News Coverage
Groups condemn EPA's mercury rule
Published March 16, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration drew rare applause from environmentalists Thursday when it issued a strict new rule intended to sharply reduce the amount of smog-forming chemicals discharged by power plants.
But now environmental groups are condemning a second rule, which the Environmental Protection Agency released Tuesday, to limit mercury from power plants.
The smog rule "deserved strong praise last week, and the mercury rule deserves strong criticism," said Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense, a non-profit group.
"The big lesson here is the Bush administration is happy to move forward with environmental controls, but only to the extent industry is comfortable with them," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch, a non-profit environmental group.
But the EPA says the mercury rule went as far as it could without excessive costs to companies and their customers.
The rule "will virtually eliminate elevated levels of mercury American women and children may face solely because of U.S. power plants," said Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's air director.
What the two rules will do:
* The first will lower permitted levels of smog-forming chemicals and particle pollution from power plants in 28 Eastern states. Both have been linked to heart and lung problems.
* The second limits mercury from plants across the nation. Mercury settles into waterways and makes fish unsafe to eat. Children whose mothers were exposed to mercury when they were pregnant can have developmental problems.
A power plant can meet both limits by installing pollution-control technology. But a plant can also satisfy the requirements by paying another plant to reduce emissions further to offset a smaller reduction by the first plant. That is known as trading pollution credits.
Environmental groups, including Environmental Defense and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, object to mercury trading. They say it could allow mercury to accumulate in "hot spots" near plants that decide not to cut emissions.
"The 'cap-and-trade' plan was spawned from politically driven science and faulty methods," said a statement from the non-profit Environmental Working Group.
"What credit the agency earned last week (from the smog) rule is more than rescinded by this unacceptable mercury rule," said William Becker, head of a coalition of local and state air-pollution officials.
"EPA thinks -- and we don't -- that (mercury) technology is not here yet," said Praveen Amar of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, a coalition of air-quality agencies in eight states.
"EPA has more of a comfort level with (smog and particle controls), and so does industry," Amar said.
Power companies use filters to cut particle pollution and a device like a car's catalytic converter to cut smog-forming gases. The technology has been used for decades.
Some mercury is trapped by the same controls used for smog and particle pollution. But to achieve deep reductions, companies would have to use filters and chemicals that have not been widely tested.
Of all the pollutants, mercury is the most difficult and costly to control, said Scott Segal of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group.
"Could the rule have been written in a more restrictive fashion? Perhaps," Segal said.
"But . . . EPA was more sensitive to environmental concerns than industry concerns in developing the mercury rule," he said.