Last November Hg-ATME had a post about House Bill 1534, a bill proposed by Rep. Tom Allen D-Maine that would ban all exports of toxic mercury from the United States. The bill was nearly unanimously received and passed on a voice vote (no roll call required). At that same time Sens. Barak Obama, D-IL and and Lisa Murkowski R-AK were floating a similar bill through the Senate. At the time, the Whitehouse said it would not support the bipartisan legislation. Now almost a year later we have a marked-up version (S. 906, The Mercury Market Minimization Act) of the two bills that everyone has agreed on.
An excerpt from The Earth Times follows;
"Trading mercury is not like trading potato chips," said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project. "While we spend millions of dollars in the U.S. collecting mercury, ironically it is then sold overseas and used in highly dispersive and dangerous ways, such as in small scale gold mining. Released from these practices, it circulates in the global environment and ends up in the fish that Americans eat."
The free trade of mercury and mercury compounds on the world market, at relatively low prices and in ready supply, encourages the continued use of mercury outside of the U.S.
"We applaud Senator Barak Obama's leadership on this bipartisan legislation," said Bender. "We've got to stop this circle of poison, where for example over 1000 tons of mercury are used annually by more than 10 million small scale gold miners in 50 developing countries, exposing themselves, their families and the local and global environment to this deadly neurotoxin."
[...]
While similar versions of the bill were introduced in the House (H.R. 1534) by Tom Allen (D-ME), and Senate (S.906) by Senators Obama (D-IL) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the groups are urging passage of the substitute House-passed version, since it was the subject of subsequent negotiation and compromise, and more accurately reflects the current state of development on this issue.
Lets hope that the President has enough sense at this time to support it.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
10 Years, What's the Rush
Cement kilns across the country are spewing mercury emissions at twice the rate EPA estimated, as recently as 2006. Ten years ago Congress compelled EPA to regulate and reduce these cement kiln emissions, and EPA has pretty much ignored the request. In a recently released study conducted by Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project it is revealed that cement kilns are emitting more than twice the mercury EPA estimated.
An excerpt from a MarketWatch article below;
EPA Ignored Problem For 10+ Years Even Though Some Kilns Emit More Mercury Than Power Plants; Report Focuses on Cement Kilns in AL, CA, IA, IL, MD, MI, MT, NY, OR, SC, TX and WA.
For more than a decade after Congress told it to curb dangerous mercury pollution from cement kilns across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to take action. Now, a new study from Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) documents the consequences of the EPA's failure: Cement kilns emit mercury pollution -- a threat to the health of pregnant women and children -- at more than twice the level estimated as recently as 2006 by the EPA, which only started to collect data on the problem in 2007.
[...]
Entitled "Cementing a Toxic Legacy? How EPA Has Failed to Control Mercury Pollution From Cement Kilns," the Earthjustice/EIP report outlines specific recommendations for EPA and state agency action based on the following key conclusions:
-- Mercury emissions from cement kilns are almost twice as high as the agency has previously acknowledged, and in many states kilns are among the worst mercury polluters. EPA now estimates that cement kilns emit nearly 23,000 pounds of mercury each year, far more than the Agency's 2006 estimate of 11,995 pounds.
-- A relatively small number of cement plants that use extremely dirty raw materials and fuels are among the worst mercury polluters in their states and, in some cases, in the country. For example, some cement kilns release as much or more mercury as coal fired power plants.
-- Since 1974, cement production has increased 15 percent, and further increases are projected for the future. Rising levels of cement production in the U.S. mean that the cement industry's mercury pollution will grow even worse if left unregulated.
Earthjustice staff attorney James Pew said: "EPA's new data confirm that cement plants are among the worst mercury polluters in this country. EPA has refused to acknowledge this problem for more than a decade, and the mercury contamination in our food and waters has grown worse every year as a result. It is high time for EPA to do its job and make this industry clean up its toxic emissions."
The 23,000 pounds, or 11.5 tons, is roughly one quarter of the estimated mercury emissions from all coal fired EGUs in the country (48 Tons). What I find amusing is, many of the cement plants use EGU flyash in their product, thus emitting some of the mercury (trapped in the flyash) that was captured by the air pollution control devices at the power plant. So we play an industrial game of catch and release.
An excerpt from a MarketWatch article below;
EPA Ignored Problem For 10+ Years Even Though Some Kilns Emit More Mercury Than Power Plants; Report Focuses on Cement Kilns in AL, CA, IA, IL, MD, MI, MT, NY, OR, SC, TX and WA.
