News Coverage
State considers own rules to curb mercury pollution
Published February 4, 2005
CONCORD - Concerned that President Bush isn't doing enough to stem the flow of mercury into the environment, state legislators, regulators and environmental advocates are taking matters into their own hands.
"We're getting no help from the Bush administration, so we need to look for solutions here," said Catherine Corkery, a New Hampshire Sierra Club lobbyist.
"New Hampshire's going to have to speak up like they did in the late '80s and early '90s on acid rain."
Mercury pollution is a particular concern for Eastern states such as New Hampshire, considered the tailpipe for emissions blowing from coal-burning power plants in Western states.
A coalition of states - including New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont - is not happy with a federal proposal to allow polluting plants to meet mercury emission limits by buying credits from plants whose emissions are below the limits.
The rule had been expected in December, but was delayed. It almost certainly faces a legal challenge if enacted. The coalition states instead want the Clean Air Act enforced by requiring power plants to install pollution reduction equipment.
"Until the rule is finalized, we do not have an opportunity to challenge the rule in court, but we are certainly actively participating in the public comment process," said Maureen Smith, a senior assistant attorney general in the environmental protection division.
Of course, the result is that it may be some time before anything is done to regulate mercury pollution.
Anticipating indefinite delays, the state Department of Environmental Services recently rewrote deadlines for mercury reduction at coal-burning power plants in Bow and Portsmouth in recommendations submitted to the Legislature.
The old deadlines tied state reduction goals to federal compliance deadlines. But a recently introduced Senate bill would cut mercury emissions by 80 percent in eight years, independent of federal guidelines. The bill also proposes a cap for carbon dioxide emissions.
"We're not tying compliance dates with federal regulations, because the federal regulations are still not out," said Tom Niejadlik, of the department's Air Resources Division.
"There's no indication of when they're going to come out," he said. "And if they do, there's certainly going to be litigation and it's going to be held up for years."
A spokesman said Public Service of New Hampshire, which owns both power plants, was concerned by the bill. "We believe it may not simply be possible to achieve those emissions values from a technological or economic perspective," said Martin Murray. "If there were a simple solution to this challenge, it would have been implemented long ago."
Advocates disagree.
"There have been a number of studies that say it is feasible economically and technologically to clean up these plants for mercury," said Doug Bogen, state program director for Clean Water Action, an environmental group based in Portsmouth.
Other bills introduced this legislative session signal there is strong interest in mercury reduction.
One measure would ban mercury products from going into landfills, another would ban mercury-containing products from store shelves.
Mercury contamination is considered a serious health risk and already has prompted fish consumption advisories for all New Hampshire lakes.
Once mercury enters the water supply, bacteria turn it into an easily absorbable form called methylmercury. Exposure is known to cause neurological and other developmental problems. Pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable.