica Hamilton (MAH)

Leigh Delloon (LHD)

Amy Wilson (AYW)

Elizabeth Arnold (EHA)

Sheryl Avery (SLA)

Louvenia Hagy (LAH)

Samantha Hardenan (SAH)

Gayle Urban (GEU)

James Summers (JSS)

Betty Bohale (BYB)

Erin Fleser (ENF)

Kelly Eads (KYE)

Hubert Helms (HTH)

Michael Burns (MLB)

Hope Coatsworth (HEC)

Nick Martin (NKM)

Julie Hamilton (JEH)

Cathy Hardwick (CYH)

Tao Yi Mowers (TYM)

Elliott Pinkie (ETP)

Tami Ochitman (TIO)

Mike Benson (MEB)

Roberta Murphy (RAM)

Marilyn Deardorf (MND)

Joan Emery (JNE)

Amy Jen (AYJ)

Lillian M. Page (LMP)

Grover Page (GRP)

Maya V. Page (MVP)

Carolyn Trullinger (CNT)

Evan Szewczyk (ENS)

Ryan Klee (RNK)

Nicholas I. Johnston (NIJ)

Conner Short (CRS)

Brennen Maple (BNM)

Haven Sill (HNS)

Aiyanna Sucec (AAS)

Samuel Szewczyk (SLS)

Greta S. (GAS)

Julie Langford-Johnson (JLJ)

Sara Norter (SAN)

Nathan E. Fletcher (NEF)

Harold Brown, Jr. (HDB)

Patrick Colbert (PKC)

Maryann Massey (MNM)

Mary Wilkerson (MYW)

Arlene Keresey (AEK)

Steve Ottenweller (SEO)

Marquerite Starkey (MES)

Jerry B. (JYB)

Jason Dennis (JND)

Courtney Stewart and Paul Joyner (CSJ)

Steve Q. (SEQ)

Rachel Jacobs (RLJ)

Debbie Wall (DEW)

Jean Gifford (JNG)

Joseph T. Schmidt (JTS)

Natalie Peckingpaugh (NEP)

Ben Vanlaningham (BNV)

Courtney Hoy (CYH)

Jackie Chaney (JEC)

Melanie Madden (MEM)

Florence Grisham (FEG)

Susan Goldman (SNG)

Sharon Burton (SNB)

Janet Brown (JTB)

Elgin T. Smith, Minister (ETS)

Tuan Wilson (TNW)

Addie Smith (AES)

Michelle Oswalt (MEO)

C. Baker (CBR)

Kelsey K. (KYK)

Todd Eads (TDE)

Alma Whitmer (AAW)

David  &  Brenda Fisher (DBF)

Mark Devine (MKD)

Andre (A)

Lauren (L)

Leonard G. (LDG)

Susan Swaney (SNS)

Debra Love (DAL)

Jennifer Thompson (JRT)

Helen D. (HND)

Dia Srichareon (DAS)

Sarah Kelley (SHK)

Stephen Stout (SNS)

John Walker (JNW)

Kristin Gibson (KNG)

Janet Turner (JTT)

Lois McCartney (LSM)

Penny J. White (PJW)

Mary Fowler (MYF)

G. Truran (GTN)

Bambi Seifert (BIS)

Brianna McQueen (BAM)

Melissa Adams (MAA)

Joseph V. (JHV)

David W. (DDW)

Marsha O. (MAO)

Kathy M. (KYM)

Candice Cook (CEC)

Laura Cooper (LAC)

Kyle Harris (KEH)

Tracey Rynolds (TYR)

Ashanta Colemen (AAC)

Donald  &  Elizabet Kent (DEK)

Karen Sensney (KNS)

Rena Becker (RAB)

Mindy Buckler (MYB)

Gary LaFever (GYL)

Douglas B. Morrison (DBM)

James J. (JSJ)

B. J. W. (BJW)

Johan James Gerguson, Sr. (JJG)

Rhonda Davis (RAD)

Michael B. (MLB)

Kristen Fanning (KNF)

Dennis DeMay (DSD)

Richard A. Waples (RAW)

J. H. (JH)

Carol Wellnitz (CLW)

Kate Taylor (KET)

Julie Harris (JEH)

Robert Hulet (RTH)

Jay Baldwin (JYB)

David Bonner (DDB)

Carolyn Hopp (CNH)

Rob (R)

Mathew Tielker (MWT)

Megan Wall (MNW)

D. Hathaway (DHY)

Lester Sanders (LRS)

Paula Chappell (PAC)

Samuel B. Marlin (SBM)

Debra D. (DAD)

Hope Howard (HEH)

Tim Leonard (TML)

Cathy P. (CYP)

Victoria McGillium (VAM)

Andrew L. (AWL)

Juan F. Noriega (JFN)

Dian McClure (DNM)

Shannon Horrall (SNH)

Debby C. (DYC)

Rita Offett (RAO)

Nick Shotwell (NKS)

Dana Faith (DAF)

Cathy Stevens (CYS)

Trisha Buck (TAB)

Heather Genry (HRG)

Connie Diaz (CED)

Gretchen Dennis (GND)

Matt Johnson (MTJ)

Tyler Weatherford (TRW)

Lark L. Roberts (LLR)

Donna Charles (DAC)

Ruth Eckstein (RHE)

Stephani Demers (SID)

Lindsay Hill (LYH)

Christopher Garrity (CRG)

Diane Schmitz (DES)

Jim  &  Carol Elias (JCE)

Jennifer Adams (JRA)

Diana D. (DAD)

Jill Wickham (JLW)

Cherokee S. Hyzer (CSH)

Mary W. (MYW)

Keith (K)

Vickie Basman (VEB)

Susan E. S. (SES)

Chris D. (CSD)

Cynthia J. Leistikow (CJL)

Tom Platt (TMP)

James Schelble (JSS)

Suzanne Faulk (SEF)

Colleen Moore (CNM)

John M. (JNM)

Velma Goin (VAG)

C.S. Bott (CSB)

SPC Nicholas Seys, US Army (NSS)

Dane Kiteben (DEK)

Amy B. (AYB)

Antoinette Kennedy (AEK)

Madeline Kates (MEK)

Don Griffin (DNG)

Brian Massey (BNM)

Marisa Shuman (MAS)

Jessica W. (JAW)

Kristin Pimlott (KNP)

Sarah Kanter (SHK)

Brandon Schmitt (BNS)

Amanda Matan (AAM)

Steve Sterns (SES)

Cat Albanese (CTA)

Pam Flood (RMF)

James W. (JSW)

Douglas Rosenbane (DSR)

Brian Good (BNG)

T. Hall - A. Suge - O. Milligan (HSM)

Lisa B. (LAB)

Karen S. (KNS)

Elizabeth Cory (EHC)

Ashlee Fisher (AEF)

Ronald Sparks (RDS)

Brenda G. (BAG)

Greg Alexander (GGA)

Carolyn Schultz (CNS)

Jerry L. Johnson (JLJ)

Sherri Doudt (SID)

Kathy Braden (KYB)

A. S. (AS)

Deanna Newhart (DAN)

Cynthia F. Chapman (CFC)

Eric L. (ECL)

Ruth S. (RHS)

Kim Fox (KMF)

Edward B. (EDB)

Sheila Runner (SAR)

Eric Fry (ECF)

Ginny Nielsen (GYN)

Eric G. (ECG)

Janet  &  Merlyn Bartlett (JMB)

Norman Lewis (NNL)

Amy Wentworth (AYW)

Jeremy Keller (JYK)

Mark Maze (MKM)

Anthony Cale (AYC)

Meghan Mackrell (MNM)

Beth L. (BHL)

Tim Holms (TMH)

Gale Kram (GEK)

Pam Schiefelisein (PMS)

Lori Train (LIT)

C.N. Julie Marisin (CJM)

Rick Cunningham (RKC)

Robin Larsen (RNL)

Carol Spencer (CLS)

L.A. Siffin (LAS)

K. U. (KU)

M. L. (ML)

Linda Davidson (LAD)

Constance Hanson (CEH)

Dean Stomps (DNS)

Kay S. (KYS)

Jean Sims (JNS)

B. Smiths (BSS)

Brandon Williams (BNW)

Shala Van Bree (SVB)

Natalie R. (NER)

Graham Travino (GMT)

Eilazabeth K. (EHK)

C. N. (CN)

Andie Moore (AEM)

Ryan Brannigan (RNB)

Roger Deetz (RRD)

William R. Starkey (WRS)

Tracy Hollon (TYH)

Andrea Barnes (AAB)

Staphanie Jones (SEJ)

Stacy Hale-Yannessa (SHY)

Susan Bucove (SNB)

Charles Fisher (CSF)

Norma J. Conklin (NJC)

Jeanne Dutton (JED)

Dolores Williams (DSW)

Regina M. McShen (RMM)

Rachel Fowler (RLF)

Elaine Haag (EEH)

Gayle Leehy (GEL)

Mikil E. B. (MEB)

Kim M. (KMM)

Dawn Surber (DNS)

Jane M. (JEM)

Chad Perry (CDP)

Summer Perry (SRP)

Paula Carson (PAC)

Monique Shanks (MES)

Diane Wesnek (DEW)

B. Shoulders (BSS)

Lulu Belle Walker (LBW)

Rodney Reed (RYR)

Ryan C. Hawkins (RCH)

Gellia Gray (GAG)

Ryan D. F. (RDF)

Suzanne Martin (SEM)

Rachel A. Rale (RAR)

Mary McClain (MYM)

Bill G. (BLG)

Tammy B. (TYB)

Amber Schiefelbein (ARS)

Lisa Lifford (LAL)

Dottie Evans (DEE)

John C. Brooks (JCB)

Catherine A. Kilter (CAK)

Bernard Asbery (BDA)

Mary Etta B. (MEB)

Christine Carver (CEC)

Peter W. (PRW)

B. Henn (BHN)

Thomas P. Shafer (TPS)

K. Hill (KHL)

Bobbie Shank (BES)

Bruce Pearson (BEP)

Julia Knox Pearson (JKP)

Jim Emery (JME)

Cheryl Hashill (CLH)

Tom Buckingham (TMB)

Mary E. McGann (MEM)

Lisa Patrick (LAP)

Deborah Young (DHY)

Julie U. (JEU)

Kim Patterson (KMP)

Angela Stevens, M.D. (AAS)

Harlan D. Anders (HAD)

Stacy L. Campbell (SLC)

Keon Manson (KNM)

Andrea D. (AAD)

Kelly Gardner (KYG)

Mike B. (MEB)

Cindy Nicholson (CYN)

Jaron Moore (JNM)

Jeremy Weimer (JYW)

Kevin Frayer (KNF)

J. B. (JB)

Frances Walter (FSW)

Vickie L. S. (VLS)

Jennifer Bailey (JRB)

John McDaniels (JNM)

Dana Hurs (DAH)

Benjamin Levey (BNL)

Ed Gentry (EDG)

Rebecca Lee (RAL)

P. G. (PG)

Jane E. L. (JEL)

Bonnie L. Todd (BLT)

Dorie Queen (DEQ)

Rachel Laner (RLL)

Deanna  &  William Atkins (DWA)

Jennifer  &  Andrew Dussinger (JAD)

Heidi Seidel (HIS)

Brian Boch (BNB)

Rachel Simons (RLS)

Morgan Price (MNP)

Kathryn Brooles (KNB)

Mark Cronkhite (MKC)

Graham T. (GMT)

Jeanne T. (JET)

Matt Schmelzer (MTS)

David Rast (DDR)

Heather Reynolds (HRR)

David Rolle (DDR)

Tammy Hunter (TYH)

Labrina Falls (LAF)

Delores Kirkland (DSK)

Becky Turner (BYT)

Sara G. (SAG)

Derrick Harris (DKH)

Sharon Olson (SNO)

B. M. (BM)

Sue Jones (SEJ)

Jill D. Sledd (JDS)

Kathy  &  Dave K. (KDK)

Janet Berlo   &   Bradley Gale (JBG)

James S. (JSS)

Gene Viel (GEV)

M. Burr (MBR)

Margaret Sibbitt (MTS)

Lauren B. (LNB)

Amie M.  &  Tim K. (ATK)

Mary E. Oliver (MEO)

Kelly H. (KYH)

Wendi Meier (WIM)

Dolores C. (DSC)

Edna Babbit (EAB)

Laura Murdock (LAM)

Julia K. (JAK)

David Hartman (DDH)

D. Boyrd (DBD)

Phil Carspecken (PLC)

Royala Brandt (RAB)

Heather R. Miller (HRM)

Eulah McGlure (EHM)

Pam Hensly (PMH)

Cheri Hogan (CIH)

Karla Williams (KAW)

Judy Joutras (JYJ)

James S. (JSS)

Angel Lee Padro (ALP)

Jennifer Meyers (JRM)

Ann Hassler (ANH)

Marcia B. (MAB)

Karen Boswell (KNB)

Carol Sylvester (CLS)

Susan Fisher (SNF)

Cassie Lakens (CEL)

Suzy Fulkerson (SYF)

B. M. (BM)

Jennifer D. (JRD)

B. C. (BC)

Lori Ramsey (LIR)

Kathleen Berry (KNB)

Zelma J. Norris (ZJN)

Richard Thompson (RDT)

Fred Oaks (FDO)