For more than a decade after Congress told it to curb dangerous mercury pollution from cement kilns across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to take action. Now, a new study from Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) documents the consequences of the EPA's failure: Cement kilns emit mercury pollution -- a threat to the health of pregnant women and children -- at more than twice the level estimated as recently as 2006 by the EPA, which only started to collect data on the problem in 2007.
[...]
Entitled "Cementing a Toxic Legacy? How EPA Has Failed to Control Mercury Pollution From Cement Kilns," the Earthjustice/EIP report outlines specific recommendations for EPA and state agency action based on the following key conclusions:
-- Mercury emissions from cement kilns are almost twice as high as the agency has previously acknowledged, and in many states kilns are among the worst mercury polluters. EPA now estimates that cement kilns emit nearly 23,000 pounds of mercury each year, far more than the Agency's 2006 estimate of 11,995 pounds.
-- A relatively small number of cement plants that use extremely dirty raw materials and fuels are among the worst mercury polluters in their states and, in some cases, in the country. For example, some cement kilns release as much or more mercury as coal fired power plants.
-- Since 1974, cement production has increased 15 percent, and further increases are projected for the future. Rising levels of cement production in the U.S. mean that the cement industry's mercury pollution will grow even worse if left unregulated.
Earthjustice staff attorney James Pew said: "EPA's new data confirm that cement plants are among the worst mercury polluters in this country. EPA has refused to acknowledge this problem for more than a decade, and the mercury contamination in our food and waters has grown worse every year as a result. It is high time for EPA to do its job and make this industry clean up its toxic emissions."
The 23,000 pounds, or 11.5 tons, is roughly one quarter of the estimated mercury emissions from all coal fired EGUs in the country (48 Tons). What I find amusing is, many of the cement plants use EGU flyash in their product, thus emitting some of the mercury (trapped in the flyash) that was captured by the air pollution control devices at the power plant. So we play an industrial game of catch and release.
Friday, July 11, 2008
First CAMR, Now CAIR - The EPA Leaves Us Unprotected Again
Just as the Clean Air Mercury Rule or CAMR was vacated by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals back in February, the Clean Air Interstate Rule has bitten the dust. Everyone knew CAMR was flawed establishing a cap-and-trade system to handle a toxin, and excusing EGUs from HAPs legislation, but most people, environmentalists included felt the CAIR had merit and was a program on the right track. Problem is the EPA didn't follow the correct procedure for rule-making of this kind.
In a statement by Eric Schaeffer of the Environmental Integrity Project carried by PRNewswire-USNewswire and printed on MarketWatch.com;
"Today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which would have required significant reductions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants in eastern states. The CAIR rule would have established an emissions trading program, which the court found to be illegal because it failed to require each state to analyze its own contribution to poor air quality: 'The trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect state emission reductions to any measure of their own significant contributions.'
"The court's decision will leave millions of Americans exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution from dirty power plants while the Agency goes back to the drawing board to redraft emission standards. For seven years, the Bush Administration has tried to weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act emission standards for power plants and other industries, while promising that its CAIR rule would make up the difference. That promise has proved to be hollow. The DC Circuit's decision today is only the latest in a series of rulings that have roundly rejected the Bush Administration's creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act.
"As of today, EPA is still toiling away to weaken air quality standards for national parks, and to make it easier for the oldest and dirtiest power plants to increase emissions without pollution controls. Elimination of the CAIR rule makes it even more important for Congress to step in and stop these rollbacks. Since this Administration has proved incapable of reading or following the law, Congress and the next President will have to write the standards that we need to protect the public health from air pollution."
The CAIR had the potential to be very, very beneficial to the public welfare, especially in the eastern half of the country. While EPA got its hands slapped in the CAMR case for not doing enough, this rebuke, in the eyes of the judges, says EPA went too far, or interpreted its authority to write rules beyond the scope of their actual power. It is too bad in this case because the rule was not that bad. But EPA has stringent criteria they must follow to create rules and cutting corners is not going to fly. A brief piece from Grist.org and the AP says it well;
Court strikes down clean-air rule that would actually clean air
One of the rare Bush administration clean-air policies favored by enviros has been struck down by a federal appeals court. The Clean Air Interstate Rule would have required 28 Eastern states to reduce soot-causing, smog-forming emissions that easily spread on the wind. The U.S. EPA estimated that the rule would prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year, tens of thousands of nonfatal heart attacks, millions of lost work and school days, and up to $100 billion in health-care costs. But ruling in favor of electric-power producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the EPA overstepped its authority in instituting the rule and that the regulation contained "more than several fatal flaws." Says Frank O'Donnell of advocacy group Clean Air Watch, "This is without a doubt the worst news of the year when it comes to air pollution."
