New EPA proposals would reduce coal plants' mercury emissions
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 21, 2011 at 6:54 PM
The teenaged girl had become withdrawn, her grades worsened and the family was worried. Her mother took her to several doctors before a test finally revealed the problem.
Her blood contained a level of mercury several times what it should be. The family frequently ate fish for its perceived health benefits, but were unaware it is also a common source of mercury, said Robert Laumbach, the doctor who treated the girl last week.
The mercury, he said, is directly attributable to the country’s coal-fired power plants, which have historically had no regulations on how much mercury they pump into the air, all of which eventually ends up in water, then fish, and then humans, Laumbach said.
"We all have mercury in our bodies from the emissions from power plants," said Laumbach, an assistant professor at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute in Piscataway.
Those coal-fired power plants may soon have to cut back their emissions, after the Environmental Protection Agency last week unveiled the first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollutants.
Under the proposed regulations, mercury emissions would be reduced by 91 percent, according to the EPA, which estimates the new rules could prevent 17,000 premature deaths per year nationwide, as well as thousands of illnesses, like heart attacks and asthma.
About half the nation’s coal plants employ pollution-control technologies but still emit nearly half the country’s toxic mercury, the EPA said.
New Jersey’s standards are already more stringent than the federal proposal — and have been for almost a decade — but limiting emissions elsewhere will have important benefits here, officials said.
"These proposed standards will have a dramatic impact on the health of children here in New Jersey and across the country," said Judith Enck, the EPA’s regional administrator. "These standards simply require power plants to install widely available and proven technology to control these pollutants."
Much of the industry is opposed to the changes. Scott Segal, the director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies, said the changes could endanger half of the country’s power generation — and the public health benefits are being exaggerated.
"Their benefits analysis is completely smoke and mirrors," he said. "You don’t regulate yourself to prosperity."
However, other companies support of the proposal. PSEG invested $1.3 billion to reduce emissions by 90 percent at its plants in Hudson and Mercer counties, and is urging the EPA to finalize the rule as soon as possible.
"It can be done — we’ve done it here in New Jersey," said Jenn Kramer, a PSEG spokeswoman. "It’s too great of a cost not to make these investments."
New Jersey passed its law limiting emissions in 2004. But it’s down-wind from other power plants not currently regulated. In fact, a single power plant across the border in Pennsylvania — the Portland Generating Station in Mount Bethel — accounts for more mercury emissions than all five of New Jersey’s power plants combined, according to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.
The EPA will hold a 60-day public comment period before finalizing the rule.