Susan Meyn (SNM)

Marjorie D. (MED)

Jeremy Johnson (JYJ)

Shawnda D. (SAD)

Melinda Dorsey (MAD)

Bayyinah Batts (BHB)

Tracy L. Whitley (TLW)

Norman K. (NNK)

Robbin Shick (RNS)

M. Lynch (MLH)

L. Mann (LMN)

Lisa Brant (LAB)

Christine S. (CES)

Heidi  &  Jeremy Roll (HJR)

Becky Middleton (BYM)

S. K. (SK)

Ruth Pennington (RHP)

Jennifer Johnson (JRJ)

Sue Cramer (SEC)

James Roth (JSR)

Deborah S. (DHS)

Vincent L. S. (VLS)

Rhonda Norman (RAN)

Patricia L. WillHite (PLW)

John E. (JE)

James. S. (JSS)

Joyce Johnson (JEJ)

A. Simmons (ASN)

Pam S. (PMS)

Barbara O. (BAO)

Jodi Schrock (JIS)

Phil C. (PLC)

Tim Halvorson (TMH)

Anne C. (AEC)

Megan C. (MNC)

Nancy C. (NYC)

M. A. (MA)

Darin Yoder (DNY)

Amy Yoder (AYY)

Grace Yoder (GEY)

Andrea D. (AAD)

Brian, Janet  &  Natalie Stomper (BJNS)

Darwin P. Hoose (DPH)

Marily Jordan (MYJ)

Peggy Hoose (PYH)

Xa Que Tu (XQT)

C.J. Yoder (CJY)

Wakitha R. Downs (WRD)

J. Buckley (JBY)

Betsy M. (BYM)

Dorothy Echols (DYE)

Trish Johnson (THJ)

Debra Jordan (DAJ)

Rich Trout (RHT)

Debrah Bolen (DHB)

James Smith (JSS)

Rebecca P. (RAP)

Karen Brown (KNB)

G. M. (GM)

Jane Judd (JEJ)

Doug Rockhold (DGR)

Kate Lammers (KEL)

David Wild (DDW)

Jeff B. (JFB)

Desmond Whitney (DDW)

Ann Goebel (ANG)

J. Dale (JDE)

Rosemary S. (RYS)

Kyle Farkas (KEF)

Calvin Robertson (CNR)

N. D. (ND)

Heather Dodds (HRD)

E. R. (ER)

Andrew Hamilton (AWH)

Kristin Campbell (KNC)

Lisa Messer (LAM)

Lester S. (LRS)

Carol Watkins (CLW)

Janet C. (JTC)

D. R. (DR)

Keith Gifford (KHG)

Naomi Stone (NIS)

Brenda Smith (BAS)

Brynn Johnson (BNJ)

James Sanders (JSS)

Alfie Brock, RN (AEB)

Richard McCann (RDM)

Katherine Maxwell (KEM)

Jean Manson (JNM)

Elizabeth Essory (EHE)

Christine W. (CEW)

Charlotte G. (CEG)

Heather Vaughan (HRV)

Mikell Zimmerman (MLZ)

John B. (JNB)

Sean James (SNJ)

Karen Coleman (KNC)

John Fitzgerald (JNF)

Debbie Goodwine (DEG)

Ricky Thomas (RYT)

Lance V. (LEV)

Kimberly Jarrett (KYJ)

Curtis Jones (CSS)

Dawn Smith (DNS)

L. Williams (LWS)

Mary Jean Martin (MJM)

Jeremy Glen (JYG)

Donna Smith (DAS)

Marcus Miller (MSM)

LaDonna C. (LAC)

Debbie Evans (DEE)

Justin Graham (JNG)

Leesa Gilbert (LAG)

Sandra Chandler (SAC)

John K. (JNK)

Michael Librett (MLL)

Nancy S. (NYS)

Debbie M. (DEM)

Linda Butler (LAB)

D.D. (DDW)

Sally Weiss (SYW)

Ronald G. (RDG)

Ken F. (KNF)

Felicia M. (FAM)

Susan B. (SNB)

Tina Page (TAP)

Jeramy Wilson (JYW)

Jean Hanson (JNH)

J. Ray (JRY)

B. B. (BB)

Christine Hurley (CEH)

Robert Hurley (RTH)

Mathew Hurley (MWH)

Scott Lancaster (STL)

Isaac Page (ICP)

Erika Page (EAP)

I.Q. Page (IQP)

Sandi Skwor (SIS)

Wendy Gatlin (WYG)

Shannon Klee (SNK)

Keith Klee (KHK)

Kris Edmonds (KSE)

Jesse S. (JES)

Cheryl Thompson (CLT)

Steve Shaul (SES)

J.C. Lee (JCL)

Janet Marlatt (JTM)

Karen  &  Edward Lopke (KEL)

Angie West (AEW)

G.K. Mulholland (GKM)

Lindy Schultz (LYS)

Val O. (VLO)

James Williams (JSW)

Kathie Peck (KEP)

Elizabeth Morgan (EHM)

Sandy Allen (SYA)

Amanda G. (AAG)

Jeremy Small (JYS)

Shelly Bright (SYB)

P. Rhodes (PRS)

Andy Morrison (AYM)

Alice (A)

Amanda Hooper (AAH)

Danell Jones (DLJ)

Kelly S. (KYS)

Sheila M. P. (SMP)

Unidentifiable commenters (CT1 through CT215)

Comment: The department should adopt the federal model rule. The petition for rulemaking filed by HEC captures any Title V source that generates electricity and obtains greater than ten percent (10%) of its heat input from coal. The federal rule specifically excludes existing generators less than twenty-five (25) megawatts, and any source that does not sell power to the grid. The Indiana rule should only cover units as specified in the federal rule because an industrial boiler brought in by the HEC petition would not have the same economies of scale as an utility boiler and is already subject to the Industrial Boiler MACT (40 CFR 63, Subpart DDDDD). Also, no proven and reliable technologies exist for these smaller industrial boilers at the six-tenths pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (0.6 lbs Hg/TBtu) emission level specified in the HEC petition. (CTE) (PU)

Response: The department is proposing to adopt a rule that applies to the same units as the federal rule. Also, HEC amended their petition during September of 2005 to apply to units serving a generator that has a nameplate capacity greater than twenty-five (25) megawatts and produces electricity for sale.

Comment: It is essential that the state of Indiana engage in the study of the fiscal impacts of whatever mercury regulatory program it determines best protects sensitive population groups. The fiscal analysis contained in the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) report, "Getting the Job Done: Affordable Mercury Control at Control Burning Power Plants" is not thorough, nor representative of the issues the Indiana electric utility industry will be facing. As is evidenced by the assessment of this report by EPRI in October, 2004, "the data obtained to date, including those provided in "Getting the Job Done," show a wide range of mercury removal rates, suggesting that many plants would be unlikely to achieve ninety percent-plus (90+%) mercury control on a consistent, maintainable basis." EPRI's analysis of this report provided that, "While significant progress has been and is being made on developing and testing mercury controls – including activated carbon injection (ACI), commercial availability is still several years away, especially at the levels of control NWF indicates can be achieved." The commenter rejects that study as an appropriate basis for understanding the fiscal impact of mercury regulation and is prepared to assist in the development and implementation of an adequate fiscal analysis of a mercury program. (IEA)

Comment: The department is obligated to perform a fiscal analysis for whatever mercury rule that may be proposed, although adopting the CAMR rule will be the easiest to do by updating U.S. EPA's cost analysis. An independent analysis is necessary since the cost to Indiana utilities of mercury-specific controls will be well above the threshold required in Indiana law. Any rule proposals beyond CAMR would clearly require a new independent analysis based on specific provisions of the proposed rule. The department could not legally use the National Wildlife Federation report for the fiscal since the work may not have been peer reviewed and the department is required to supply detailed analysis to support the cost estimates. The department should engage the State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) for their input. (AEP)

Comment: The OUCC is the state agency charged with representing the interests of utility consumers before state and federal bodies. While environmental quality is important, the commenter asks that the department's deliberations on new rules also consider the effect of higher compliance costs on the consumers of electricity in the state. The department should conduct a careful cost-benefit analysis of its various alternatives prior to implementing rules more stringent than required by the federal government. The commenter is of the opinion that under the proposed federal standards, Indiana utilities can meet their mercury compliance needs until the year 2018 without the installation of baghouse technologies. Baghouses would add significantly to the capital and operational cost for meeting mercury targets. The concern is that a state rule that tightens mercury standards might tip the scales in favor of Indiana utilities needing to consider and build baghouses prior to 2018 with consequent costs for electric consumers in the state. (OUCC)

Comment: In the First Notice under "Potential Fiscal Impact" the costs of Alternative 1 are the estimates for the entire country, whereas the costs of Alternative 2 are the estimates for Indiana from the NWF report. What is the cost for just Indiana for Alternative 1 so that the costs can be compared? (HEC)

Response: IDEM agrees that it is important to evaluate the costs associated with CAMR and the HEC petition and has spent a considerable amount of time, along with IUG, on the fiscal analysis. Both IDEM and IUG have estimated costs associated with CAMR and the HEC petition for Indiana. Cost estimates for just Indiana for Alternative 1 (CAMR) can be found in the section on Potential Fiscal Impacts.

Comment: Simultaneous rulemaking and co-locating of the CAMR and CAIR rules in the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) is acceptable. The federal CAIR relies on the co-benefits of the CAIR emission controls to achieve many of the required mercury emissions reductions and both programs rely upon a cap and trade system. (AEP)

Comment: It would be helpful to the extent possible to consolidate the CAMR and CAIR rules into one location in the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC). Doing so would allow those affected by both rules to have their applicable requirements consolidated in one location within the IAC and prove more convenient than if located separately. Changes to 40 CFR Part 75 for emission monitoring requirements can be addressed in Article 21, Acid Deposition Control. (NIP)

Response: IDEM is proposing to locate the CAMR in Article 24 where the CAIR rule is already located to keep both utility trading rules in one location. Article 21 incorporates by reference 40 CFR Part 75 monitoring requirements, which will be updated to include new requirements when the reference to the Code of Federal Regulations definition at 326 IAC 1-1-3 is updated.

Comment: Trading   programs have been   instituted by Congress, U.S. EPA, and the states to  address a range of both long term and short  term  issues from  acid rain to one-hour ozone concerns. Trading programs are particularly well suited for long term broadly defined regional air pollution problems like mercury. Recent history with cap-and-trade programs has shown sources reduce more emissions faster and at a lower cost, plus they do not result in an increase in emissions as energy demand grows. The federal CAMR will effectively address local risks. First, while modeling runs suggest that large coal-fired utility units will likely have larger local deposition footprints than smaller units, the trading of allowances will likely involve larger units controlling their emissions more than required and selling allowances to smaller units. This  prediction arises from  the basic  economics of capital   investment in the  utility industry.  Second, the types of mercury that are deposited locally, ionic mercury (Hg⁺⁺) and particulate mercury (Hg[p]), are controlled by the same equipment that is being installed to control criteria air pollutants for other agency rules. The gaseous form of mercury (Hg⁰) that is more difficult to control is most likely to transported long distances from the utility units. (IEA)

Comment: Any Indiana mercury rule which uses switching of the current fleet of coal-fired power plants to natural gas in order to minimize mercury emissions is not a realistic option. (IEA)

Comment: There is currently a lack of a robust mercury emissions database because of limited technology to monitor mercury emissions. Any regulatory program that goes beyond the federal rule must be based on verifiable information and a comprehensive understanding of the issues. (IEA)

Comment: The technologies that will be used to control emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants are still in the formative stages. Flue gas desulfurization and selective catalytic reduction pollution control technologies designed to reduce SO₂ and NO_x, respectively, can produce mercury co-benefit reductions, however the specific reductions are not known with great certainty. The ability to consistently and reliably control emissions across a wide range of operating conditions, boilers and fuel types is an important issue for Indiana where there is a wide variation in boiler types and coals used as fuels. Mercury emission control technologies are not yet adequately tested for reliability, accuracy or representative application, nor reasonably available. Therefore it is essential that the department adopt U.S. EPA's two-phased approach that initially focuses upon the co-benefits of a multi-pollutant strategy and then mercury specific controls. (IEA)

Comment: In order to appropriately address the regional and national nature of the mercury issue, it is essential for all states, including Indiana, to participate in the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) trading program. This was the message delivered by Governor Daniels' when he stepped forward earlier this year in support of the Clear Skies legislation, which has served as the template for the U.S. EPA CAMR/CAIR rules. By participating in the U.S. EPA administered emissions budget and trading program, Indiana would be assuring consistency and accountability across the state, region, and nation. Indiana would also be demonstrating its support for the regulatory strategy of recognizing the co-benefits of a multi-pollutant approach supported by current science and sound economics. Furthermore, Indiana affected generating units, local coal mining operations, and ratepayers would not be disproportionately impacted. (IEA)

Comment: The cap-and-trade approach is the best method for reducing emissions at the lowest cost and encourages the continued development of mercury control technologies through economic incentives. (IEA)