Sometimes you just can't win for losing.
In a statement by Eric Schaeffer of the Environmental Integrity Project carried by PRNewswire-USNewswire and printed on MarketWatch.com;
"Today, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which would have required significant reductions of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants in eastern states. The CAIR rule would have established an emissions trading program, which the court found to be illegal because it failed to require each state to analyze its own contribution to poor air quality: 'The trading program is unlawful, because it does not connect state emission reductions to any measure of their own significant contributions.'
"The court's decision will leave millions of Americans exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution from dirty power plants while the Agency goes back to the drawing board to redraft emission standards. For seven years, the Bush Administration has tried to weaken or eliminate Clean Air Act emission standards for power plants and other industries, while promising that its CAIR rule would make up the difference. That promise has proved to be hollow. The DC Circuit's decision today is only the latest in a series of rulings that have roundly rejected the Bush Administration's creative interpretations of the Clean Air Act.
"As of today, EPA is still toiling away to weaken air quality standards for national parks, and to make it easier for the oldest and dirtiest power plants to increase emissions without pollution controls. Elimination of the CAIR rule makes it even more important for Congress to step in and stop these rollbacks. Since this Administration has proved incapable of reading or following the law, Congress and the next President will have to write the standards that we need to protect the public health from air pollution."
The CAIR had the potential to be very, very beneficial to the public welfare, especially in the eastern half of the country. While EPA got its hands slapped in the CAMR case for not doing enough, this rebuke, in the eyes of the judges, says EPA went too far, or interpreted its authority to write rules beyond the scope of their actual power. It is too bad in this case because the rule was not that bad. But EPA has stringent criteria they must follow to create rules and cutting corners is not going to fly. A brief piece from Grist.org and the AP says it well;
Court strikes down clean-air rule that would actually clean air
One of the rare Bush administration clean-air policies favored by enviros has been struck down by a federal appeals court. The Clean Air Interstate Rule would have required 28 Eastern states to reduce soot-causing, smog-forming emissions that easily spread on the wind. The U.S. EPA estimated that the rule would prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year, tens of thousands of nonfatal heart attacks, millions of lost work and school days, and up to $100 billion in health-care costs. But ruling in favor of electric-power producers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the EPA overstepped its authority in instituting the rule and that the regulation contained "more than several fatal flaws." Says Frank O'Donnell of advocacy group Clean Air Watch, "This is without a doubt the worst news of the year when it comes to air pollution."
Sometimes you just can't win for losing.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Wisconsin Judge Clears Way for DNR's Mercury Emissions Plans
A Dane County Circuit Judge, Stephen Ebert, agreed with the DNR and rejected a lawsuit by business interests that tried to stop them. Although some environmentalists like Mark Redstein of Clean Wisconsin cheer the ruling, others are less so enthusiastic thinking it doesn't go far enough fast enough. The business groups may appeal the ruling too, so, in true compromise fashion the fact that most parties are upset by some portion of the plan, it is probably a pretty good plan.
Some excerpts from local media outlets and Forbes follow;
From WRN.com;
The Dane County Circuit Court Monday dismissed a lawsuit meant to block the DNR's rules on limiting mercury emissions from coal burning power plants. The challenge was brought by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council. The court rejected the groups' claim that the DNR did not perform the proper economic "scope" of the proposal.
Mark Redstein, Executive Director of Clean Wisconsin, applauds the ruling.
"We believe its time state takes on the important work of reducing mercury pollution."
From WKOWTV.com;
Mercury pollutes our air and water, threatening our health and a Wisconsin fishing tradition," Redsten said. "When technologies exist to reduce mercury pollution, we must hold utilities accountable and ensure they do everything within their power to protect our environment and our health."
The DNR proposal would require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions by following one of two paths. Operators of such plants could choose between reducing mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015 or could extend that deadline until 2021 by agreeing to more stringent limits on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which increase the methylization of mercury, making it more toxic to people, fish and wildlife.
And from Forbes.com;
Businesses that filed the lawsuit include Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council.
They are considering appealing Monday's decision or fighting the rules once they are approved, attorney Dennis Birke said.
