PA Environment Digest

Scrapbook

08/12/24 - 147 New Stories - REAL Environmental & Conservation Leadership In PA: http://tinyurl.com/288ebs9j

Daily Blog

Share this:

DEP Says It Lacks Link From Power Plant Mercury Emissions to Deposition Areas

The Kittatinny Ridge offers great views and great weekend escapes. Web: pa.audubon.org

The Department of Environmental Protection told a Senate Committee this week it has no studies showing a link between mercury emissions from local power plants and so-called mercury “hotspots” or studies documenting direct health impacts on Pennsylvania citizens caused by mercury emissions from power plants.

The comments were made by DEP Secretary Kathleen McGinty appearing before the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

The Committee is holding hearings on the issue of reducing mercury emissions from power plants under competing plans, one a bipartisan Senate/House legislative proposal (Senate Bill 1201 and House Bill 2610) that would adopt the federal Clean Air Mercury Rule supported by a coalition of labor, business and the coal industry, and a Pennsylvania-only mercury rule proposed by DEP.

Last week in a press release DEP made the allegation that high mercury readings from a monitoring station in Cresson, Cambria County, were caused by nearby coal-fired power plants, including Homer City, Keystone, Seward and Conemaugh, and was used by DEP as evidence of an alleged mercury “hotspot.”

DEP had contended that a primary reason for its Pennsylvania-only rule that did not incorporate a cap and trade program was that mercury emissions fell close to power plants and a system that trades credits regionally and across state lines would create so-called “hotspots” of mercury around plants.

However looking more closely at DEP’s information, three of those plants – Homer City, Keystone and Seward—had installed state-of-the-art pollution control or combustion equipment that reduced their mercury emissions by 47 percent, yet there was no change in the amount of mercury seen at DEP’s Cresson monitoring site. Therefore no link between the power plants and the mercury monitored at Cresson could actually be demonstrated. (In the case of Conemaugh, that advanced equipment was installed in 1994 and 1995 before DEP began monitoring for mercury.)

Studies by Brookhaven National Laboratory, the U.S. EPA in Steubenville, OH and others have shown that mercury emissions travel hundreds of miles from their sources covering regional and multi-state areas.

In addition, Dr. James A. Lynch, from Pennsylvania State University who runs DEP’s Mercury Monitoring Network, told DEP’s Mercury Rule Work Group last October that information from the Network alone that DEP used for its press release could not be used to determine the source of mercury emissions being deposited in Pennsylvania. (See page 52 of Dr. Lynch’s comments.)

Dr. Lynch has recommended DEP do what is called a “source/receptor” study to pinpoint the source of mercury emissions for the last several years, but DEP did not respond to the suggestion.

In comments to the Committee, Secretary McGinty acknowledged that DEP had in fact not done a causality study that would have pinpointed where emissions were coming from that were measured by the Cresson site. She did not provide an explanation of why a 47 percent reduction in mercury emissions from the nearby power plants did not register on the Cresson monitoring site.

Statewide, there has already has been a 33 percent reduction in mercury emissions from Pennsylvania power plants from 9,958 pounds in 1999 to 6,640 pounds in 2004, according to official reports by the U.S. EPA and the federal Toxics Release Inventory. And, there has been no corresponding significant drop in mercury emissions measured by DEP’s Mercury Monitoring Network statewide.

Mercury emission reductions at those specific plants and around Pennsylvania are a co-benefit of the installation of advanced air pollution control equipment to reduce air pollutants causing acid rain and ground level ozone pollution.

Secretary McGinty also acknowledged that DEP did not have any studies that show how mercury emissions from power plants have a direct health impact on citizens in Pennsylvania. They cannot “connect bullet to gun,” the Secretary said.

Comments to the Committee by state Health Secretary Dr. Calvin B. Johnson and staff from the Health Department confirmed Secretary McGinty’s testimony that his agency could not find studies that established a link between mercury emissions from power plants, fish and human health effects.

Secretaries McGinty and Johnson both said the health threat from mercury emissions was not from breathing in mercury from the ambient air, but in eating fish which may contain mercury ingested up through the food chain.

