1. Jeffrey C Quick, Utah Geological Survey http://geology.utah.gov/emp/mercury/index.htm Sara Pletcher, Project Manager National Energy Technology Laboratory Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting Salt Lake City, Utah 16-19 October 2005 This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Technology-Specific Mercury Emissions from Coal Combustion by U.S. County of Origin

2. 25,825 records ICR 2 data (1999) 19,507 records FERC 423 data (1999) 5,823 records FERC 580 data (1992 to 1999) 5,059 records COALQUAL data (1973 to 1989) Bragg, L.J., and others 1997, U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 97-134. 1,342 records MSHA data (1999) 73 records DOE-PSU data (1985 to 1995) Davis, A., and Glick, D.C., 1993, U.S. DOE contract DE-RP22-87PC79997 Scaroni, A.W., and others, 1999, U.S. DOE contract DE-AC22-93PC93051 Coal Data

3. 240 records ICR 3 data (1999) SAIC 2003, Calculation of possible mercury MACT floor values for coal- fired utilities - influence of variability and approach. ENSR 2003, Multivariable method to estimate the mercury emissions of the best-performing coal-fired utility units. Roberson 2002, UARG variability analysis. 561 records CEA data Canadian Electricity Association, preliminary Oct. 2004 data Utility Data

5. Mercury Out Stack (lbs Hg per 10 12 Btu)

6. Mercury Capture

7. 1,5002,000 Mercury Capture

8. Chlorine in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data Chlorine in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data

9. Sulfur in U.S. Coal 1999 FERC 423 data Sulfur in U.S. Coal 1999 FERC 423 data

10. for units with cold ESP/FGD emission controls Estimated % Hg capture, by coal origin

11. Mercury in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data Mercury in U.S. Coal 1999 ICR data

12. Estimated Hg emissions, by coal origin 19% of power plants in 1999 for units with cold ESP/FGD emission controls

13. 2010: 38 ton cap 2018: 15 ton cap States given tradable, mercury emission allowances in proportion to the amount of coal they burn, adjusted for coal rank x 1 Bituminous, x 1.25 Subbituminous x 3 Lignite 2010: 38 ton cap 2018: 15 ton cap States given tradable, mercury emission allowances in proportion to the amount of coal they burn, adjusted for coal rank x 1 Bituminous, x 1.25 Subbituminous x 3 Lignite The New Cap-and-Trade Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) The New Cap-and-Trade Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR)

14. % Mercury Capture Cenozoic-Mesozoic Coal Mercury capture varies with Geologic Age - Not Coal Rank Mercury capture varies with Geologic Age - Not Coal Rank All U.S. Coal Modified from: State of Utah comment to EPA Docket: OAR-2002-0056-5411 Modified from: State of Utah comment to EPA Docket: OAR-2002-0056-5411

15. Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (1): target Hg emission rates depend on where the coal is burned Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (1): target Hg emission rates depend on where the coal is burned Assumes no trading, no banking, and no change to the amount of coal burned

16. Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (2): target % Hg capture further depends on how much mercury is in the coal Result of the CAMR Rank Adjustment (2): target % Hg capture further depends on how much mercury is in the coal Assumes no trading, no banking, and no change to the amount or quality of coal burned