He argued Monday that the rule-making process should stop until the so-called "scope statement" is done.
The judge said businesses could have asked for the scope statement in 2005 when a rule change dealing with mercury emissions was considered.
"Choosing not to is akin to betting on the wrong horse," Ebert said.
Assistant Attorney General Diane Milligan argued the lawsuit was premature.
"The rule making process is far from over," she said, noting that the rule up for a vote Wednesday also must clear a legislative hearing process.
Opponents of the rules have raised concerns about their cost, the ability to comply within the time required and the fact that they would be more restrictive than federal law.
The DNR estimates that the new restrictions could cost $38 million to $91 million annually. That, in turn, could trigger consumer rate increases of up to 2 percent, according to a state Public Service Commission estimate.
Some environmental groups, doctors and health care workers have argued that the rules are too lenient and give utilities too much time to reduce emissions that they say threaten people's health now.
The DNR stands by the proposal.
[...]
The agency adopted rules four years ago that required Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to cut mercury emissions by 75 percent by 2015. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle ordered the agency to step that up to 90 percent by 2018 during his re-election campaign in 2006.
Other utilities that would be covered under the new rules include Wisconsin Power & Light, Madison Gas & Electric Co., Manitowoc Public Utilities, Northern States Power Wisconsin and Mid-American Energy Co.
Some excerpts from local media outlets and Forbes follow;
From WRN.com;
The Dane County Circuit Court Monday dismissed a lawsuit meant to block the DNR's rules on limiting mercury emissions from coal burning power plants. The challenge was brought by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council. The court rejected the groups' claim that the DNR did not perform the proper economic "scope" of the proposal.
Mark Redstein, Executive Director of Clean Wisconsin, applauds the ruling.
"We believe its time state takes on the important work of reducing mercury pollution."
From WKOWTV.com;
Mercury pollutes our air and water, threatening our health and a Wisconsin fishing tradition," Redsten said. "When technologies exist to reduce mercury pollution, we must hold utilities accountable and ensure they do everything within their power to protect our environment and our health."
The DNR proposal would require coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury emissions by following one of two paths. Operators of such plants could choose between reducing mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2015 or could extend that deadline until 2021 by agreeing to more stringent limits on nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which increase the methylization of mercury, making it more toxic to people, fish and wildlife.
And from Forbes.com;
Businesses that filed the lawsuit include Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the Wisconsin Utility Investors and the Wisconsin Paper Council.
They are considering appealing Monday's decision or fighting the rules once they are approved, attorney Dennis Birke said.
He argued Monday that the rule-making process should stop until the so-called "scope statement" is done.
The judge said businesses could have asked for the scope statement in 2005 when a rule change dealing with mercury emissions was considered.
"Choosing not to is akin to betting on the wrong horse," Ebert said.
Assistant Attorney General Diane Milligan argued the lawsuit was premature.
"The rule making process is far from over," she said, noting that the rule up for a vote Wednesday also must clear a legislative hearing process.
Opponents of the rules have raised concerns about their cost, the ability to comply within the time required and the fact that they would be more restrictive than federal law.
The DNR estimates that the new restrictions could cost $38 million to $91 million annually. That, in turn, could trigger consumer rate increases of up to 2 percent, according to a state Public Service Commission estimate.
Some environmental groups, doctors and health care workers have argued that the rules are too lenient and give utilities too much time to reduce emissions that they say threaten people's health now.
The DNR stands by the proposal.
[...]
The agency adopted rules four years ago that required Alliant Energy, Dairyland Power Cooperative, We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. to cut mercury emissions by 75 percent by 2015. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle ordered the agency to step that up to 90 percent by 2018 during his re-election campaign in 2006.
Other utilities that would be covered under the new rules include Wisconsin Power & Light, Madison Gas & Electric Co., Manitowoc Public Utilities, Northern States Power Wisconsin and Mid-American Energy Co.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
With CAMR Dead What Is There to Post On?
Well, the world of mercury emission regulations has been put on hold for a while. Everyone remotely involved in this subject, myself included, doubts very much if the EPA will appeal their loss in the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. It just does not make any sense, and for that reason alone it still may happen.
Short that possibility the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule is dead. This leaves everyone with a stake in the issue a lack of direction, or maybe more correctly, a lack of urgency. The mere fact that CAMR was ruled illegal does set some direction. It is clear what the law (The Clean Air Act) does require and a MACT standard for mercury for coal fired EGUs will be forthcoming. But when that will happen, and what it will entail as far as reduction targets, monitoring, compliance timetables and such is left only for speculation.