Comment: The commenter recommends that the department adopt the federal CAMR. U.S. EPA has determined that a carefully designed "multi-pollutant" approach is the most effective way to reduce emissions from the power sector. Accordingly, U.S. EPA has designed this program to control NO_x, SO₂, and mercury at the same time (i.e., CAIR implementation with CAMR). One key feature of such an approach is the interrelationship of the timing and cap levels for NO_x, SO₂, and mercury. U.S. EPA's analysis shows that the use of FGD (to reduce SO₂ emissions) and SCR (to reduce NO_x) also has the effect of controlling mercury emissions at the same time. EPA has designed the CAIR and CAMR approach to take advantage of this so-called Hg "co-benefit." Based on the results of sophisticated economic and environmental modeling analyses, the Phase I mercury cap should be set at a level that reflects these co-benefits, and the additional controls designed specifically for mercury should not be required until after 2010. A multi-pollutant approach that focuses first on SO₂ and NO_x reductions will also achieve significant reductions in oxidized mercury. Reductions in this mercury species are the most beneficial to reductions in local and regional mercury deposition. The commenter supports the Indiana adoption of the federal CAMR because of this very important "co-benefit". (IEA)

Comment: U.S. EPA has concluded that it is not necessary to have the 2018 mercury cap mirror the mercury co-benefits achieved in CAIR Phase II cap because the 2018 cap ensures those reductions. The Phase II cap is timed such that the mercury specific control technologies currently being developed can be tested, installed and operational for all plant and coal types. In light of the developmental stage of reliable mercury specific control technologies, the commenter supports the phased approach U.S. EPA has finalized. (IEA)

Comment: The commenter supports the monitoring and reporting of emissions using 40 CFR Part 75 to ensure that emissions will be accurately and consistently monitored. (IEA)

Comment: The most recent U.S. EPA mercury deposition modeling using the national scale CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality) model indicates that the CAIR reductions, combined with the CAMR reductions, would have the same effect on mercury deposition as would the complete elimination of power plant emissions of mercury by 2020. In the evaluation of the CAMR rule, U.S. EPA conducted extensive modeling using the latest mercury deposition modeling techniques. These techniques were not available for the 1997 Mercury Report to Congress. U.S. EPA chose CMAQ because it is a three-dimensional grid-based Eulerian model designed to estimate pollutant concentrations over large spatial scales and because it accounts for spatial and temporal variations as well as differences in the reactivity of mercury emissions. The results of this modeling are described in the March 2005 EPA "Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Final Clean Air Mercury Rule", (EPA-452/R-05-003). The CAMR is well-developed and supported by state-of-the-art modeling analysis. (IEA) (DM)

Comment: There have been ongoing discussions during the Indiana Mercury Workgroup process regarding the merits of the ninety percent (90%) control proposal. As has been stated numerous times previously, neither U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) say that there is mercury specific control technology that is readily available for implementation. A program more stringent than the federal national mercury program would only result in mercury reductions that would produce marginal, if any, benefit to Indiana residents. The costs to Indiana customers for a ninety percent (90%) control program would be enormous while creating minimal environmental benefit. Finally, the ninety percent (90%) control proposal is unachievable. Even assuming one could get ninety percent (90%) mercury reductions by July 2008, and you could install all of the controls in the next three (3) years, which also presumes sufficient craft labor and materials were available, it would require all the construction work on every Indiana power plant to occur simultaneously. That would dictate that every coal fired power plant in the state, which is ninety-seven percent (97%) of the electric energy produced in the state, would then have to be shut down simultaneously for an extended period of time between January and July 2008 to make final connections between the new control equipment and the rest of the power plant. Therefore, the commenter strongly supports the federal program and urges the department to not adopt the ninety percent (90%) control by 2008 option as it is premature and unsupportable by science, technology, or cost-benefit analyses. (IEA)

Comment: Reduction of the overall state cap, inconsistent with that established by U.S. EPA's CAMR would result in a scramble by Indiana to reduce mercury emissions in a manner that is neither technologically reliable, nor economically responsible particularly as both of those important factors relate to environmental benefit. There is no health benefit justification available that would support a decision to implement a program that is more stringent than U.S. EPA's CAMR program. There has been no discussion offered in support of reducing the overall state mercury cap that justifies departure from the national approach. (IEA)

Comment: An earlier compliance date for Phase II has absolutely no support as indicated by U.S. EPA in its decision to set a later compliance date for Phase II. There is significant concern over the availability of mercury control technology that is proven to be effective and efficient at an earlier date. Filed testimony on behalf on the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor in the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Cause Nos. 42622 and 42718, Petitions of PSI Energy, Inc., is supportive of the conclusion that "many emerging mercury emission reduction technologies will become commercialized and prove to be more economical than ACI and baghouse technology for PSI units under consideration by year 2018. It would be prudent to wait and watch." Testimony of Giriraj Sharma, March 2005. It is unclear how Indiana could justify taking a more stringent approach understanding the uncertainty that clearly exists with regard to mercury specific controls. (IEA)

Comment: The assignment of individual unit emission limits could seriously frustrate the national cap-and-trade program relied upon by U.S. EPA in the CAMR. There is data supporting the conclusion that cap-and-trade programs result in air quality improvement (i.e. Acid Rain, NO_x SIP Call). The commenter strongly objects to individual emission limits. The commenter supports a national mercury cap-and-trade program as presented by U.S. EPA as an effective program that would create a baseline against which future monitored mercury data could be measured. Such a baseline could be an effective tool to allay concerns about backsliding as it relates to mercury. (IEA)

Comment: The commenter believes that the adoption of the federal model Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) is appropriate. Mercury is a global pollutant and the U.S. EPA has found that while coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about one percent (1%) or about forty-eight (48) tons. (IPL)

Comment: An accelerated compliance date and more stringent reduction in emissions is not a viable option for Indiana and could potentially reduce the reliable supply of electricity. The U.S. EPA has found that the availability of mercury-specific pollution control technology has not been proven on a large-scale long-term basis. (IPL)

Comment: Indiana adopting a rule with modifications from the federal rule would require valuable resources by the department and interested stakeholders. An earlier compliance date is not possible since U.S. EPA has found that the availability of mercury-specific pollution control technology has not been proven on a large-scale long-term basis. Also, U.S. EPA's modeling shows that the CAIR will significantly reduce the majority of the coal-fired power plant mercury emissions that deposit in the United States, and those reductions will occur in areas where mercury deposition is currently the highest. CAMR is expected to make additional reductions in emissions that are transported regionally and deposited domestically, and it will reduce emissions that contribute to atmospheric mercury worldwide. A state-specific rule would place Indiana industries at an unfair advantage due to increased costs without commensurate environmental benefits. (IPL)

Comment: The commenter is committed to reducing mercury emissions. Mercury emissions have been reduced by about forty percent (40%) at the Petersburg Generating Plant Units 2 and 3 as a result of having both a scrubber and SCR and there have been similar reductions at the Harding Street Generating Plant Unit 7 this past spring. (IPL)

Comment: The commenter encourages the department to adopt the CAMR for the utility sector as finalized by the U.S. EPA. Allowances should be allocated for the longest reasonable period of time, five (5) to (10) ten years at a minimum, be based on fuel types, and by using heat input as the allocation metric with no set asides. (AEP)

Comment: The HEC petition is technically infeasible at this time at the levels and within the time frames proposed in the petition. The HEC petition does not take into account the differences in the various coals being used in Indiana at this time. The federal program takes these differences into account and also more properly acknowledges that mercury emission controls have not been developed and/or demonstrated to be effective across the variety of fuels in use. In addition, there is a large amount of new FGD systems being installed regionally for compliance with the CAIR rule and engineering or labor needed to meet the 2008 compliance date may not be available. (AEP)

Comment: The commenter does not support adopting a mercury rule with different limits or compliance dates than those in the CAMR. The commenter is puzzled by the department's discussion on antibacksliding. There are no current emission control requirements for mercury imposed on the utility industry and there is no ambient standard for mercury that has been used to develop an underlying SIP. Therefore, there could be no backsliding as the term has been classically used. (AEP)

Comment: The department should adopt the federal rule while considering the advantages and disadvantages of the various elements of flexibility provided by the federal rule. This would reduce the department's effort needed to accomplish the desired rule changes and assure the regulated community that they would not be subject to any additional requirements beyond those in the federal rule. This would not disadvantage the Indiana regulated community with respect to industry in other states that choose to adopt the federal rule without modification. The U.S. EPA cap and trade program, in conjunction with the CAMR timelines and tonnage caps, will allow for the most cost effective method to reduce emissions to be selected at the affected plants, and provide the time needed to develop control technology suitable to reach the tonnage limits that are below what would be achieved otherwise. (NIP)

Comment: The commenter opposes the HEC petition that includes the ninety percent (90%) control requirement, an earlier compliance date (2008) compared to the CAMR, and no emission cap and trade program. The petition does not account for the technical difficulties that will frustrate the best efforts of facilities to reach the proposed reductions levels and schedule. The difficulties include: the wide variation in mercury species and concentrations within the exhaust stream to be controlled; variations in the mercury content of the various coals used in Indiana; boiler type and configurations; and the ability of a control technology to control the specific form of mercury emitted from the specific fuel combustion process. Information presented by utilities and EPRI during the IDEM Mercury Workgroup process shows that the mercury specific controls are not commercially demonstrated and fully evaluated regarding their ability to meet the reduction requirements proposed by HEC. U.S. EPA's CAMR information indicated that reductions beyond the CAMR phase 1 level (CAIR co-benefits level) produce limited additional benefit, despite increased controls and costs. The CAMR is supported by state-of-the art modeling analysis. No such modeling and analyses has been provided to justify the HEC petition. (NIP)

Comment: The number of fish consumption advisories in Indiana compared to other states is a major concern of comments made in support of the HEC petition. However, there are discrepancies among the differing sampling and reporting methodologies used in different states, and these comments disregard the U.S. EPA disclaimer in the U.S. EPA fish advisory fact sheet that states it is inappropriate to make a comparison between states based on the number of fish advisories. The supporters of the HEC petition have not shown that the number of advisories is due to Indiana sources that would be affected by these rules nor have they shown that the proposed limits in the HEC petition would lessen the number of these advisories, and disregard the contribution from non-Indiana and non-utility sources to Indiana mercury concentrations. (NIP)

Comment: The commenter opposes the department imposing additional requirements to those found in the federal rule. The compliance date can not be accelerated for the same reasons as the compliance date for the HEC petition is not possible, i.e., the need for commercial development and demonstration of the mercury specific control technologies. There is no justification for individual emission limits and the commenter opposes any effort by the department to seek unit specific limits under the guise of anti-backsliding. First, there is no limit to measure backsliding against nor any measurement technique or data for which to make any comparisons. Second, there is no technical data to support the need for individual unit emission limits. Third, the imposition of unit specific limits would be in direct opposition to the principals of a trading program, threaten the very existence of an Indiana trading program, and be counter-productive to any attempt to seek cost effective emission controls, based on economies of scale for expenditure of limited capital on an individual company basis. Unit specific limits would also penalize any units that were under-utilized during the baseline period which allocations and limits were based, and could prevent their ability to return to operating levels more representative of their normal generation. (NIP)

Comment: The department should adopt the federal model rule. This approach will allow affected facilities to comply with the new emission reduction requirements in the most effective way and participate in the cap and trade program. Past history with the Acid Rain and NO_x SIP Call programs has shown that this approach is more cost-effective than the traditional command and control approach. While Dominion needed to reduce sulfur dioxide by about forty thousand (40,000) tons annually during the 1995-1999 period, early reductions resulted in a surplus of more than four (4) times that amount by 2000 for the Acid Rain program. Through early installation of nitrogen oxides controls, Dominion was eligible to receive more than nine thousand (9,000) early reduction credits, real reductions that were achieved well ahead of the May 2004 start of the NO_x SIP Call program. In the NO_x SIP Call rule facilities were "rewarded" with "early reduction credits" that eased the emissions reduction burden once the deadlines kicked in. (DM)

Comment: The recently finalized Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) requires large reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from utility boilers in a twenty-nine (29) state region by 2010. The add-on control technologies that most effectively reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are, in many cases, very effective controls for emissions of mercury as well. Companies subject to both the CAIR and the CAMR will need to integrate planning for compliance for these two rules. The department should adopt a mercury emissions reduction program that is coordinated with the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides reductions under the CAIR. (DM)

Comment: The HEC petition is not technically feasible at this time because mercury specific control technologies are not yet commercially available. U.S. EPA has recognized that mercury specific technologies such as activated carbon injection have not been demonstrated in practice on full-scale power plants for extended periods of time and are not considered commercially available in the preamble to the final CAMR. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from the May 2005 Clean Air Act report titled "Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown Promising Results, but Data on Long-Term Performance are Limited" confirms this conclusion. Test of sorbents lasting from several hours to several months have yielded average mercury emission reductions of thirty (30) to ninety-five (95) percent, with results varying depending on the type of coal used and other factors, according to the Department of Energy (DOE) and other stakeholders surveyed for the GAO report. The GAO report also recognizes that a number of factors complicate efforts to estimate the costs of installing mercury controls and that costs are expected to decline. (DM)

Comment: Adopting the federal rule with additional reductions or an earlier compliance date is not necessary given the results of the CMAQ modeling. The CMAQ modeling concludes that the mercury reduction required by the CAMR, combined with the co-benefit mercury reduction achieved through the CAIR, will have a dramatic effect on mercury deposition by 2020. (DM)

Comment: The department has proposed that one option in implementing the mercury rule is individual unit emissions limits as a potential "anti-backsliding" measure. Indiana utility companies have been very supportive and cooperative of the department's effort to develop these new emission reduction requirements, even before the final federal CAMR. There has not been any suggestion or attempt at "backsliding" from the utility sector. (DM)

Comment: The department should adopt the federal CAMR. This would ensure that Indiana facilities would not be penalized as compared with facilities in other states. The commenter opposes adopting a ninety percent (90%) control and no cap and trade rule or the federal CAMR rule with reduced overall state caps and earlier compliance dates. Only the federal CAMR rule is justified since it was developed by U.S. EPA after years of study and analysis. (IMPA)

Comment: The commenter supports the comments submitted by the Indiana Energy Association. (CTE) (IPL)

Response: IDEM has drafted rule language that incorporates the federal model CAMR with changes to the allocation methodology. IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking.

