2 Mercury in the Environment: the Problems, the Risks, and the Consequences, The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, Annapolis Maryland, May 2003, Figure 1, from U. S. Geological Survey Circular 1197.
3 Mercury in the Environment: the Problems, the Risks, and the Consequences, The Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, Annapolis Maryland, May 2003, page 2.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury Study: Report to Congress, EPA-452/R-97-003, December 1997, Volume II, pages 3-9.
5 C. Seigneur, et al., Global Source Attribution for Mercury Deposition in the United States, Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, pages 555-569 (2004).
6 Michigan Mercury Electric Utility Workgroup Final Report on Mercury Emissions from Coal-fired Power Plants, June 20, 2005.
7 Ibid., page 56.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mercury Maps: A Quantitative Spatial Link Between Air Deposition and Fish Tissue — Peer Reviewed Final Report, EPA 823/R-01-009, September 2001.
10 F. Lipfert et al., Methylmercury, Fish Consumption, and the Precautionary Principle, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 55, pages 388-398 (2005).
11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Air Mercury Rule, EPA-452/R-05-003, March 2005.
12 "State proposes mercury rule stricter than EPA’s," Booth Newspapers, April 18, 2006.
13 Michigan Mercury Electric Utility Workgroup Report, June 2005.
14 Centers for Disease Control, Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, January 2003.
15 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers: An Update, February 2005.
16 A utility would be given additional time to comply if its emissions control technology is installed but testing fails to demonstrate compliance. Additional time would also be provided if a power plant demonstrates that the incremental cost of surpassing the federal requirements exceeds a fixed percentage of the utility’s revenue.