I will try to stay on top of the debate and keep all of you posted as to the rumblings and grumblings when and if they happen. Meanwhile some immediate fallout from the vacatur is already upon us.
North Carolina Demands MACT for Cliffside
The Division of Air Quality in N.C. has reconsidered the permit they approved for Duke Energy and asked Duke to resubmit with maximum achievable control technologies for hazardous air pollutants including mercury. An excerpt from Asheville, NC's Citizen Times follows;
The division granted Duke an air quality permit in January for a new 800-megawatt boiler at its Cliffside Steam Station near Forest City.
After the division issued the permit, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, concluding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted inappropriately in exempting coal-fired power plants from portions of the Clean Air Act that deal with the control of hazardous air pollutants.
The court's decision means that all new coal-fired plants must demonstrate that they use the most stringent controls for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
EPA Moves to Increase Allowed Fugitive Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants
I am not an expert on fugitive emissions and I don't know that increasing them from the few chlor-alkali plants still in existence is a big deal or not. It is my underastanding that the real issue with the outdated chlor-alkali process, that uses lots of mercury unnecessarily, is the effluent streams that immediately pollute the waters in the rivers nearby. Yes, the fugitive emissions are airborne and will add to the problem but they appear to be less significant, I could be wrong. But what I am not wrong about is that all chlor-alkali plants using the old mercury cell technology should be converted to be mercury free. Then there are no mercury laden effluents and no fugitive emissions to worry about.
More than a hundred of these plants have already converted or are in the process of doing so. Why do these four or five remaining plants hold on to the old technology so tightly. Yes, it is an expense to convert, and there may be a lengthy return on investment for the conversion, but undoubtedly ownership and management should be concerned with their neighbors and employees enough to go forward and change. Not doing so is a slap in the face of their surrounding communities and an admission that dollars are more important than lives.
An excerpt from a post on the Georgia Public Broadcasting blog, Georgia News GPB, follows;
A federal agency is proposing a new emissions standard for companies that make chlorine using mercury.
The new standard would release more mercury into the air.
Olin Corporation in Augusta uses mercury in its chlorine production. It's one of five in the nation that still do.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to raise the percentage of mercury, called fugitive emissions, it allows companies to release into the air from the cell room where the chlorine is produced.
[...]
"It's another demonstration of the EPA allowing Olin to continue to pollute the Augusta area," says Tonya Bonitatibus, a field representative for the environmental watchdog group Oceana. She says the group is still studying the proposed rule but opposes the higher emissions.
David Blair, the plant manager at Olin in Augusta, declined to comment on the proposed rule, but did respond to the emissions issue in a written statement. "We've invested millions of dollars in technology and workplace practices during recent years," he said. "We already have in place a system that continuously monitors emissions at the cell room."
Blair said the company had reduced its emissions by more than 85 percent by 2007.
A link to the Proposed Rule is here.
Short that possibility the Federal Clean Air Mercury Rule is dead. This leaves everyone with a stake in the issue a lack of direction, or maybe more correctly, a lack of urgency. The mere fact that CAMR was ruled illegal does set some direction. It is clear what the law (The Clean Air Act) does require and a MACT standard for mercury for coal fired EGUs will be forthcoming. But when that will happen, and what it will entail as far as reduction targets, monitoring, compliance timetables and such is left only for speculation.
I will try to stay on top of the debate and keep all of you posted as to the rumblings and grumblings when and if they happen. Meanwhile some immediate fallout from the vacatur is already upon us.
North Carolina Demands MACT for Cliffside
The Division of Air Quality in N.C. has reconsidered the permit they approved for Duke Energy and asked Duke to resubmit with maximum achievable control technologies for hazardous air pollutants including mercury. An excerpt from Asheville, NC's Citizen Times follows;
The division granted Duke an air quality permit in January for a new 800-megawatt boiler at its Cliffside Steam Station near Forest City.
After the division issued the permit, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, concluding that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted inappropriately in exempting coal-fired power plants from portions of the Clean Air Act that deal with the control of hazardous air pollutants.
The court's decision means that all new coal-fired plants must demonstrate that they use the most stringent controls for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants.