Comment: The department should provide free distribution of allowances. Charging for allowances would place an unnecessary additional economic burden on the affected parties who will be devoting considerable financial resources to controlling emissions to meet the emissions budget. (NIP) (IEA)

Comment: Allocations should be updated periodically as is done in the NO_x SIP Call. The federal model rule provides a workable program to transition from a fixed phase 1 allocation to an annual updating methodology. This will provide an opportunity to react to the ongoing evolution of the power generation market and avoid creation of an additional economic barrier to the installation of newer, potentially cleaner and more efficient units. (NIP)

Comment: If the department does not utilize the current NO_x budget trading program allowance allocation method, then the department should consider allocating allowances on an output basis, or at a minimum, create a set-aside to encourage development and implementation of clean efficient generation methods. (NIP)

Comment: The department should establish, within the Indiana rules, the baseline adjusted control period heat input allocation methodology that utilizes the heat input adjustment factors based on different coal ranks consistent with the CAMR model rule. (NIP)

Comment: A mechanism for encouraging energy efficiency and for managing the inclusion of new sources in the CAMR trading program should be accomplished with new unit set asides and set asides for energy efficiency or renewable energy in a manner similar to the NO_x SIP Call. (NIP)

Comment: The rule should include proactive economic incentives to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, as in the NO_x SIP Call. (IKE)

Comment: The department should explore the option of phasing in programs where emissions allowances must be purchased at an auction (i.e. the allocation of allowances is scaled back over time, so that industry purchases an increasing percentage) with the rulemaking workgroup. Proceeds from the auction could be used to fund research, pollution prevention technologies, clean energy programs and other efforts that can mutually benefit public health, the environment and industry. (IKE)

Response: IDEM is not proposing to award allowances at an auction and is proposing an allowance methodology similar to the one used in the recently adopted CAIR. The proposed methodology awards allowances for six (6) years at a time, six (6) years in advance, while using an eight (8) year look back period for the heat input each time allocations are calculated. The control period heat input is not adjusted using factors based on different coal ranks. A new unit set aside is included using five percent (5%) of the budget in Phase 1 and three percent (3%) of the budget in Phase 2 with allocations calculated on a output basis. IDEM would like to discuss further with stakeholders the option of including a set aside to encourage energy efficiency and clean coal technologies, such as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) set aside.

Comment: The commenter is supportive of U.S. EPA establishing five subcategories with respective mercury limits based on a combination of coal rank and process type for the new source performance standards (NSPS). This approach recognizes the differences in the relative ability of the respective control technologies to effect emissions reductions on the various coal ranks. This approach can be revised in the future if the performance of control technologies advances to the point of coal rank being irrelevant in the level of mercury control achieved. (IEA)

Response: IDEM is not proposing to adopt NSPS limits different than those in the federal rule. The NSPS limits in 40 CFR 60 have already been incorporated by reference in Article 12.

Comment: The department should implement a stringent restriction in coal-fired power plant mercury emissions. Coal-fired power plants are a leading source of mercury emissions and other pollutants. All Indiana waterways are under fish consumption toxic effect advisories secondary to mercury pollution. The toxics effects of mercury are well documented and children are especially vulnerable to these effects. The proposal to restrict mercury by just fifteen percent (15%) is not sufficient when technology is currently available to curtail emissions from power plants by ninety percent (90%). The quality of life for all in Indiana ultimately depends upon the quality of our natural environment and ninety percent (90%) should be our goal. (RMJ)

Comment: The department should adopt ninety percent (90%) mercury reduction rules for coal-fired power plants which will maximally improve the quality of the water in our streams, and protect aquatic life and human health. All of Indiana's waterways are currently under fish consumption advisories by the State Department of Health. Mercury is introduced to our waterways via airborne deposition and storm water runoff. As substantial evidence demonstrates, we possess the technology to dramatically and cost –effectively reduce mercury levels in our waterways. A ninety percent (90%) reduction is technically feasible, affordable, and desirable. All we need is the cultural vision and political will to effect the needed change. In our desire to be "business-friendly", we have allowed for-profit corporations, including power plant operators, to shift their cost of production onto the backs of the public, in this case in the form of unregulated mercury emissions. A high quality of life is increasingly cited by development groups in their on-going efforts to generate economic development. (PRN)

Comment: The commenter requests that the department adopt a ninety percent (90%) reduction rule for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants because Indiana ranks fourth in the country for mercury emissions from power plants, there are multiple fish consumption advisories, U.S. EPA's own modeling shows that larger than seventy percent (70%) reductions can be achieved in a shorter time frame without significant increases in electricity rates, there is a serious risk posed to children from mercury contamination, and because it is the right thing to do. (BK)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions no later than 2008. The commenter is concerned about mercury released from coal-burning power plants in Indiana and that emissions can be greatly reduced with new technologies, without a substantial increase in utility rates. Any hesitation in reducing mercury emissions will significantly decrease the quality of Indiana lakes and streams, and pose a serious risk to young and unborn children. (YL)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions no later than 2008. The commenter is concerned about mercury released from coal-burning power plants in Indiana. Currently mercury emissions from these power plants are unregulated, which puts Hoosiers' health at risk. (JPR)

Comment: The department should require a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions from power plants. Indiana ranks fourth in the country for mercury emissions from coal plants, and virtually all of Indiana's lakes and streams are polluted with mercury at levels requiring fish advisories. Mercury is a potent, dangerous neurotoxin and damages the health of all of us. The monetary damage to Indiana's economy in increased health care costs must be considered when industry argues its economic issues. The federal rule will not protect the health of Hoosiers. Please protect our health from the toxic effects of mercury sooner rather than later. Giving industry twenty (20) years or so to clean up exposes an entire new generation to the toxic health effects of mercury. (JVC)

Comment: The commenter is concerned about mercury released from coal-burning power plants. The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions no later than 2008 to protect the health of Hoosiers. (JDW)

Comment: The department should adopt a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions from coal fired power plants. We owe it to the people of Indiana to protect their health, especially those children living in Southeastern Indiana where there are seventeen (17) coal fired power plants. (CL)

Comment: As a long time Boy Scout /Scouter, yet staunch Republican, the commenter doesn't know what percentage of reduction of mercury is appropriate, but thinks a reduction is in order since according to available information Indiana has the fourth highest emissions from coal plants. The department should come up with a realistic improvement and implement a better program. (KGR)

Comment: The commenter encourages the department to mandate reductions of mercury emissions that exceed the federal rules set by the U.S. EPA by requiring ninety percent (90%) reductions by 2008. The commenter agrees with the widespread criticism of U.S. EPA under the Bush Administration which has gutted numerous federal rules and regulations effecting the environment. The most recent rule adopted by the U.S. EPA relating to mercury emissions takes too long to implement and does too little. In fact, the U.S. EPA Inspector General, Congress' Government Accountability Office, and the U.S. EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee have criticized the U.S. EPA Mercury rule for failing to live up the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Thirteen states have challenged the mercury rule in court. The U.S. EPA rule requires a seventy percent (70%) reduction by 2018, but the U.S. EPA's modeling shows that those reductions will not actually be achieved until 2025. As a patent attorney, the commenter is familiar with the technology used for eliminating mercury from emissions. A local Indianapolis company has developed and employed technology, which adopted on a widespread basis, would allow mercury emissions to be reduced by well over ninety-five percent (95%). Regardless, the National Wildlife Federation reports that a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired power plants can be achieved using even earlier technology and the costs for such a reduction would increase monthly utility rates by less than two dollars ($2.00). (PBO)

Comment: The department should adopt a more pro-active rule on mercury pollution than the one provided by the new federal rule on mercury emissions. Please adopt a rule that would reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by ninety percent (90%) as proposed by the Hoosier Environmental Council's petition. We need all the benefits we can possibly provide for the health of Hoosiers. The risks involved with mercury contamination may be insidious, but they have such a negative impact which carries on from birth throughout life, creating a plethora of problems which must be dealt with along the way (i.e. health care and education of those affected). (MC)

Comment: It is a disgrace for Indiana to be fourth in the nation for amount of mercury emissions from power plants. All of Indiana's waterways are presently under fish consumption advisories by the State Department of Health. The department should implement the reduction of mercury emissions by ninety percent (90%) to take Indiana from evolutionary to revolutionary. (KF)

Comment: The department should adopt a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. (ISC)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions by 2008. The federal rule set by the U.S. EPA is not adequate to protect the health of Hoosiers. As a registered dietitian the commenter is aware of the public health threat to children of methylmercury contamination. It is a shame that one (1) in six (6) women of childbearing age in the United States has enough mercury in her body to place her child at risk if she becomes pregnant. It is appalling that mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are a major source of mercury in our water and that they are unregulated at this time. (CAC)

Comment: The commenter is concerned about mercury released from coal-burning power plants. Mercury emissions from power plants are currently unregulated, putting all of our health and our children's health, along with future generations, at risk. The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions no later than 2008 to protect the health of Hoosiers. The federal rule requiring a seventy percent (70%) reduction by 2018 is not good enough. A ninety percent (90%) reduction would increase monthly utility rates by less than two dollars ($2.00). Given the serious risk to children posed by mercury contamination, Indiana should not be satisfied with just adopting a flawed federal rule that has failed to stand up to independent analysis and will take too long to do too little. (JNB) (JTB)

Comment: The department should adopt a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Indiana ranks fourth in the country for mercury emissions from coal plants and these coal plants are the only remaining major source of mercury without any regulatory controls. Mercury pollution poses a serious threat, such as neurological problems, to developing fetuses, infants, and young children. The department should show that they are concerned about the health of children and the environment and help clean up the air and water. A ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired power plants can be achieved using existing technology. The cost for such reductions would only increase monthly utility rates by less than two dollars ($2.00). Surely, the health of our children is worth such a small cost. (MNC)

Comment: The department should write strong rules reducing mercury emissions from Indiana's coal-fired utilities. Specifically, the rules should include the lowest mercury emissions achievable and a rapid implementation of the reductions. If trading is allowed, the commenter requests that individual unit limits be set such that no unit can exceed its mercury emissions for 2002 and that there are regional caps so that no region can be disproportionately burdened with mercury emissions. (HEC)

Comment: The primary reason that mercury emissions must be reduced by the maximum amount achievable is mercury's bioaccumulation and extraordinary toxicity. It is toxic in microgram quantities^1,2 with medical studies demonstrating loss of IQ, developmental delays in children, and reduced memory and increased risk of heart attack in adults even at low blood levels^3-14. As noted in the First Notice of Comment Period, Center for Disease Control (CDC) data show that mercury levels in the American public are already elevated sufficiently to put six hundred and thirty thousand (630,000) children born every year at risk for neurologic damage¹⁵. Reducing mercury emissions by the maximum amount achievable is essential to reducing mercury's effects on IQ and cardiovascular health. (HEC)

Comment: Indiana's contribution to mercury pollution is substantial. Indiana utilities rank fourth in the nation for mercury emissions, with release of two and one-half (2.5) tons of mercury in the year 2002¹⁶. To put that quantity into perspective, if entirely converted to methylmercury, it is sufficient to kill 3.67 million people¹⁷, or contaminate 7.6 billion pounds of fish beyond the limit set by the Indiana State Department of Health for consumption by women of childbearing years and children¹⁸. With this rate of mercury emissions from Indiana's utilities, we as a state are morally obligated to reduce mercury by the maximum possible amount as soon as possible. (HEC)

Comment: The loss of productivity from mercury-related IQ loss is estimated to cost the nation as a whole $8.7 billion dollars per year¹⁹ with $1.3 billion of that attributable to power plants. The annual cost of cardiovascular effects is estimated to be as high as $3.3 billion²⁰. In contrast, it has been estimated that a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from Indiana's power plants would cost the utilities $183 million and increase the electric bill for the average household from $70 to $71.90 per month, or by two and seven-tenths percent (2.7%)²¹. (HEC)

Comment: Studies demonstrate that reductions in mercury emissions reduce mercury deposition and mercury contamination in fish. Glacial ice cores show a significant reduction in the deposition of mercury since the U. S. EPA began regulation of mercury emissions from non-utilities in the 1990s²³. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection demonstrated that over ten years as local mercury emissions were reduced by over ninety percent (90%), the mercury in local fish declined sixty percent (60%)^{24, 25}. In Little Rock Lake, WI, from 1994 to 2000 a ten percent (10%) per year drop in atmospheric deposition led to a corresponding five percent (5%) per year drop in mercury in the fish²⁶. (HEC)

