Wednesday, March 12, 2008

I'm Back, and the Discussions About Mercury Have Never Been Hotter

I took a short golf vacation to Hilton Head last week and upon my return found things were still abuzz since the Feb 8 Appeals Court Decision.

The Debate Rages On
The implications of the ruling were the topic of interviews by Monica Trauzzi on E&ETV's OnPoint with John Walke of NRDC and Jeff Holmstead a former EPA official and now lobbyist for Bracewell & Giuliani (as in Rudi Giuliani), a lobbying group specializing in concerns of the electric utility industry. I think both men state their cases quite eloquently, but somewhat diametrically opposed. Interesting listening.

The John Walke transcript and video from March 5th can be found here.

The Jeff Holmstead transcript and video from March 12 can be found here.

Cement Kiln Crackdown?
Elsewhere, the EPA seems to be revisiting its rules regarding cement kiln mercury emissions. In an AP article by John Flesher it is discussed how Michigan and eight other states have forced the issue with a lawsuit. But is EPA really responding or are they simply delaying any decision until the current administration is gone. The following excerpts from John's column will show you what I mean.

Whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changes the rules will depend on test results of technology that could reduce the emissions, spokesman Dale Kemery said Thursday.

But an environmental law firm that has battled the EPA for a decade over the matter said the agency promised in a court filing last month to set standards it previously had resisted.

"They've turned 180 degrees," said James Pew, attorney for Earthjustice, based in Washington, D.C.
[...]
The agency in December 2006 set limits on mercury and hydrocarbon emissions from cement kilns built after Dec. 2, 2005. But for kilns built earlier, the EPA imposed lesser requirements.

The states sued in February 2007, saying the federal Clean Air Act requires mercury emission limits for all plants, not just new ones.
[...]
In a motion filed last month with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, the EPA asked for more time to gather and analyze data from cement plants.

Peter Tsirigotis, director of the EPA division working on the standards, told the court in a written statement that he expected the agency to issue a proposed regulation by mid-September and a final version nine to 12 months afterward.

Well that ought to get the ball rolling.

More on this subject in an Earthjustice Press Release on CommonDreams News Center;

Under intense pressure from states and local and national environmental and public health groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in a recent court document plans to regulate mercury pollution from over 100 cement kilns across the country by September 2009. The announcement marks a dramatic shift in EPA policy which, until now, had been to resist requiring mercury controls for cement kilns.

"After nearly a decade of litigation and multiple court orders directing EPA to regulate mercury from cement kilns, it seems the agency is finally paying attention," said Earthjustice attorney James Pew.

Three times in the last ten years, federal courts have ordered EPA to set emission standards to control cement kilns' mercury emissions. Until now, EPA has ignored these orders or sought to evade them. EPA finally indicated that it would set mercury emission standards in papers filed on February 20, 2008, in a fourth case brought by Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, Downwinders at Risk (TX), Friends of Hudson (NY), Montanans Against Toxic Burning, Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA), and the Huron Environmental Activist League (MI). The States of New York, Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania also filed suit.

"Cement kilns are among the nation's worst polluters, and their free ride on mercury pollution needs to end at long last," said Jane Williams, executive director of Desert Citizens Against Pollution.

Maine Judge Seeks More Information on Penobscot River Mercury Pollution
A retired chemical plant HoltraChem owned and operated by Mallinckrodt had deposited significant amounts of mercury containing sludge into the Penobscot river for decades. The long battle and millions of dollars later we still do not have a solid plan for remediation, or even if remediation is possible. Excerpts from the Bangor Daily News follow;

Senior U.S. District Judge Gene Carter concurred last week and has directed the court-appointed research team to conduct more detailed studies into whether it is better to attempt to remove the mercury — likely at enormous costs — or let nature take its course.

"The court is fully satisfied … that the Penobscot River, north of the Fort Point Light, is contaminated with significant quantities of mercury deposited at the HoltraChem site," Carter wrote in his March 7 ruling.

Carter’s decision is the latest in a string of recent legal defeats for the former owners of now-defunct HoltraChem. Attorneys for the company, Mallinckrodt Inc., had sought in court filings to delay beginning the next phase of the study.

Mallinckrodt officials pointed out Tuesday that the company has already spent more than $30 million to clean up the manufacturing site in Orrington. The company has worked cooperatively with state and federal environmental agencies on that ongoing project.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You may be interested to hear that the Court issuing the mercury ruling -- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- issued its "mandate" in the case on Friday, March 14th, making its ruling formal and final. On the same day, the Court granted the motion by Environmental Petitioners, including NRDC, for "expedited issuance of the mandate." This probably sped issuance of the mandate by some 3-4 months, based upon past Court practice. And it plainly reflected that the original panel of judges had no patience for EPA's "delisting" rule, which a unanimous Court found to have unlawfully removed power plants from the regulatory list requiring the Clean Air Act's most stringent toxic control measures.

I trust that even Jeff Holmstead now would concede that all new and pending power plant proposals must undergo case-by-case permitting to meet these stringent Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) emissions limits for all of their hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, before these plants may begin construction.

Any EPA or industry appeal of the Court's ruling by March 24th will not cause the mandate to be withdrawn, nor will it alter the obligation for new power plants to meet case-by-case MACT. Only a successful appeal -- extremely remote -- followed by withdrawal of the mandate would affect that obligation.

Larry Golden said...

Thanks John. Your input is always welcome.