EPA Moves to Increase Allowed Fugitive Mercury Emissions from Chlor-Alkali Plants
I am not an expert on fugitive emissions and I don't know that increasing them from the few chlor-alkali plants still in existence is a big deal or not. It is my underastanding that the real issue with the outdated chlor-alkali process, that uses lots of mercury unnecessarily, is the effluent streams that immediately pollute the waters in the rivers nearby. Yes, the fugitive emissions are airborne and will add to the problem but they appear to be less significant, I could be wrong. But what I am not wrong about is that all chlor-alkali plants using the old mercury cell technology should be converted to be mercury free. Then there are no mercury laden effluents and no fugitive emissions to worry about.
More than a hundred of these plants have already converted or are in the process of doing so. Why do these four or five remaining plants hold on to the old technology so tightly. Yes, it is an expense to convert, and there may be a lengthy return on investment for the conversion, but undoubtedly ownership and management should be concerned with their neighbors and employees enough to go forward and change. Not doing so is a slap in the face of their surrounding communities and an admission that dollars are more important than lives.
An excerpt from a post on the Georgia Public Broadcasting blog, Georgia News GPB, follows;
A federal agency is proposing a new emissions standard for companies that make chlorine using mercury.
The new standard would release more mercury into the air.
Olin Corporation in Augusta uses mercury in its chlorine production. It's one of five in the nation that still do.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to raise the percentage of mercury, called fugitive emissions, it allows companies to release into the air from the cell room where the chlorine is produced.
[...]
"It's another demonstration of the EPA allowing Olin to continue to pollute the Augusta area," says Tonya Bonitatibus, a field representative for the environmental watchdog group Oceana. She says the group is still studying the proposed rule but opposes the higher emissions.
David Blair, the plant manager at Olin in Augusta, declined to comment on the proposed rule, but did respond to the emissions issue in a written statement. "We've invested millions of dollars in technology and workplace practices during recent years," he said. "We already have in place a system that continuously monitors emissions at the cell room."
Blair said the company had reduced its emissions by more than 85 percent by 2007.
A link to the Proposed Rule is here.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
EPA Denied A Rehearing En Banc by DC Circuit Court of Appeals
The folks at Turtle Talk have a good posting on this denial. Excerpt follows;
Environmentalists, however, doubt that the government will appeal the ruling to the high court, but leave open the option that industry may. “I would be astounded if the Solicitor General’s office walked this dog up to the Supreme Court’s steps to soil those grounds. The utility industry on the other hand follows different public health practices,” John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a May 20 statement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit May 20 denied EPA’s petition for a rehearing en banc of the Feb. 8 ruling in State of New Jersey, et al., v. EPA that struck down the agency’s rule to establish a cap-and-trade scheme for reducing mercury emissions. The court also rejected a March 24 request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group — which represents electric generating companies — for a full panel rehearing.
The full post can be read here.
Environmentalists, however, doubt that the government will appeal the ruling to the high court, but leave open the option that industry may. “I would be astounded if the Solicitor General’s office walked this dog up to the Supreme Court’s steps to soil those grounds. The utility industry on the other hand follows different public health practices,” John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a May 20 statement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit May 20 denied EPA’s petition for a rehearing en banc of the Feb. 8 ruling in State of New Jersey, et al., v. EPA that struck down the agency’s rule to establish a cap-and-trade scheme for reducing mercury emissions. The court also rejected a March 24 request by the Utility Air Regulatory Group — which represents electric generating companies — for a full panel rehearing.
The full post can be read here.
Developing Story - DC Circuit Court Denies Rehearing The Case - As Far As They Are Concerned CAMR Is Dead
The news reports are a little sketchy right now but it appears the US Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that their appeal for an en banc rehearing of the CAMR decision on behalf of the EPA has been denied. I will get more details as they become available. This leaves the stubborn EPA only one last resort, The Supreme Court of the United States. It is that or get on with MACT. I think everyone involved, the courts, the power companies, the public, everyone would just as soon get it settled. MACT is not that bad and delay will only make it worse, as the delay over the last couple years has.
More to follow.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Senate Holds Hearings on Mercury Emissions - S. 2643 The Mercury Emissions Control Act Takes The Stage
Taken from Talk Radio News the following excerpt;
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing to discuss various pieces of legislation pertaining to the proliferation of mercury in the environment and in exports. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) could not be present, so Sen. Tom Carper conducted the hearing in her place. Carper said that “one in 17 women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood at levels that could pose a risk to their unborn children,” emphasizing that these groups are most at risk for health threats.