Comment: According to the U.S. EPA, mercury depositions are highest in the states with the highest emissions, and Indiana has one of the highest rates of deposition²⁷. Modeling discussed for the IDEM Mercury Workgroup by Dr. Mark Cohen of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that sixty-two percent (62%) of ionic mercury emissions deposit within one thousand kilometers (1000 km) (six hundred and twenty-five (625) miles) of a two hundred and fifty (250) meter stack and that utility coal combustion produces twenty-two to forty-one percent (22-41%) of its mercury emissions in ionic form. The model also showed four to fourteen percent (4-14%) of utility mercury emissions are particulate with twenty-two percent (22%) deposition within one thousand kilometers (1000 km) and fifty-four to sixty-two percent (54-62%) are elemental with three percent (3%) deposition at one thousand kilometers (1000 km). Altogether according to the NOAA model mercury deposition within one thousand kilometers (1000 km) of a power plant, is between twenty percent (20%) and twenty-eight and one-half percent (28.5%) of its total mercury output²⁸. Seigneur et al. (2004) also concluded that in regions with high deposition, such as Indiana, the impact of local and regional sources is the main cause of the elevated deposition²⁹. Since a significant proportion of utility emissions deposit within six hundred (600) miles, a reduction in emissions will reduce mercury deposition within Indiana. (HEC)

Comment: Considerable reduction of mercury emissions is possible with existing pollution control technologies. U.S. EPA data shows³⁰ several control configurations already in use achieving ninety percent (90%) reductions or better at plants burning bituminous coal (sixty-two percent (62%) of coal burning utilities in Indiana burn bituminous) and can achieve as high as seventy-two (72%) with subbituminous. Given the information in this table, it appears that simply optimizing the technology used for CAIR compliance could reduce mercury emissions well beyond the fifteen percent (15%) required in the first phase of U.S. EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Use of activated carbon injection (ACI) alone or in combination with fabric filters could bring the remaining plants in Indiana to ninety percent (90%) reduction^{21, 22}. Full scale demonstrations of ACI have been successful in a wide range of plant configurations and with different coal types over the last five (5) years. These demonstrations were discussed at length by both the National Wildlife Federation at the November meeting of the IDEM Mercury Workgroup and by ADA-ES at the February meeting^{33, 34}. Given the current state of control technology, the U.S. EPA's end goal, a sixty-six percent (66%) reduction achieved twenty (20) years from now³², does a disservice to the people of Indiana. It falls far short of what is achievable and at a high cost to Indiana's public health and to its fishing industry with thousands of pounds of excess mercury emitted over those twenty (20) years. (HEC)

Comment: Because of its extraordinary toxicity mercury pollution was targeted for reduction by Congress in the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Since 1990 there has been substantial progress as one by one industries emitting mercury have come under regulation by the U.S. EPA (30). The U.S. EPA is strikingly inconsistent in the time to implementation among these industries. By the U.S. EPA's own estimate, a sixty-nine percent (69%) reduction in power plant mercury emissions nation-wide will not be achieved by utilities until 2025 despite the 2018 deadline because of the projected banking of emission credits³¹. This failure by the U.S. EPA to regulate the power industry in keeping with the other nation-wide efforts to reduce mercury emissions, particularly given utilities' large contribution to mercury emissions, leaves the responsibility for timely mercury reductions to the states. (HEC)

Comment: If the state chooses to move forward with the cap and trade model in CAMR, trading of emission credits could leave one (1) or more regions of the state with a disproportionate burden of mercury emissions. As noted above, a significant amount of mercury emissions deposit locally. To prevent leaving any region at a disadvantage, a rule that includes trading should have regional caps. (HEC)

Comment: Mercury control technologies will bring jobs to Indiana in production of the steel required for manufacturing, in installation of the systems, and in maintenance of the control systems. (HEC)

Comment: Stricter standards for fine particulate are likely from the U.S. EPA in the near future due to findings of health effects. As a result, many more Indiana counties will be out of compliance, and additional measures will have to be taken. Emission control technology could be configured to account for the anticipated tighter standard. The industry would see a benefit in the efficiency of adding control equipment once rather than twice. (HEC)

Comment: The commenter supports the department's initiative to adopt rules concerning mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Mercury emissions from all sources, including power plants, represent a compelling public health problem that affects all citizens in Indiana, including individuals at high risk such as pregnant women and children. A substantial body of basic, pathological, clinical, and epidemiological research over several decades has documented the adverse effects of mercury exposure in animals and humans. This research has found no "threshold effect," that is a time duration and mercury concentration product (area under the human exposure curve) at which toxicity does not occur. While current public policy accepts specific exposure levels for the American population, there are no prospective randomized controlled clinical or epidemiological studies that show that human exposure to mercury even at "low levels" does not cause serious and permanent neurological or other disease, particularly in "at risk" populations. For these reasons, the options for meeting the requirements in the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) must be carefully reasoned. For example, given the known toxicity of mercury and the lack of a "threshold effect" for toxicity, and given the widespread exposure to large numbers of the American and Hoosier populations to mercury, precautionary principles should govern the decisions for addressing requirements in CAMR. That is, even in the absence of "absolute proof" of a causal relationship between exposure to mercury and human disease, particularly at lower levels of exposure, prudent public policy should be predicated on the compelling evidence from decades of quality research that human toxicity likely occurs at even low levels of exposure. The commenter urges the department to consider the scientifically grounded and well-reasoned proposal by HEC to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. Specifically, there should be limits for coal fired EGUs of six-tenths pounds of mercury per trillion British thermal units (0.6 lbs Hg/TBtu) or an emissions reduction of ninety percent (90%) regardless of coal type with compliance by 2008 and emissions trading among sources should not be allowed. (IDH)

Comment: The commenter encourages the department to develop regulations that will strengthen the state's protection of women of childbearing age and children from the effects of methylmercury, and provide them the highest level of safety from mercury emissions in the country. Mercury, especially in the form of methylmercury, is of special concern because it is a potent developmental toxin. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, at high ingested doses, mercury can disrupt migration and organization of nerve cells in the brain before and after birth, leading to severe mental deficiency, blindness, deafness, and chronic seizure disorders. Chronic, moderate to low-level methylmercury exposure before birth is associated with developmental delays and decrements by various measurements of attention, memory, intelligence, language ability, and motor skills (National Academy of Sciences). (MOD)

Comment: Although emissions of mercury are substantial in other parts of the world, Indiana's electric utilities contribute, relatively speaking within the United States, a significant portion. Approximately half of the mercury emitted by Indiana sources comes from the electric utility sector. Indiana ranks fourth in the nation for utility sector mercury emissions. All of Indiana's rivers and streams and many thousand lake acres are under fish consumption advisories issued by the Indiana State Department of Health warning Hoosiers to limit their consumption of fish caught in those waters because of health concerns, one of which is mercury found in fish. Studies show that as much as eighty percent (80%) of the mercury measured in Lake Michigan comes from air deposition (Mason and Sullivan (1997), cited by Dr. Mark Cohen, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in presentation to Indiana Mercury Workgroup, April 2005). Mercury differs significantly from the types of air pollutants Indiana is accustomed to regulate because it is bioaccumlative. Therefore, the schedule of implementation and the effect of banking programs are very important in assessing the overall improvement to the environment and public health that will be achieved by the rule. The commenter is disappointed at the low reduction goals established by U.S. EPA. With the possibility that the federal rule will not withstand legal challenge and the possibility of further delay in implementation a number of states have set themselves a higher bar, yet still within a range of reductions that are feasible and cost-effective. This rulemaking is Indiana's opportunity to do the same. Because of the type of coal used in Indiana, the state is in a position to make substantial reductions. The department and the Air Pollution Control Board should continue an open process with the rulemaking workgroup where information can be openly presented and discussed, information from other state's programs can be reviewed, and the State Utility Forecasting Group and others evaluate cost of the various reduction targets and schedules. The commenter would like to see a rule that is environmentally protective, cost-effective, and one that will show that Indiana is a leader in reducing its impacts on public health, air and water. (IKE)

Comment: The department should draft a rule that requires as much mercury reduction as feasible, as expeditiously as possible. When other states have moved forward with their own programs, their reduction targets and schedules have been tailored to that state's utility fleet characteristics. Indiana should take the same approach. (IKE)

Comment: The department should take the time necessary for this rulemaking. The first phase of mercury reductions in CAMR will be achieved through the implementation of CAIR, so taking additional time for this rulemaking will not delay the initial federally required reductions. (IKE)

Comment: Emissions trading can be an effective and cost-effective approach to pollution reduction. The department should craft rule language in the draft rule that prevents utilities from increasing actual emissions of mercury at any existing plant beyond current levels. (IKE)

Comment: The commenter requests that the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (APCB) reduce Indiana's mercury emissions from power plants by ninety percent (90%) by requiring utilities to use currently available technology. Six (6) other states have already passed similar safeguards, and Indiana also should adopt the ninety percent (90%) reduction. This reduction is feasible and economical, and it would add only about two and seven-tenths (2.7) percent to homeowner's bills. This two and seven-tenths (2.7) percent is trivial, in comparison to the cancers, developmental disorders, and neurological problems that Indiana residents, especially children, are suffering because of current levels of mercury pollution. Indiana's mercury pollution is fourth highest in the nation, which is disproportionate given its population. Indiana has repeatedly been called the "new" Cancer Alley, and many top professionals do not want to accept job offers in Indiana because of the disproportionate threat of Indiana pollution, the third highest of all states in the nation overall. The serious mercury emissions only add to an already troubling problem. Many Indiana counties, like Lake, already are in the worst ten percent (10%) of U.S. counties in terms of total environmental pollutants released, in the worst ten percent (10%) of U.S. counties in terms of particulate matter less than two and five-tenths (2.5) microns, and in the worst ten percent (10%) of U.S. counties in terms of added cancer risk as a result of hazardous air pollutants. The APCB needs to act now to reduce pollution otherwise no desirable businesses will choose to come to Indiana. (UND)

Comment: Indiana's mercury rule needs to be at least as strong as the federal rule. Mercury has been found to be a catalyst for autism. (PMP)

Comment: As a citizen of the state of Indiana, the commenter is concerned about the public health effects of mercury emissions from coal burning power plants. Lack of regulations of these emissions puts Hoosiers at risk, especially youth. The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions by 2008. This is a vital step needed to protect Hoosier Health. (JFB)

Comment: The department should adopt a rule for ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from Indiana power plants. The commenter has 600 acres of land where as recently as the 1960s the water on that land could be used for swimming and fishing without harm, or maybe the commenter was unaware of the risks of chemical pollution at that time. The pollution risk was probably exponentially smaller back then. Indiana should do more to protect Indiana's lakes and streams and look out for neighbors in the east. Many or most of the Whitewater Valley Land Trust support tougher standards and the corresponding rise in electricity rates. (WVL)

Comment: The department should adopt a rule for ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from Indiana power plants. As the mother of two (2) young sons, the commenter can't comprehend that Indiana would be satisfied with a adopting a federal rule that doesn't meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. This issue is very important to Hoosier health and economics. It is not attractive to businesses or families to move to a polluted state. (AYC)

Comment: The department should adopt a rule for ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from Indiana power plants. It is nice to have a beautiful home and two (2) cars, but if you can't breathe the air or drink the water, what good are the benefits? (EFW)

Comment: The commenter supports a quick reduction of ninety percent (90%) of the level of mercury emitted to the air by utility and industrial coal fired sources. Testimony offered during the workgroup sessions clearly shows that such a reduction is practical, economical, and necessary to protect the health of Hoosiers. We must do whatever is necessary to eliminate mercury emissions or we will see a continual decline in the overall intelligence of Hoosiers and others unfortunate enough to live downwind of a mercury polluting facility. A new study, published in February of 2005, indicated that between three hundred sixteen thousand five hundred eighty-eight (316,588) and six hundred thirty-seven thousand two hundred thirty-three (637,233) children each year have cord blood mercury levels above five and eight-tenths (5.8) micrograms per liter (μ/L), a level associated with loss of IQ. The resulting loss of intelligence causes diminished economic productivity that persists over the entire life of these children. Since Indiana is a major emitter of mercury, it stands to reason that a proportionate number of Indiana of Indiana children are subject to this morbid statistic. In 2001, U.S. EPA estimated that a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions from coal fired power plants could be achieved by 2008 using technology that has significantly improved since that time. The commenter believes that the federal CAMR rule will be widely challenged and be remanded by the courts with instructions to regulate mercury both as a hazardous waste and using the system of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to get reductions instead of the ill conceived trading program that U.S. EPA proposed in their gift rule to coal fired electrical generators. All of the streams and lakes in Indiana carry fish consumptions advisories and many Indiana families continue to eat fish from these waters. Even reducing the level of emissions by ninety percent (90%) will still allow much of Indiana's fresh water resource to have mercury levels that will be enough to keep these fish consumption advisories in place. If we do not pursue an aggressive and timely effort to remove mercury from Indiana's water, more kids will be subject to inferior intelligence just so Indiana polluters can gain better profit or economic position. Indiana's mercury rule should include all unregulated sources of mercury in the state, not just coal fired power plants. (VWI)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions by 2008. Currently, mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants are unregulated, which puts families at risk. Indiana has a chance to really step up and adopt a strong policy on emissions regulations. (EBH)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions by 2008. Waiting till 2017 for a smaller reduction is embarrassing when available technology exists now to do the job. The commenter does not like the impact of mercury on Hoosier Health and does not like being ranked among the highest states for mercury emissions. This is a quality of life issue. The commenter fishes in many of the streams and lakes in Indiana, but does not contribute to any of the lake fish fries because of their impact on kid's health. (CKB)

