By D. E. Smoot
Phoenix Staff Writer
June 16, 2007 11:59 pm
—
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality is drafting rules that would curb mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
A draft version released earlier this year adopts by reference a federal regulatory system seen by many as being far too lenient. The proposed rules also have been criticized for being the product of input provided primarily by utility companies that operate coal-fired plants, like Oklahoma Gas & Electric’s Muskogee facility.
ODEQ’s efforts to draft new mercury emissions rules were mandated in 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which for the first time ever, attempted to regulate such emissions. Skylar McElhaney, ODEQ spokeswoman, said the Oklahoma Air Quality Council has been conducting public meetings every three months since April 2006 in an effort to draft rules for the state.
Mercury is a neurotoxin known to be especially dangerous to children and women of childbearing age. The effects of mercury exposure are similar to the effects of lead toxicity in children and include delayed development and cognitive deficits, language difficulties and problems with motor function, attention and memory.
According to the EPA, power plants are responsible for 41 percent of all mercury emitted by all known sources in the nation. Mercury levels in Oklahoma’s lakes and streams prompted ODEQ to issue an advisory in 2005, cautioning children younger than 15 years and women of childbearing age to limit consumption of locally caught fish to one meal a week.
The EPA announced in December 2000 that mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants threaten public health and the environment. The federal environmental agency found it “appropriate and necessary” to regulate utility hazardous air emissions using the maximum achievable control technology standards provided for in the Clean Air Act.
David Branecky, manager of air quality for OG&E and a member of the Air Quality Council, said it is unknown exactly how much mercury is being emitted from its Muskogee plant, but OG&E is installing equipment that will allow the company to begin monitoring mercury emissions. The cost of the monitoring equipment is estimated to be about $7.9 million.
The EPA rules adopted in 2005 overturned the agency’s December 2000 findings and applies instead a standard that is more lenient. The new standard purportedly gives the EPA flexibility to consider more cost-effective ways to control mercury emissions.
The EPA estimates the federal rules would reduce mercury emissions 70 percent by 2018. The attorneys general of several states have sued the EPA in favor of rules that would force coal-fired power plants to use standards required by the Clean Air Act which would achieve a reduction of mercury emissions by up to 90 percent.
“Under the Clean Air Act, power plants would have been required to use the best available technology to reduce mercury emissions,” stated an article in the Journal of American Medical Association. “In a reversal of this approach, on March 29, 2005, the EPA finalized a mercury rule that exempts the power plants from these requirements and instead would institute a program favored by the industry.”
The article cited an EPA report to Congress in 2000, which indicates the best available technology standard, if implemented, would have reduced mercury emissions from coal-fired plants by 90 percent — from about 50 tons to 5 tons a year — by 2008.
The EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule, which is being challenged in court, adopts a standard that falls short of what the Clean Air Act requires. The present rule would require a 70-percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2018 and includes a cap-and-trade system.
Some fear the cap-and-trade provisions under the federal rules would allow power plants to exceed emissions standards by purchasing credits from cleaner plants — most of which would be located outside the state. That system, some fear, could lead to mercury “hot spots.”
“Those opposing the federal rule believe that trading of emission credits would not be protective enough of the public health primarily because of the possibility of hot spots from local emissions,” McElhaney said. “Those who support the federal rule state that the hot spot issue has not been substantiated, and that additional, more stringent controls would be too costly.”
According to McElhaney, those who support the less stringent rules say the vast majority of mercury emissions in the air come from sources all over the globe, particularly China, and not just from coal-fired utilities.
The cap-and-trade regime, however, has come under fire not just by environmental groups. A report by the Congressional Research Service states it would take until at least 2030 to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent without implementing direct pollution controls.
Montelle Clark, chairman of the Oklahoma Sustainability Network’s mercury emissions campaign, said adopting less restrictive rules could have a negative impact on the state. The dangers of mercury in the environment are well known, he said. And coal-fired power plants, which spew tons of particulates into the environment annually, are the nation’s largest remaining source of manmade mercury emissions.
“We learned that these (proposed rules) were the least stringent rules and that a number of other states were suing EPA for stricter rules,” Clark said. “We think this would leave Oklahoma in a position that would attract dirty power plants.”
Clark said a reputation of being environmentally unfriendly would also drive away the “creative class” of workers thought to be by many as the driving force of a healthy and growing economy.
“When you are talking about a public health issue, we believe it is better to err on the side of caution,” Clark said. “It seems to go the other way with the industry, which seems to have the philosophy of ‘Let’s just take that chance.’”
When it comes to something as hazardous as mercury pollution, Clark said he and other OSN members believe the better approach for the state would be to adopt stricter rules to protect public health.
“The technology is out there to clean up the emissions, and it is reasonably affordable,” Clark said. “When you’re dealing with something as serious as mercury, we feel you should not take any chances.”
Branecky said OG&E supports the EPA rules ODEQ has been leaning toward adopting while drafting state standards for mercury emissions. The proposed rules allow some flexibility with which the power provider can address rate payers’’ concerns, he said.
Under the proposed rules, each coal-fired facility in Oklahoma would be allowed to emit a limited amount of mercury each year under Phase I guidelines. Phase II regulations would require those plants to reduce even further the amount of mercury emitted.
“We think we should be able to meet Phase I regulations without any reduction,” Branecky said of the amount of mercury presently emitted by the company’s Muskogee plant. “But when 2018 rolls around, we will probably have to install some kind of control measures.”
With regard to concerns about the cap-and-trade system and its potential for creating mercury hot spots, Branecky said the issue “is still a topic of discussion.” He said the issue appears to be dependent upon the type of coal used.
OG&E imports the coal it uses at its Muskogee facility from Wyoming, which has lower sulfur content than coal from Oklahoma and other areas.
“With that type of coal, the issue of hot spots has not been proven,” Branecky said.
Branecky could not say with any certainty how OG&E plans to address the stricter emission standards that will kick in during Phase II if ODEQ approves the mercury-emissions rules as presented in its draft regulations.
Documents filed with the Securities Exchange Commission, however, reveal some preference for the cap-and-trade provisions.
“The cap-and-trade program that will allow utilities to purchase mercury allowances (if available) rather than reduce emissions,” the document states. “It is anticipated that OG&E will need to obtain allowances or reduce its mercury emissions in Phase II by approximately 70 percent.”
The SEC document, filed in March, states OG&E is currently participating in the state rule making process and anticipates the rule making to be completed by the end of 2007.
According to ODEQ’s McElhaney, the Oklahoma Air Quality Council had been leaning toward adopting the federal regulatory scheme until this past April, when the state environmental agency began receiving input from concerned citizens.
“We have numerous written and oral comments from utility representatives and the general public,” McElhaney said. “The vast majority of the comments since the April hearing have been from the public, particularly those from the Sallisaw area, who are opposed to a possible coal-fired power plant that may be built in the area.”
McElhaney said ODEQ originally took three versions of the rule — the EPA’s version, a model proposed by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and a possible alternate — to public hearing.
“The staff had been leaning toward the incorporation by reference of the federal rule,” McElhaney said. “But the increased public comments have resulted in further consideration and evaluation of alternatives.”
Members of the Air Quality Council plan to discuss and debate ODEQ’s draft rules July 18 during its meeting in Ponca City. Public comments are still being accepted as part of the rule making process.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.