The senators discussed the merits of various mercury legislation including the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which Carper said was “flawed” and “did not go far enough to protect the health of America’s vulnerable populations.” He advocated instead the Mercury Emissions Control Act, which “would require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue a new, stronger rule to control mercury emissions from power plants, as required by the Clean Air Act.”
And this from FedCenter.gov;
A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate regulations to control hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric utility steam generating units; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works (Congressional Record: February 14, 2008 [Senate], Page S1054). Text of the Bill is available here.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Sierra Club Pushes MACT In Mother’s Day Campaign Against EGUs, While States “Pare Back” Resolutions On GHG and Mercury
The Club
The Sierra Club has initiated a coordinated push, just before Mother’s Day, to get all new coal fired EGU permits reviewed to take into account the vacated CAMR, the subsequent mandate, and the resulting MACT hammer required by Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. While the EPA and UARG have asked the DC Appeals Court to reconsider their earlier vacatur, it is unlikely that the ruling will be changed. All we are left with is another delay and the uncertainty that brings. But it seems inevitable that a mercury MACT will become law at some point soon and now is the time to insure new plants meet that standard. A pop from YubaNet.com on this subject;
Just days before Mother's Day, the Sierra Club today is launching a massive, multi-state effort to educate the public about the dangers of mercury pollution, and ensure that all new coal-fired power plants employ modern mercury pollution controls.
[…]
"We want to give moms across the country some peace of mind this Mother's Day," said Bruce Nilles, Director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign. "That's why we're taking action today to ensure that these coal plants make every effort to keep their toxic mercury pollution out of our communities."
And some more excerpts from a Reuters article describing the Sierra Club actions follow;
The Sierra Club sent letters on Tuesday threatening to file suit to stop construction of eight coal-fired power plants in six states because, the environmental group claims, they violate the Clean Air Act.
"This is the first major ramification on the ground from the (Washington) D.C. circuit kicking out the Bush administration's rules in February," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's effort to stop coal power plants.
In February, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act in not setting mandatory cuts for mercury emissions of power plants.
The suits would be filed in the federal districts where the proposed power plants would be located, Nilles said. The suits would seek to require the plants to go back to state permitting agencies for new permits that meet the tougher emission standards, Nilles said.
[…]
About 30 coal-fired plants may be affected by the Sierra Club suits, Nilles said.
Owners of three plants under construction have already been notified of the intent to sue by the Sierra Club – Entergy […] for a plant in Louisiana, Peabody Energy […] for a plant in Kentucky, and Louisiana Generating, a unit of NRG Energy, […] for a plant in Louisiana.
Another eight letters were sent on Tuesday, for plants in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas and Wyoming, the Sierra Club said. Among the plants involved are Duke Energy's […] Cliffside plant in North Carolina and Energy Future Holdings, formerly TXU Corp, for its proposed Oak Grove plant in Texas.
The Sierra Club said it is considering whether to send intent to sue letters to owners of a dozen more plants in Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Wyoming, Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.
The coordinated effort extended to other plants as well. Sierra Club joined up with GreenLaw and Friends of the Chattahoochie to begin the process to sue Dynegy and LS Power over their planned 1,200 megawatt Longleaf Energy Station in Georgia. From the Atlanta Business Chronicle the following excerpts;
Three environmental groups plan to sue Dynegy and LS Power over potential mercury emissions at the first coal-fired power plant to be built in 20 years in Georgia. Sierra Club, GreenLaw and Friends of the Chattahoochee said they plan to sue Houston-based Dynegy (NYSE: DYN) and East Brunswick, N.J.-based LS Power, claiming the companies' 1,200-megawatt Longleaf Energy Station near Columbus, Ga., would violate the Clean Air Act for alleged failure to have adequate controls on mercury emissions.
[…]
In January, Administrative Law Judge Stephanie Howells upheld the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's decision to issue an air pollution permit to Longleaf Energy Station. The environmental groups had argued the Dynegy did not adequately restrict health- threatening sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfuric acid mist and total particulate matter emissions.
On Tuesday, Sierra Club, Friends of the Chattahoochee and GreenLaw, reported that in another court action, they have challenged the air pollution permit. The case is now before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore and is expected to be heard this summer.
The States
Meanwhile the states, left to their own to figure out how to move forward in a vacuum of mercury guidance from EPA held their Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) meeting in New Orleans in mid April. Without a definitive word from the Feds on either GHG legislation or mercury legislation the states were left to duke it out amongst themselves as to what they would resolve on these issues. I will focus my discussion on the mercury debate, while the GHG argument took on much the same tone.