Comment: The commenter has watched manufacturing companies flee this state in the last twenty (20) years and shares the concern for Indiana's ability to provide power cheaply from coal-burning plants. We have had cheap power, and still lose jobs to other states and countries. Cheap power is not the only answer. Indiana needs to have a workforce that doesn't sacrifice health, clean air, and clean water, in order to attract industry. Please address the mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants and protect the health of Indiana citizens. The technology is supposed to exist to provide for a ninety percent (90%) reduction in mercury emissions. The commenter is willing to pay a bit more for electricity. As a shareholder in Cinergy, AES, and Duke Power, those executives and directors could certainly sacrifice some of their egregiously inflated compensations to ensure that the best technology is installed to provide both jobs and good health for Hoosiers. Please set stringent mercury emissions standards to make Indiana a leader in clean power generation and perhaps neighboring states will follow suit. (MYB)

Comment: Indiana ranks fourth in the nation in the emissions of mercury from coal plants and nationwide one (1) in six (6) women has been exposed to enough of this toxin to seriously endanger the healthy development and delivery of her children. It is distressing that Indiana is currently debating whether or not to adopt the HEC petition that would reduce these dangerous emissions by ninety percent (90%). It is difficult to imagine why we would choose to adopt a policy that only reduces the mercury in the environment by seventy percent (70%) and not until 2025 according to U.S. EPA estimates. The costs of the HEC petition are nothing compared to the medical bills and emotional trauma, as well as damage to the environment that mercury emissions cause. The commenter requests that the department adopt the HEC petition and protect Hoosiers and children, born and unborn, from this unnecessary and avoidable threat. (LCG)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions by 2008 to safeguard the health of Indiana residents now and in the future. Power plant mercury emissions are currently unregulated and the department has the authority to change this situation. (MVS)

Comment: As an elementary special education teacher, the commenter is acutely aware of the dangers that mercury poses to a child's development. The commenter thinks a lot about the kind of environment that will be left to our children and their children. Why accept unnecessary risk to their health and well-being? The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) reduction of mercury emissions by 2008. (KAL)

Comment: As a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother, the commenter can think of no issue more important than mercury control. The department should give careful consideration of requiring stronger safeguards as soon as possible. The Indianapolis Star states that Indiana has the fourth highest rate of cancer deaths. The need for safeguards is certainly apparent. (BYW)

Comment: The department should adopt a stringent rule to regulate mercury pollution from coal fired power plants. Please assist, promote, devise, and better enforce laws and regulations to reduce mercury pollution from coal fired power plants in Indiana. (PTB)

Comment: The department should mandate a ninety percent (90%) decrease in mercury emissions to be in place by 2008. Society can "pay now" or "pay later" in terms of increased health care costs. Let's pay now! (SER)

Comment: The following commenters submitted comments in support of the HEC petition and were delivered by the Hoosier Environmental Council (HEC) to the department: (SAH) (CEC) (BAS) (JAK) (LAH) (KLM) (RAW) (RLK) (PMM) (JNS) (MEL) (SNS) (DDS) (EHJ) (BAS) (SHV) (CEA) (BEH) (MEP) (JNP) (JAT) (SMS) (RTW) (NNJ) (JNS) (LAS) (MSE) (RTR) (PAM) (KWS) (CT1) (MWM) (KNJ) (CYW) (CT2) (AW) (AE) (CT3) (CT4) (CLT) (CT5) (MNN) (JM) (BBR) (CT6) (LAN) (CT7) (CT8) (VAW) (GGS) (NSN) (MES) (CT9) (CT10) (MAC) (AAF) (CAY) (KNM) (DDB) (SHA) (AAA) (CT11) (JNB) (CT12) (LEM) (DDH) (TM) (BTW) (BTY) (JEP) (JES) (CT13) (AYC) (BYM) (NES) (CT14) (TNO) (MLM) (KYO) (JNS) (JHS) (KIS) (DYC) (JNS) (WMC) (EHC) (CT15) (BAR) (SNT) (RYT) (SYM) (TYS) (WMJ) (CT16) (CT17) (JAB) (HYS) (CT18) (CAR) (CT19) (CSB) (LEB) (RTN) (SNM) (CT20) (AYC) (BNW) (LAS) (TMR) (TEB) (JNW) (CRG) (AMS) (KNC) (CT21) (BNK) (CNW) (CT22) (RLS) (CT23) (BYU) (CT24) (LAW) (LAE) (JRH) (KEH) (AFK) (MKR) (CJF) (DEL) (SEW) (MMS) (CT25) (DPC) (JEC) (CAK) (KSG) (JNN) (KNC) (CT26) (NIL) (CT27) (HRC) (CT28) (JNC) (CT29) (KMC) (KNH) (PAH) (AYM) (JNM) (DAM) (CT30) (CT31) (JNW) (CRW) (CLW) (EYS) (MCS) (PLS) (NYT) (SYR) (RER) (SER) (KYR) (SYR) (RER) (SER) (JIF) (MLA) (CT32) (EDF) (LSK) (RNK) (JYM) (KEM) (JNK) (BBL) (SYL) (AXL) (TSW) (KNW) (BYD) (CYD) (JER) (ENH) (CT33) (RAT) (MKS) (GNS) (JNS) (KAS) (SKA) (CED) (DZD) (KDD) (LNF) (SMN) (DAL) (MKL) (VAL) (OAL) (CT34) (CT35) (CT36) (CEE) (CT37) (PJC) (CRW) (CNL) (SAL) (LAL) (AAL) (CGL) (CT38) (DNG) (CT39) (CEG) (ALE) (LOR) (NAT) (RAS) (EAS) (CAN) (JEB) (GAB) (KIS) (CT40) (MST) (CEO) (KNT) (KYT) (BKW) (CET) (SHL) (CET) (MLB) (JIS) (CT41) (JEH) (NYB) (AAA) (JRD) (BEB) (JEM) (JSM) (ENB) (BNM) (SNM) (BNM) (HYS) (JNS) (AWO) (PLM) (CT42) (CT43) (CT44) (MXS) (CT45) (SES) (JAN) (KEB) (MDB) (DEI) (SAF) (SAF) (FAB) (KEM) (SEC) (CLC) (TAS) (PED) (BNJ) (LAJ) (LNH) (JYM) (MRL) (KTM) (MLS) (SNA) (CAG) (CT46) (MLJ) (BAZ) (FKR) (CT47) (RTW) (CT48) (CT49) (JSF) (DAH) (JFG) (CT50) (PKH) (MES) (JBR) (MEL) (MYS) (TSP) (KES) (MAA) (TAA) (EYV) (CT51) (TMF) (LBM) (REM) (CEB) (KYE) (AWS) (MAJ) (LAK) (MAJ) (JNR) (PRC) (JNK) (CKH) (DMS) (SHA) (AST) (CT52) (AYP) (LIH) (CSH) (JER) (FEM) (CLJ) (LEL) (CT53) (MST) (DSH) (CT54) (SYJ) (CT55) (BEA) (NSE) (BYD) (JNP) (JYO) (JEK) (CT56) (MLR) (H) (C) (JIW) (JYC) (CT57) (MCS) (AYW) (KNS) (VEM) (AAH) (JKC) (KME) (ERC) (TYS) (CT58) (CAJ) (MFH) (KIT) (LAM) (RNL) (JAH) (BAH) (SES) (ELS) (TMR) (SEL) (CT59) (SEB) (KNV) (TAB) (PYM) (CT60) (RCB) (JAS) (CT61) (MAH) (LHD) (CT62) (AYW) (EHA) (SLA) (LAH) (CT63) (SAH) (GEU) (JSS) (BYB) (ENF) (KYE) (HTH) (MLB) (HEC) (CT64) (NKM) (JEH) (CYH) (TYM) (ETP) (TIO) (MEB) (CT65) (RAM) (MND) (JNE) (AYJ) (LMP) (GRP) (MVP) (CNT) (ENS) (RNK) (NIJ) (CRS) (BNM) (HNS) (AAS) (SLS) (GAS) (JLJ) (SAN) (NEF) (HDB) (PKC) (MNM) (MYW) (AEK) (SEO) (MES) (JYB) (JND) (CSJ) (SEQ) (RLJ) (DEW) (JNG) (JTS) (NEP) (BNV) (CYH) (JEC) (MEM) (FEG) (SNG) (SNB) (JTB) (ETS) (CT66) (CT67) (TNW) (AES) (CT68) (CT69) (CT70) (CT71) (CT72) (CT73) (CT74) (CT75) (CT76) (MEO) (CBR) (KYK) (TDE) (AAW) (DBF) (MKD) (A) (L) (LDG) (SNS) (DAL) (JRT) (HND) (DAS) (SHK) (SNS) (JNW) (KNG) (JTT) (LSM) (PJW) (MYF) (GTN) (BIS) (BAM) (CT77) (MAA) (JHV) (DDW) (MAO) (KYM) (CEC) (LAC) (CT78) (KEH) (TYR) (AAC) (DEK) (KNS) (RAB) (MYB) (GYL) (DBM) (JSJ) (BJW) (JJG) (RAD) (MLB) (KNF) (DSD) (RAW) (JH) (CLW) (CT79) (KET) (JEH) (RTH) (JYB) (DDB) (CNH) (R) (MWT) (MNW) (DHY) (LRS) (PAC) (SBM) (DAD) (HEH) (TML) (CYP) (VAM) (GGE) (CT80) (CT81) (CT82) (CT83) (CT84) (CT85) (CT86) (CT87) (AWL) (JFN) (DNM) (CT88) (SNH) (DYC) (RAO) (NKS) (DAF) (CYS) (TAB) (CT89) (CT90) (HRG) (CT91) (CED) (GND) (MTJ) (TRW) (CT92) (LLR) (CT93) (CT94) (CT95) (DAC) (RHE) (SID) (LYH) (CRG) (CT96) (CT97) (DES) (CT98) (JCE) (CT99) (CT100) (CT101) (JRA) (DAD) (JLW) (CSH) (CT102) (CT103) (MYW) (K) (VEB) (SES) (CT104) (CSD) (CJL) (TMP) (JSS) (CT105) (SEF) (CNM) (JNM) (VAG) (CSB) (NSS) (CT106) (DEK) (CT107) (CT108) (AYB) (CT109) (AEK) (MEK) (DNG) (BNM) (MAS) (JAW) (CT110) (CT111) (KNP) (SHK) (CT112) (CT113) (BNS) (CT114) (AAM) (CT115) (SES) (CTA) (RMF) (JSW) (DSR) (BNG) (CT116) (HSM) (LAB) (CT117) (KNS) (EHC) (AEF) (RDS) (CT118) (BAG) (GGA) (CNS) (JLJ) (SID) (KYB) (AS) (DAN) (CFC) (ECL) (CT119) (RHS) (CT120) (KMF) (EDB) (SAR) (ECF) (GYN) (ECG) (JMB) (NNL) (AYW) (CT121) (JYK) (CT122) (MKM) (AYC) (CT123) (MNM) (CT124) (BHL) (TMH) (GEK) (PMS) (LIT) (CJM) (RKC) (RNL) (CLS) (LAS) (KU) (ML) (CT125) (CT126) (CT127) (LAD) (CEH) (DNS) (KYS) (JNS) (BSS) (BNW) (SVB) (NER) (GMT) (EHK) (CN) (AEM) (RNB) (RRD) (WRS) (TYH) (AAB) (SEJ) (SHY) (SNB) (CSF) (NJC) (JED) (DSW) (RMM) (CT128) (RLF) (EEH) (GEL) (MEB) (KMM) (DNS) (JEM) (CDP) (SRP) (PAC) (CT129) (CT130) (CT131) (CT132) (MES) (CT133) (DEW) (BSS) (LBW) (RYR) (RCH) (GAG) (RDF) (SEM) (CT134) (CT135) (RAR) (MYM) (BLG) (TYB) (ARS) (LAL) (DEE) (JCB) (CAK) (BDA) (MEB) (CEC) (CT136) (CT137) (PRW) (CT138) (BHN) (CT139) (TPS) (KHL) (BES) (BEP) (JKP) (JME) (CLH) (TMB) (MEM) (LAP) (DHY) (JEU) (KMP) (AAS) (HAD) (SLC) (KNM) (AAD) (KYG) (MEB) (CYN) (JNM) (JYW) (KNF) (JB) (FSW) (VLS) (JRB) (JNM) (DAH) (BNL) (EDG) (RAL) (PG) (JEL) (BLT) (DEQ) (RLL) (DWA) (JAD) (HIS) (BNB) (RLS) (CT140) (MNP) (KNB) (MKC) (GMT) (JET) (MTS) (CT141) (DDR) (HRR) (DDR) (TYH) (LAF) (DSK) (BYT) (SAG) (DKH) (SNO) (BM) (SEJ) (JDS) (KDK) (CT142) (JBG) (JSS) (GEV) (MBR) (MTS) (CT143) (LNB) (CT144) (ATK) (MEO) (KYH) (CT145) (CT146) (WIM) (DSC) (CT147) (EAB) (LAM) (JAK) (DDH) (CT148) (CT149) (DBD) (PLC) (CT150) (CT151) (CT152) (RAB) (HRM) (EHM) (PMH) (CIH) (KAW) (JYJ) (JSS) (ALP) (CT153) (JRM) (ANH) (MAB) (KNB) (CLS) (SNF) (CT154) (CEL) (SYF) (BM) (JRD) (BC) (LIR) (KNB) (ZJN) (RDT) (CT155) (CT156) (CT157) (CT158) (FDO) (SNM) (CT159) (MED) (JYJ) (CT160) (CT161) (SAD) (MAD) (BHB) (TLW) (CT162) (NNK) (CT163) (CT164) (RNS) (MLH) (LMN) (LAB) (CES) (HJR) (CT165) (BYM) (SK) (RHP) (JRJ) (SEC) (JSR) (DHS) (VLS) (RAN) (PLW) (CT166) (JE) (JSS) (CT167) (JEJ) (CT168) (ASN) (PMS) (BAO) (JIS) (CT169) (PLC) (TMH) (AEC) (MNC) (NYC) (MA) (DNY) (AYY) (GEY) (AAD) (BJNS) (DPH) (CT170) (MYJ) (CT171) (CT172) (PYH) (XQT) (CJY) (WRD) (CT173) (CT174) (JBY) (BYM) (DYE) (CT175) (THJ) (DAJ) (CT176) (RHT) (DHB) (CT177) (JSS) (RAP) (KNB) (GM) (JEJ) (DGR) (KEL) (CT178) (DDW) (JFB) (DDW) (ANG) (JDE) (RYS) (KEF) (CNR) (CT179) (CT180) (ND) (HRD) (ER) (CT181) (AWH) (KNC) (LAM) (LRS) (CLW) (JTC) (CT182) (CT183) (DR) (CT184) (CT185) (KHG) (CT186) (NIS) (BAS) (CT187) (BNJ) (JSS) (AEB) (RDM) (KEM) (JNM) (EHE) (CEW) (CT188) (CEG) (HRV) (MLZ) (JNB) (SNJ) (KNC) (JNF) (CT189) (DEG) (RYT) (LEV) (KYJ) (CSS) (DNS) (LWS) (MJM) (CT190) (JYG) (DAS) (MSM) (LAC) (DEE) (CT191) (JNG) (LAG) (CT192) (CT193) (CT194) (SAC) (CT195) (CT196) (JNK) (MLL) (CT197) (CT198) (CT199) (CT200) (NYS) (DEM) (LAB) (DDW) (SYW) (RDG) (KNF) (FAM) (SNB) (TAP) (JYW) (JNH) (JRY) (BB) (CEH) (RTH) (MWH) (CT201) (STL) (ICP) (EAP) (IQP) (SIS) (WYG) (SNK) (KHK) (KSE) (JES) (CLT) (SES) (CT202) (JCL) (JTM) (CT203) (CT204) (KEL) (CT205) (AEW) (CT206) (GKM) (LYS) (VLO) (JSW) (KEP) (CT207) (CT208) (CT209) (CT210) (EHM) (CT211) (SYA) (CT212) (CT213) (AAG) (JYS) (SYB) (PRS) (AYM) (A) (CT214) (AAH) (DLJ) (KYS) (CT215) (SMP)