Dr. Gail Charnley, a toxicologist from HealthRisk Strategies, told the Committee, “Any claims that Pennsylvania’s state-specific proposed rule will protect high consumers of Pennsylvania fish any better than will the federal rule are not scientifically supportable.”

“Shutting down all the coal-fired generation in Pennsylvania tomorrow will have no impact on most people’s methylmercury exposure, which comes primarily from ocean fish, especially canned tuna, not from fish caught in Pennsylvania.

“While it seems logical to assume that reducing power plant or other mercury emissions will lead to reductions in local fish methylmercury levels, available data do not provide much support for that conclusion.

“The relationship between mercury emissions and fish methylmercury levels appears to be highly site-specific, so it is likely that reducing power plant mercury emissions could lead to lower fish methylmercury levels in some places and not in others. Predicting where changes might occur is not yet possible.

“It certainly will not be possible to distinguish between the effects of the Governor’s 90 percent reduction (in mercury) and EPA’s 86 percent reduction in terms of its impact on public health, even if it were possible to achieve one earlier than the other….”

The Committee also explored the question of the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania-only mercury rule DEP had proposed.

In earlier testimony before the Committee, Eugene Trisko, representing the United Mine Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, expressed a concern that DEP’s proposed rule, which provides a preference for bituminous coal would be struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional.

DEP Secretary McGinty told the Committee this week that her agency looked at that question and was comfortable that by setting the same emission limits on all types of coal, the rule would withstand legal challenge. In addition, Secretary McGinty said she would recommend that a severability clause be added to the rule so that in the event the rule was declared unconstitutional the remainder of the rule would stand.

In comments following Secretary McGinty, Eugene Trisko said her recommendation of a severability clause was confirmation of the constitutional weakness in the proposed rule.

Trisko said DEP had “candy coated” the proposed rule with provisions that appeared to benefit Pennsylvania coal, however, if the only provisions of the rule that are designed to benefit mine and power plant workers are eliminated, he said his clients would be left with a rule that would encourage power plants to switch to burning coal from out-of-state.

“The choice is simple under the rule that’s left—spend $200 million on scrubbers to burn Pennsylvania bituminous coal or spend $5 million to install carbon injection systems to control mercury and burn western sub-bituminous coal,” said Trisko.

Attorney General Tom Corbett is now considering the constitutionality of DEP’s proposed Pennsylvania-only mercury rule. His office must sign off on the form and legality of any regulation before it is published for public comment.

After the hearing, Committee Majority Chair Sen. Mary Jo White (R-Venango) said:

“We know that mercury reductions from power plants will occur in Pennsylvania; in fact, they are already down 33 percent from 1999. We also know that under the federal Clean Air Interstate Rule, over 90 percent of our generating capacity will have advanced pollution controls in place by 2015.

”The argument that we will not see significant reductions under Senate Bill 1201 is over. This is about providing flexibility to some of our smaller generating plants, while providing incentives to our larger plants to over-comply, and reduce mercury emissions in a cost-effective way that protects the public health. We cannot afford to lose any of our generating capacity, especially given the lack of any commensurate health benefit under DEP’s plan.

“Make no mistake – every member of this Committee is supportive of reducing mercury emissions. But we must be smart about it,” said Sen.White.

Senate Bill 1201 is set to be considered by the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee on June 13.

A coalition of labor, business and the coal industry support the bipartisan Senate and House bills that will reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 86 percent.

For more information on the hearings on reducing mercury emissions, including video of the hearings and copies of testimony, visit the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee webpage.

NewsClips: Sen. White Responds to DEP Letter in Post-Gazette

DEP Data Shows Mercury Emissions Don’t Cause Local Hotspots

Four Out of Five Prefer State Mercury Plan

Session Schedule

The Senate and House return to session on June 12.

On the Hill

· On the Senate, House Agenda

· House Committee Hears Game Commission Funding Needs

· Opportunities for Native Plants Topic of Next Environmental Issues Forum

· Senate/House Bills Moving/Introduced

Other News

· Fish Commissions Awards Youth Fishing Education Grants