EPA to limit mercury emissions from power plants

October 26, 2009 By Renee Schoof

The Environmental Protection Agency will put controls on the emissions of hazardous pollutants such as mercury from coal-fired power plants for the first time by November 2011, according to an agreement announced Friday to settle a lawsuit against the agency.

Many other polluters were forced to reduce emissions of toxic material such as , arsenic and lead after the Clean Air Act was strengthened in 1990. But power plants, the largest source of , aren't subject to nationwide rules.

The tougher rules will clean up more than just heavy metals because some kinds of pollution controls -- scrubbers, for example -- also remove other pollutants, such as soot.

Controlling mercury is significant because the pollutant enters the food chain and ends up in fish. Children, including those who were exposed to mercury before birth, are especially at risk of developmental and learning disabilities. Adults also can experience health problems from eating too much contaminated fish.

Although the EPA has issued guidelines about eating fish, it hasn't required power plants to reduce toxic emissions. The Clinton administration, before leaving office, declared that plants should be subject to controls under the Clean Air Act, but the Bush administration reversed that decision. Instead, it set up a cap-and-trade system, which imposed limits on emissions and established a system to trade pollution allowances.

In February 2008, a federal appeals court overturned that approach and ordered the EPA to regulate toxic air pollutants from power plants. Then the American Nurses Association and environmental groups sued to compel the EPA to issue the regulations.

"Nurses see firsthand the negative effects the pollutants have on the patients they serve," said Alice Bodley, general counsel for the nurses association. "It's a long overdue but welcome commitment from EPA. Once finalized, these regulations should provide a higher level of protection for hundreds of thousands of people, especially young people."

The settlement requires the EPA to adopt the rules by November 2011.

"Addressing hazardous air-pollutant emissions from utilities is a high priority for EPA," the agency said in a statement Friday. It noted that the efforts began in July with the procedural step of asking for public comments on its plan to collect information on emissions from utilities.

The EPA is "committed to developing a strategy to reduce harmful emissions from these facilities, which threaten the air we all breathe," the statement said.

The decision "ends a long-running scandal" that's allowed toxic pollution to poison the air and water, said Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan clean-air watchdog group.

John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council agreed. "Coal-fired power plants are the 800-pound gorilla of air pollution problems in America," he said.

The EPA will be required to set controls for coal- and oil-fired power plants, but oil is used to generate a relatively small percentage of the nation's electricity.

Today 70 percent of the nation's power plants don't have scrubbers. Those that do have them added the equipment as a result of acid rain controls in 1990, state regulations on emissions of soot and sulfur dioxide, and mercury controls that some states began to adopt in 2006, Walke said.

Many plants, however, met the federal acid rain rules by using low-sulfur coal instead of scrubbers, Walke said.

After the new regulations go into effect, the law gives companies three years to prepare to comply, he said. Walke also said some would make the cuts earlier, but that reductions would be huge in 2014 and 2015.

Dan Riedinger of the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric power companies, said the settlement put the EPA on a tight schedule. The agency will ask companies for data about mercury emissions, and "this might squeeze the time we have" to provide the information, he said.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported earlier this month that scrubbers already in place at U.S. have cut mercury substantially at a "relatively low cost."

The EPA's Web site includes health guidelines about eating fish. It also advises people to check local mercury-contamination advisories before eating fish they catch.

In August, the government found mercury contamination in every fish sampled in 291 streams nationwide. About a quarter of them contained mercury above the EPA's guidelines.


EPA information about mercury in fish: www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/

A guide for all ages by U.S. scientists: "Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science": www.climate.noaa.gov/education/


(c) 2009, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Visit the McClatchy Washington Bureau on the World Wide Web at www.mcclatchydc.com>

Explore further: EPA to limit mercury from cement plants

Related Stories

EPA to limit mercury from cement plants

April 22, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday called for the nation's first limits on mercury emissions from the more than 100 cement factories across the U.S.

Pennsylvania to issue new mercury limits

February 22, 2006

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reportedly plans to order a substantial cut in toxic mercury emissions from coal-burning plants.

Michigan plans to cut mercury emissions

April 19, 2006

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm has announced plans to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90 percent in the next decade.

Federal study shows mercury in fish widespread

August 19, 2009

(AP) -- No fish can escape mercury pollution. That's the take-home message from a federal study of mercury contamination released Wednesday that tested fish from nearly 300 streams across the country.

Alabama power company to reduce polluting

April 25, 2006

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the Alabama Power Co. has been ordered to reduce emissions of two harmful pollutants by 28,000 tons per year.

Recommended for you

Scientists warn that saline lakes in dire situation worldwide

October 23, 2017

Saline lakes around the world are shrinking in size at alarming rates. But what—or who—is to blame? Lakes like Utah's Great Salt Lake, Asia's Aral Sea, the Dead Sea in Jordan and Israel, China's huge Lop Nur and Bolivia's ...

Mountain glaciers shrinking across the West

October 22, 2017

Until recently, glaciers in the United States have been measured in two ways: placing stakes in the snow, as federal scientists have done each year since 1957 at South Cascade Glacier in Washington state; or tracking glacier ...

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2009
It's about time. This will increase the cost of electricity and make solar even more affordable. With the new no-money-down solar leasing systems with fixed rates for all future electric bills, we should see a big increase in solar electric, which saves transmission costs and lightens loads on hot, sunny days, exactly when it's needed. Win win win.
not rated yet Oct 28, 2009
News flash! Scientists discover Solar Panels don't work at night. Windmills dont work on calm days either, or have to be shut down when the wind is too strong. All this needs a back-up by coal/gas/nuclear power. This increases transmission cost through duplication and the fact that most solar/wind power generators have to be built far from were it is consumed.
not rated yet Oct 29, 2009
Why am I apprehensive about an EPA plan to make another EPA plan by 2011? Maybe because we just went through an extensive EPA Mercury rulemaking process for several years that then got derailed in the courts.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.