Response: IDEM has drafted rule language that incorporates the federal model CAMR with changes to the allocation methodology. IDEM will continue to work with stakeholders to identify ways that the concerns of HEC and the public can be addressed in this rulemaking. As previously explained in the background, due to uncertainties over the achievability of 90% control, reductions in actual mercury exposure levels, cardiovascular health effects, and the low benefit/cost ratio, IDEM is proceeding with a rulemaking based on CAMR.

(1) Sue, Y.J. Chapter 81 - Mercury. in Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies 7^th ed. 2002, McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing.

(2) Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 2000.

(3) Grandjean, P., et al. Cognitive deficit in 7-year-old children with prenatal exposure to methylmercury, Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1997: 19(6):417-428.

(4) Murata K, et al. Delayed brainstem auditory evoked potential latencies in 14 year old children exposed to methylmercury. J Pediatr 2004 Feb;144(2):177-83.

(5) Grandjean P, et al. Cognitive performance of children prenatally exposed to "safe" levels of methylmercury. Environ Res 1998 May;77(2):165-72.

(6) Crump KS, et al. Influence of prenatal mercury exposure upon scholastic and psychological test performance: benchmark analysis of a New Zealand cohort. Risk Anal 1998 Dec; 18(6):701-13.

(7) Megan Weil, et al. Blood mercury levels and neurobehavioral function. JAMA. 2005;293:1875-1882.

(8) Cox, C., et al. 1989. Dose-response analysis of infants prenatally exposed to methyl mercury: An application of a single compartment model to single-strand hair analysis. Environ. Res. 49(2):318-332

(9) Steuerwald, U., et al. Maternal seafood diet, methylmercury exposure, and neonatal neurological function. J. Pediatr. 2000;136(5):599-605

(10) Kjellström, T., et al. 1989. Physical and Mental Development of Children with Prenatal Exposure to Mercury from Fish. National Swedish Environmental Protection Board Report No. 3642

(11) Salonen, J.T., et al. Intake of mercury from fish, lipid peroxidation, and the risk of myocardial infarction and coronary, cardiovascular and any death in Eastern Finnish men. Circulation1995;91:645-655.

(12) Guallar, E., et al. Mercury, fish oils and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med 2002;347:1747-1754.

(13) Yoshizawa K., et al. Mercury and the risk of coronary heart disease in men. N Eng J Med 2002;347:1755-1760.

(14) Salonen, J.T., et al. Mercury accumulation and accelerated progression of carotid atherosclerosis: a population-based prospective 4-year follow-up study in men in eastern Finland. Atherosclerosis 2000;148:265-273.

(15) Second National Report of Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; 2002.

(16) Toxics Release Inventory. www.epa.gov/tri.

(17) The lethal dose of methylmercury is one gram. Takizawa, Y.  &  A. Sekikawa. "Epidemiology of Minamata Disease". 2001. Slide presentation, www.pitt.edu. One gram of mercury completely converted would make 1.62 grams of methylmercury (Periodic Table of the Elements).

(18) The ISDH Fish Consumption Advisory sets the limit for no consumption by women of childbearing years or children at 0.66 ppm mercury or greater. Personal communication with ISDH staff 317-233-7162.

(19) Trasande, L et al. Public health and economic consequences of methylmercury toxicity to the developing brain. Environ Health Perspectives 2005;113:590-596. See attached abstract. The full paper is available at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7743/7743.html

(20) Hammitt, JK and G Rice. Economic valuation of human health benefits of controlling mercury emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants. Feb 2005. Report by NESCAUM and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. See attached executive summary. The full paper is available at http://bronze.nescaum.org/airtopics/mercury/rpt050315mercuryhealth.pdf

(21) National Wildlife Foundation. 'State Profile: Indiana' from Getting the Job Done: Affordable mercury control at coal burning power plants. Oct 2004. Copy attached. Also available at http://nwf.org/nwfwebadmin/binaryVault/GettingTheJobDoneReport.pdf

(22) Comments to the EPA on Docket #OAR-2002-0056 from the Institute of Clean Air Companies. Available at icac.com under "mercury control technology information".

(23) USGS. Atmospheric mercury deposition during the last 270 years: A glacial ice core record of natural and anthropogenic sources. Environmental Science and Technology, 2002; 36: 2302-2310. Figure from this paper is attached.

(24) Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Integrating atmospheric mercury deposition with aquatic cycling in South Florida. 2002

(25) www.dep.state.fl.us/secretary/news/2003/nov/1106.htm.

(26) Hrabik, T.R. and C.J. Watras. Recent declines in mercury concentration in a freshwater fishery: isolating the effects of de-acidification and decreased atmospheric mercury deposition in Little Rock Lake. Science of the Total Environment 2002; 297:229-237.

(27) U.S. EPA. Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment. Volume III of Mercury Study Report to Congress. Dec 1997 (452/R-97-005). See attached map from this EPA document.

(28) Cohen, Mark. Source-attribution for atmospheric mercury deposition. Presentation to the IDEM Mercury Workgroup, April 2005.

(29) Seigneur et al. Global source attribution for mercury deposition in the United States. E, S, and T 2004;34:555-569.

(30) U.S. EPA. Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Electric Utility Boilers. 2002, 600/R-01-109.

(31) http://www.epa.gov/mercury/

(32) Cain, Alexis. Clean Air Mercury Rule: Trading program overview. Presentation to the IDEM Mercury Workgroup, April 2005.

(33) Durham, M.D. Cost and Performance of Sorbent-Based Mercury Control for Coal-fired Boilers. Presentation to the IDEM Mercury Workgroup, February 2005.

(34) Lipman, Z. Mercury Control Technologies. Presentation to the IDEM Mercury Workgroup, November 2004.

This notice requests the submission of comments on the draft rule language, including suggestions for specific revisions to language to be contained in the draft rule. Mailed comments should be addressed to:

#05-116(APCB) Mercury Rule

Susan Bem Mail Code 61-50

c/o Administrative Assistant

Rules Development Section

Office of Air Quality

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

100 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Comments may be submitted by facsimile at the IDEM fax number: (317) 233-2342, Monday through Friday, between 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. Please confirm the timely receipt of faxed comments by calling the Rules Development Section at (317) 233-0426.

Comments must be postmarked, faxed, or hand delivered by February 16, 2007.

Additional information regarding this action may be obtained from Susan Bem, Rules Development Section, Office of Air Quality, (317) 233-5697 or (800) 451-6027 (in Indiana).

SECTION 1. 326 IAC 24, PROPOSED TO BE ADDED AT 20060809-IR-326050117PRA, SECTION 5, IS AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW RULE TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 1. (a) This rule establishes a mercury emissions budget and mercury trading program for coal-fired generating units. The following units shall be mercury budget units, and any source that includes one (1) or more such units shall be a mercury budget source and shall be subject to the requirements of this rule, except as provided in subsection (b):

(b) Units that meet the following requirements shall not be mercury budget units:

*These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the Government Printing Office, 732 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20401 or are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Affected: IC 13-11-2; IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 2. For purposes of this rule, the definition given for a term in this rule shall control in any conflict between 326 IAC 1-2 and this rule. In addition to the definitions provided in IC 13-11-2 and 326 IAC 1-2, the following definitions apply throughout this rule, unless expressly stated otherwise or unless the context clearly implies otherwise:

*These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the Government Printing Office, 732 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20401 or are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

**These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 3. (a) This section applies to any mercury budget unit that is permanently retired.

(b) Any mercury budget unit that is permanently retired shall be exempt from the mercury budget trading program, except for the provisions of this section and sections 1, 2, 4(c)(4) through 4(c)(7), 5, 6, 8(a), 9, and 10 of this rule.

(c) The exemption under this section shall become effective the day on which the mercury budget unit is permanently retired. Within thirty (30) days of the unit's permanent retirement, the mercury designated representative shall submit a statement to the department and shall submit a copy of the statement to the U.S. EPA. The statement shall state, in a format prescribed by the department, that the unit:

(d) After receipt of the statement under subsection (c), the department shall amend any permit under section 7 of this rule covering the source at which the unit is located to add the provisions and requirements of the exemption under subsections (b) and (e).

(e) A unit exempt under this section shall comply with the following provisions:

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 4. (a) The owners and operators and mercury designated representative of each mercury budget source and mercury budget unit shall comply with the following permit requirements:

(b) The owners and operators and mercury designated representative of each mercury budget source and mercury budget unit shall comply with the following monitoring, reporting, and record keeping requirements:

(c) The owners and operators and mercury designated representative of each mercury budget source shall comply with the following mercury emission requirements:

(d) If a mercury budget source emits mercury during any control period in excess of the mercury budget emissions limitation, then:

(e) Owners and operators of each mercury budget source and each mercury budget unit at the source shall comply with the following record keeping and reporting requirements:

(f) The owners and operators of each mercury budget source and each mercury budget unit shall be liable as follows:

(g) No provision of:

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 5. (a) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the mercury budget trading program, to begin on the occurrence of an act or event shall begin on the day the act or event occurs.

(b) Unless otherwise stated, any time period scheduled, under the mercury budget trading program, to begin before the occurrence of an act or event shall be computed so that the period ends the day before the act or event occurs.

(c) Unless otherwise stated, if the final day of any time period, under the mercury budget trading program, falls on a weekend or a state or federal holiday, the time period shall be extended to the next business day.

(d) The appeal procedures for decisions of the U.S. EPA under the mercury budget trading program will follow those procedures set forth in 40 CFR 78*.

*These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the Government Printing Office, 732 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20401 or are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 6. (a) Except as provided under subsection (f), each mercury budget source, including all mercury budget units at the source, shall have one (1) and only one (1) mercury designated representative, with regard to all matters under the mercury budget trading program concerning the source or any mercury budget unit at the source.