There was little agreement on whether to approve the earlier resolution on mercury. Some highlights from the Subscription Only Inside EPA’s Clean Air Report follows;
… states also disputed a resolution that as originally written urged EPA to issue a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for mercury, in light of the recent federal court ruling vacating EPA’s clean air mercury rule that would have established a cap-and-trade program rather than imposing technology mandates. Many observers say a so-called MACT hammer under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act now requires states to develop a plant-by-plant MACT standard in light of the court rejection of the trading rule.
The original resolution said EPA should develop a MACT standard that considers “the most stringent performance standards already adopted by the states.”
But Oklahoma’s (DEQ Director Steven) Thompson said, “It’s my understanding that under MACT EPA can consider the top 12 percent” of emissions control technologies, not necessarily only “the most stringent.” Ultimately, states agreed to change the language so that the final resolution says EPA should consider performance standards already adopted by states when developing the mercury MACT.
Nevertheless, the idea of using a resolution to call on the issuance of the MACT drew objections from a handful of states. Indiana’s (IDEM Commissioner Thomas) Easterly said the resolution is “premature” because the court has not yet responded to EPA’s request for a rehearing. A motion to table the resolution until ECOS’ annual meeting in September narrowly failed, by a vote of 16 – 17.
An overwhelming majority of states voted in favor of the watered-down final resolution that simply calls on EPA to consider state standards in setting a MACT, though at least three states verbally objected.
Speaking to Inside EPA after the resolution passed, EPA Office of Air & Radiation Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Robert Meyers said the agency “will certainly look at them and we respect ECOS,” though he said that EPA views such resolutions mostly as “advisory statements.” – Anthony Lacey (Inside EPA Author)
This whole debate just shows how much the country needs leadership and decisions regarding mercury legislation. The power companies know its coming and MACT is not unreasonable by definition. It promotes already existing technology, which as I see it now, is much less expensive than other air pollution control devices already in existence.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Wisconsin Business Groups - "Not So Fast" - File Suit Against DNR Over Mercury Proposal
It didn't take long for the opposition to step forward. Several WI business groups have filed suit in Dane County Circuit Court seeking a halt to the DNR's recently proposed rules on mercury emissions (see last post below). The DNR, in response to Gov. Jim Doyle's request, floated the proposal to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2015. There were options included to limit SO2 and NOx below federal and state requirements to buy time to meet the mercury limits until 2021. The fact that environmental groups were disappointed it didn't move faster without the loopholes and that industry was concerned it could meet the stated goals, to me meant it was probably a pretty good compromise.
Now it will move to the courts. The groups are not questioning the limits or timetables set forth in the proposal, they are asking the DNR to follow the procedures for rule making. An excerpt from The Capital Times follows;
The organizations -- including the Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Utility Investors and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce -- filed the lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court Monday.
The lawsuit is not challenging the merit or substance of the proposed rule, the organizations said in a news release. Instead, they are asking the DNR to comply with public notice requirements of the Job Creation Act of 2004.
[...]
"Had the DNR issued an accurate scope statement for this rule, the affected parties would have had the opportunity to request an economic impact report during a 90-day window provided by the law," the news release said.
"The lack of an accurate scope statement has prevented Wisconsin businesses, lawmakers and electric ratepayers from availing themselves of their due process rights to request preparation of this critical economic report."
"We are still analyzing the lawsuit. We have referred it to the Department of Justice and cannot comment at this point," said Laurel Steffes, a spokeswoman for the DNR.
Now it will move to the courts. The groups are not questioning the limits or timetables set forth in the proposal, they are asking the DNR to follow the procedures for rule making. An excerpt from The Capital Times follows;
The organizations -- including the Wisconsin Builders Association, Wisconsin Utility Investors and Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce -- filed the lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court Monday.
The lawsuit is not challenging the merit or substance of the proposed rule, the organizations said in a news release. Instead, they are asking the DNR to comply with public notice requirements of the Job Creation Act of 2004.
[...]
"Had the DNR issued an accurate scope statement for this rule, the affected parties would have had the opportunity to request an economic impact report during a 90-day window provided by the law," the news release said.
"The lack of an accurate scope statement has prevented Wisconsin businesses, lawmakers and electric ratepayers from availing themselves of their due process rights to request preparation of this critical economic report."
"We are still analyzing the lawsuit. We have referred it to the Department of Justice and cannot comment at this point," said Laurel Steffes, a spokeswoman for the DNR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
