The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee this week held a hearing on the issue of adopting a Pennsylvania-only regulation to reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants that is more stringent than the federal rule.

The Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen McGinty took the opportunity of the hearing to unveil its proposal for a Pennsylvania-only rule that she said would reduce mercury emissions about 800 more pounds in 2010 than the federal rule and an additional 700 pounds by 2015. (See Regulations Section of this Digest for a more complete overview of the DEP proposal.)

DEP said its rule would reduce more mercury because it requires all mercury reductions to meet the federal rule occur in state and would not allow emissions credit trading outside Pennsylvania.

Emissions trading allows power plants to over control mercury emissions at one plant where it was most cost effective and take credit for the extra reductions at another plant where controls may not be as cost effective. Emissions credits have been a success at reducing air pollution associated with lead, carbon monoxide, particulates, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds.

Testimony from the United Mine Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Pennsylvania Coal Association by Eugene Trisko and Doug Biden from the Electric Power Generation Association told the Committee there was no real demonstrated health or environmental benefit from going beyond the federal mercury reduction rule because of the nature of the mercury problem.

Trisko reminded Committee members the health threat from mercury comes from the consumption of fish, not direct inhalation of mercury in the air.

“Eighty percent of the mercury consumed comes from saltwater fish like tuna, code and swordfish. Canned tuna alone accounts for 30 percent of U.S. mercury consumption. Any reduction in U.S. mercury emissions will not impact the mercury content of saltwater fish (or tuna) consumed in this country.”

“Reducing U.S. power plant mercury emissions by 70 to 90 percent is estimated to reduce U.S. deposition of mercury by 5 to 10 percent in the lower-48 states, and to reduce the average mercury content of domestic freshwater fish by 1 to 2 percent. There is no evidence that controls on U.S. power plants would reduce the number or prevalence of mercury-related ‘fish advisories’ in Pennsylvania or other states,” said Trisko.

Trisko said the 30 Pennsylvania coal-fired power plants that are 40 or more years old each generating less than 250 megawatt hours of electricity are “at risk” for a premature retirement if confronted with inflexible mercury control mandates.

Dr. Robert Wayland from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others pointed to studies which showed virtually no difference between the impact of the existing federal mercury rule and zeroing out all mercury emissions from power plants in the U.S.

EPA noted that mercury emissions from U.S. power plants in total represent one percent of all mercury emissions affecting the United States. Sources of mercury emissions from outside the U.S. account for 97 percent, natural and other sources the remaining two percent.

Dr. Terry Sullivan from the Brookhaven National Laboratory summarized the results of three recent studies on whether there are so-called mercury “hotspots,” areas immediately around power plants where most mercury deposition occurs.

“Our results suggest that only a few percent of the mercury emitted deposits within 10 miles of the plant, larger regions of elevated mercury concentrations were not seen, and mercury concentrations did not match the predicted pattern.

“From a public health perspective, such a hot spot must be attributable to the power plant and it must affect water bodies large enough to support a population of subsistence fishers (because the health threat from mercury comes from eating fish).”

Doug Biden said the federal mercury reduction rule now in effect will reduce emissions by 86 percent in Pennsylvania, primarily because Pennsylvania coal has a higher mercury content.

Biden noted electric generators are already subject to the most stringent mercury reduction requirement in the nation because of the federal rule, to add a Pennsylvania-only rule without the ability to buy emission credits from power plants in other states adds to the competitive disadvantage generators already have. Generators cannot simply pass these costs on to customers. They have to sell their power in a competitive electricity market.

A number of Committee members noted DEP’s proposed rule would set up a closed emission credit system that would take emission credits away from power plants that over-controlled their emissions and give the credits to competitors that could not comply.

They questioned the fundamental fairness of a system that rewards non-compliers in-state who do not make emission reduction investments and restricts a Pennsylvania power plant from selling these extra credits out-of-state. They noted under this system there is no economic incentive to do more than the minimum to comply, unlike in the other existing credit trading systems.

Jan Jarrett, of PennFuture which petitioned the Environmental Quality Board to set a Pennsylvania-only mercury rule, and Nathan Willcox of PennEnvironment both supported a mercury rule that was more stringent than federal requirements.

“We believe that EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule is illegal because the (federal) Clean Air Act requires mercury to be regulated like the toxic it is,” said Jarrett. “It would allow power plants to emit mercury pollution at high levels for more than a decade. It would also set up a trading system for mercury that would allow a power plant to buy credits rather than cut its emissions, a system that works well for sulfur dioxide, but is inappropriate for a toxic like mercury.”

“Beyond the public health threats posed by mercury pollution to humans through the consumption of mercury-contaminated fish, mercury pollution also poses a significant threat to our natural environment,” said Willcox. “Specifically, mercury contamination in birds has been linked to a variety of negative reproductive (fewer eggs produced and reduced chick survival), behavioral (deceased likelihood of hunting and exaggerated response to fright stimulus), and neurological (brain lesions, spinal cord degeneration, weight loss, and difficulty flying, walking and standing) effects in the birds.”

For more information visit the DEP Mercury Rule webpage and see this Digest’s Regulations Section.

The House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee is chaired by Rep. Bill Adolph (R-Delaware) and Rep. Bud George (D-Clearfield).

2/24/2006