(b) The mercury designated representative of the mercury budget source shall:

(c) Upon receipt by the U.S. EPA of a complete certificate of representation under subsection (h), the mercury designated representative of the source shall represent and, by his or her representations, actions, inactions, or submissions, legally bind each owner and operator of the mercury budget source represented and each mercury budget unit at the source in all matters pertaining to the mercury budget trading program, notwithstanding any agreement between the mercury designated representative and such owners and operators. The owners and operators shall be bound by any decision or order issued to the mercury designated representative by the department, the U.S. EPA, or a court regarding the source or unit.

(d) No:

(e) The following shall apply to submissions made under the mercury budget trading program:

(f) The following shall apply where the owners or operators of a mercury budget source choose to designate an alternate mercury designated representative:

(g) The following shall apply when changing the mercury designated representative or the alternate mercury designated representative or when there are changes in the owners or operators:

(h) A complete certificate of representation for a mercury designated representative or an alternate mercury designated representative shall include the following elements in a format prescribed by the U.S. EPA:

(i) The following shall apply to objections concerning the mercury designated representative:

(j) The following shall apply to delegation by the mercury designated representative and alternate mercury designated representative:

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 7. (a) For each mercury budget source required to have a Part 70 operating permit, such permit shall include a mercury budget permit administered by the department as follows:

(b) The requirements for the submission of mercury budget permit applications are as follows:

(c) A complete mercury budget permit application shall include the following elements concerning the mercury budget source for which the application is submitted, in a format prescribed by the department:

(d) Each mercury budget permit shall contain, in a format prescribed by the department, all elements required for a complete mercury budget permit application under subsection (c).

(e) Each mercury budget permit is deemed to incorporate automatically the definitions of terms under section 2 of this rule and, upon recordation by the U.S. EPA under sections 8 through 10 of this rule, every allocation, transfer, or deduction of a mercury allowance to or from the compliance account of the mercury budget source covered by the permit.

(f) The term of the mercury budget permit shall be set by the department, as necessary to facilitate coordination of the renewal of the mercury budget permit with issuance, revision, or renewal of the mercury budget source's Part 70 operating permit.

(g) Except as provided in subsection (e), the department shall revise the mercury budget permit, as necessary, in accordance with the permit modification and revision provisions under 326 IAC 2-7.

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 8. (a) The trading budget allocated by the department under subsections (d) through (f) for each control period shall equal the mercury allowances apportioned to the mercury budget units under section 1 of this rule, as determined by the procedures in this section. The total number of mercury allowances available for annual allocation of mercury allowances under this rule is sixty-seven thousand one hundred four (67,104) ounces in 2010 through 2017 and twenty-six thousand four hundred ninety-six (26,496) ounces in 2018 and thereafter, apportioned as follows:

(b) The department shall allocate mercury allowances to mercury budget units according to the following schedule:

(c) The baseline heat input, in million British thermal units (MMBtu), used with respect to mercury allocations under subsection (d) for each mercury budget unit shall be as follows:

(d) For each control period in 2010 and thereafter, the department shall allocate to all mercury budget units that have a baseline heat input, as determined under subsection (c), a total amount of mercury allowances equal to the amount in subsection (a)(1), except as provided in subsection (f). The department shall allocate mercury allowances to each mercury budget unit in an amount determined by multiplying the total amount of mercury allowances under subsection (a)(1) by the ratio of the baseline heat input of such mercury budget unit to the total amount of baseline heat input of all such mercury budget units and rounding to the nearest whole allowance as appropriate.

(e) For each control period in 2010 and thereafter, the department shall allocate mercury allowances to mercury budget units that commenced operation on or after January 1, 2001, and do not yet have a baseline heat input, as determined under subsection (c), in accordance with the following procedures:

(f) If, after completion of the procedures under subsection (e)(4) for a control period, any unallocated mercury allowances remain in the new unit set-aside for the control period, the department shall allocate to each mercury budget unit that was allocated mercury allowances under subsection (d) an amount of mercury allowances equal to the total amount of such remaining unallocated mercury allowances, multiplied by the unit's allocation under subsection (d), divided by:

*These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the Government Printing Office, 732 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20401 or are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 9. (a) Upon receipt of a complete certificate of representation under section 6(h) of this rule, the U.S. EPA will establish a compliance account for the mercury budget source for which the certificate of representation was submitted unless the source already has a compliance account.

(b) Any person may apply to open a general account for the purpose of holding and transferring mercury allowances. An application for a general account may designate one (1) and only one (1) mercury authorized account representative and one (1) and only one (1) alternate mercury authorized account representative who may act on behalf of the mercury authorized account representative. The agreement by which the alternate mercury authorized account representative is selected shall include a procedure for authorizing the alternate mercury authorized account representative to act in lieu of the mercury authorized account representative. The establishment of a general account shall be subject to the following:

(c) The U.S. EPA will assign a unique identifying number to each account established under subsection (a) or (b).

(d) Following the establishment of a mercury allowance tracking system account, all submissions to the U.S. EPA pertaining to the account, including, but not limited to, submissions concerning the deduction or transfer of mercury allowances in the account, shall be made only by the mercury authorized account representative for the account.

(e) The U.S. EPA will record in the mercury budget source's compliance account the mercury allowances allocated for the mercury budget units at a source, as submitted by the department in accordance with section 8(b)(1) of this rule, for the control periods in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.

(f) By December 1, 2009, and every six (6) years thereafter, the U.S. EPA will record in the mercury budget source's compliance account the mercury allowances allocated for the mercury budget units at the source, as submitted by the department in accordance with section 8(b)(2) of this rule, for the control periods seven (7), eight (8), nine (9), ten (10), eleven (11), and twelve (12) years after the allowance allocation.

(g) By December 1, 2010, and December 1 of each year thereafter, the U.S. EPA will record in the mercury budget source's compliance account the mercury allowances allocated for the mercury budget units at the source, as submitted by the department in accordance with section 8(b)(3) of this rule, for the control period in the year of the applicable deadline for recordation under this subsection.

(h) When recording the allocation of mercury allowances for a mercury budget unit in a compliance account, the U.S. EPA will assign each mercury allowance a unique identification number that will include digits identifying the year of the control period for which the mercury allowance is allocated.

(i) Mercury allowances are available to be deducted for compliance with a source's mercury budget emissions limitation for a control period in a given calendar year only if the mercury allowances:

(j) The following shall apply to deductions for purposes of compliance with a source's emissions limitations:

(k) Mercury allowances may be banked for future use or transfer in a compliance account or a general account. Any mercury allowance that is held in a compliance account or a general account will remain in such account unless and until the mercury allowance is deducted or transferred under subsection (i), (j), or (l) or section 10 of this rule.

(l) The U.S. EPA may, at its sole discretion and on its own motion, correct any error in any mercury allowance tracking system account. Within ten (10) business days of making such correction, the U.S. EPA will notify the mercury authorized account representative for the account.

(m) The mercury authorized account representative of a general account may submit to the U.S. EPA a request to close the account, which shall include a correctly submitted allowance transfer under section 10(a) through 10(d) of this rule for any mercury allowances in the account to one (1) or more other mercury allowance tracking system accounts.

(n) If a general account has no allowance transfers in or out of the account for a twelve (12) month period or longer and does not contain any mercury allowances, the U.S. EPA may notify the mercury authorized account representative for the account that the account will be closed following twenty (20) business days after the notice is sent. The account will be closed after the twenty (20) day period unless, before the end of the twenty (20) day period, the U.S. EPA receives a:

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 10. (a) A mercury authorized account representative seeking recordation of a mercury allowance transfer shall submit the transfer to the U.S. EPA. To be considered correctly submitted, the mercury allowance transfer shall include the following elements, in a format specified by the U.S. EPA:

(b) Within five (5) business days, except as provided in subsection (c), of receiving a mercury allowance transfer, the U.S. EPA will record a mercury allowance transfer by moving each mercury allowance from the transferor account to the transferee account as specified by the request, provided the following:

(c) A mercury allowance transfer that is submitted for recordation after the allowance transfer deadline for a control period and that includes any mercury allowances allocated for any control period before such allowance transfer deadline will not be recorded until after the U.S. EPA completes the deductions under section 9(i) and 9(j) of this rule for the control period immediately before such allowance transfer deadline.

(d) Where a mercury allowance transfer submitted for recordation fails to meet the requirements of subsection (b), the U.S. EPA will not record such transfer.

(e) The following notification requirements shall apply to mercury allowance transfers:

(f) Nothing in this section shall preclude the submission of a mercury allowance transfer for recordation following notification of nonrecordation.

Affected: IC 13-15; IC 13-17

Sec. 11. (a) The owners and operators, and to the extent applicable, the mercury designated representative, of a mercury budget unit, shall comply with the monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements as provided in this section and 40 CFR 75, Subpart I*. For purposes of complying with such requirements, the definitions in section 2 of this rule and in 40 CFR 72.2* shall apply, and the terms "affected unit", "designated representative", and "continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)" in 40 CFR 75* shall be deemed to refer to the terms "mercury budget unit", "mercury designated representative", and "continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)", respectively, as defined in section 2 of this rule. The owner or operator of a unit that is not a mercury budget unit but that is monitored under 40 CFR 75.82(b)(2)(i)* shall comply with the same monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements as a mercury budget unit.

(b) The owner or operator of each mercury budget unit shall do the following:

(c) Except as provided in subsection (f), the owner or operator shall meet the monitoring system certification and other requirements of subsection (b) on or before the following dates. The owner or operator shall record, report, and quality-assure the data from the monitoring systems under subsection (b)(1) on and after the following dates:

(d) Except as provided in subdivision (2), the owner or operator of a mercury budget unit that does not meet the applicable compliance date set forth in subsection (c) for any monitoring system under subsection (b)(1) shall, for each such monitoring system, determine, record, and report maximum potential or, as appropriate, minimum potential, values for mercury concentration, stack gas flow rate, stack gas moisture content, and any other parameters required to determine mercury mass emissions and heat input in accordance with 40 CFR 75.80(g)*.

(e) The following shall apply to any monitoring system, alternative monitoring system, alternative reference method, or any other alternative for a CEMS required under this rule:

(f) The owner or operator of a mercury unit is subject to the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 75* concerning units in long term cold storage.

(g) The owner or operator of a mercury budget unit shall be exempt from the initial certification requirements of this section for a monitoring system under subsection (b)(1) if the following conditions are met:

(h) Except as provided in subsection (g), the owner or operator of a mercury budget unit shall comply with the following initial certification and recertification procedures for a continuous monitoring system (that is, a CEMS and an excepted monitoring system (sorbent trap monitoring system) under 40 CFR 75.15*) under subsection (b)(1). The owner or operator of a unit that qualifies to use the mercury low mass emissions excepted monitoring methodology under 40 CFR 75.81(b)* or that qualifies to use an alternative monitoring system under 40 CFR 75, Subpart E* shall comply with the procedures in subsection (i) or (j) respectively.

(i) The owner or operator of a unit qualified to use the mercury low mass emissions (HgLME) excepted methodology under 40 CFR 75.81(b)* shall meet the applicable certification and recertification requirements in 40 CFR 75.81(c) through 40 CFR 75.81(f)*.

(j) The mercury designated representative of each unit for which the owner or operator intends to use an alternative monitoring system approved by the U.S. EPA under 40 CFR 75, Subpart E*, shall comply with the applicable notification and application procedures of 40 CFR 75.20(f)*.

(k) Whenever any monitoring system fails to meet the quality-assurance and quality-control requirements or data validation requirements of 40 CFR 75*, data shall be substituted using the applicable missing data procedures in 40 CFR 75, Subpart D*.

(l) Whenever both an audit of a monitoring system and a review of the initial certification or recertification application reveal that any monitoring system should not have been certified or recertified because it did not meet a particular performance specification or other requirement under subsections (g) through (j) or the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 75*, both at the time of the initial certification or recertification application submission and at the time of the audit, the department will issue a notice of disapproval of the certification status of such monitoring system. For the purposes of this subsection, an audit shall be either a field audit or an audit of any information submitted to the department or the U.S. EPA. By issuing the notice of disapproval, the department revokes, prospectively, the certification status of the monitoring system. The data measured and recorded by the monitoring system shall not be considered valid quality-assured data from the date of issuance of the notification of the revoked certification status until the date and time that the owner or operator completes subsequently approved initial certification or recertification tests for the monitoring system. The owner or operator shall follow the applicable initial certification or recertification procedures in subsections (g) through (j) for each disapproved monitoring system.

(m) The mercury designated representative for a mercury budget unit shall submit written notice to the department and the U.S. EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 75.61*.

(n) The mercury designated representative shall comply with all record keeping and reporting requirements in this subsection, the applicable record keeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 75.84*, and the requirements of section 6(e)(1) of this rule as follows:

(o) The mercury designated representative of a mercury budget unit may submit a petition under 40 CFR 75.66* to the U.S. EPA requesting approval to apply an alternative to any requirement of this section. Application of an alternative to any requirement of this section is in accordance with this section only to the extent that the petition is approved in writing by the U.S. EPA, in consultation with the department.

*These documents are incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the Government Printing Office, 732 North Capitol Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20401 or are available for review and copying at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Air Quality, Indiana Government Center-North, Tenth Floor, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.

Notice of Public Hearing

DIN: 20070117-IR-326050116SNA

Composed: May 04,2024 4:38:10PM EDT

A PDF version of this document.