Power plant pollution
Mar 26 - Tulsa World
Industry's mercury plan has inside track at EPA
High doses of mercury can cause neurological damage, prompting the government
to warn last week that some fish in which the toxic chemical accumulates can
pose a hazard to children and to women who are pregnant or nursing.
Three months ago the Environmental Protection Agency offered two options for
reducing the 48 annual tons of mercury emitted from 1,100 coal-burning power
plants, the largest source of the pollution. One favored reliance on a
short-term technology; the other on long-term market forces through which
companies could buy rights to continue polluting from companies that do more
than is required.
But studies co-sponsored by the Department of Energy and the utility industry
have found there was no existing technology to remove mercury equally well from
various types and grades of coal. EPA officials say that makes the first option
to reduce the pollution to 34 tons by 2008 less feasible.
That leaves the second strategy -- endorsed by industry -- that would
establish a nationwide cap of 15 tons on mercury pollution by 2018 by phasing in
lower ceilings on each plant's pollution. Plants that reduce their pollution
below a yet-to-be-determined ceiling for each one could then sell credits to
plants that don't.
"The debate is what's the best option, given the available technology.
And we think that, given the state of technology, cap- and-trade is better --
and we're leaning that way," said EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman.
EPA can turn to that approach only because the Bush administration decided in
December that mercury should not be regulated as a toxic substance requiring
maximum pollution controls, reversing a Clinton administration determination.
To meet a court-ordered deadline in a lawsuit brought by the Natural
Resources Defense Council 12 years ago, the agency must issue a final decision
before the end of 2004.
Electric power producers endorse the idea of trading pollution rights rather
than making every plant reduce emissions to a specified level.
"There currently is no commercially available mercury-specific control
technology," said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric
Institute, representing utilities. "Our hope is that toward the end of this
decade, we will have at least identified new technologies for removing mercury
from different coal types and using different boiler configurations."
The agency's preference means some plants may have to make only modest
reductions, if any, if they choose to buy emissions credits instead of
installing pollution controls. That approach differs radically from the Clinton
administration's conclusion that mercury could be cut by more than 40 tons
annually by 2008 if the best available technology were used.
But that conclusion was based on an assumption that technology for removing
acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrogen oxides would, as a
side benefit, also cut mercury emissions sharply.
"It is possible to get a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions in
certain coal types and certain boilers, but to then make the jump and assert a
90 percent reduction is possible across the entire industry is simply
impossible," Riedinger said. "The actual range of reductions varies,
from between about 17 percent to 90 percent."
Carol Browner, the Clinton EPA's administrator, disputed the utility
industry's claims of technological shortcomings.
"We had evidence that you could get there -- it is possible, it is
doable," Browner said at a recent news conference held by health advocates
and environmentalists on the mercury issue.
She said the agency should set emission limits at the lowest level achievable
"rather than asking industry, 'What do you feel like doing?' "
Browner and environmentalists also complained the cap-and-trade approach
would let some facilities continue to emit mercury at high levels, creating
mercury "hot spots" for nearby populations.
EPA's own Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee wrote Administrator
Mike Leavitt in January to advise him "the cap and trade program, as
proposed, may not address existing hot spots and may create new local hot spots
for mercury, disproportionately impacting local communities."
The NRDC sued EPA in 1992 claiming it failed to determine which utility
emissions are hazardous air pollutants and decide whether or not to regulate
them. The suit was settled in 1994, then modified in 1998 to set deadlines for
action on specific pollutants.
"Just as we did with lead, we have to take mercury out of
commerce," said Linda Greer, an environmental toxicologist at NRDC.
Environmental Protection Agency
Edison Electric Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Copyright © 1996-2004 by CyberTech,
Inc. All rights reserved.