 |
 |
|
|
||
Cost of Mercury Pollution Control: A Cup of Coffee Per Month
National Wildlife Federation Report Shows Low Cost of Mercury Cleanup
Published October 19th 2004
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association December 2004 Newsletter)
WASHINGTON, DC – Installing technology at coal-burning power plants to deeply reduce mercury emissions would cost the average consumer an additional $1 to $3 per month on their household utility bills, according to a report by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). “We have yet another piece of evidence showing that reducing mercury emissions is a challenge American industry can meet today,” says Zoe Lipman, NWF Program Manager. “The technology is available and the cost is reasonable. We have the tools in our hands to protect the health of our citizens and wildlife. Now, we’re calling on federal leaders to get the job done by enacting protective mercury-emissions standards.”
NWF analyzed the cost of installing mercury controls on coal burning power plants in five states. The conclusion: deep mercury reductions are feasible and affordable today. Getting the Job Done debunks the claim that strong, rapid mercury reductions are impossible or economically impractical for the nation’s coal-burning power plants, the largest unregulated source of mercury pollution in the United States. Mercury is deposited in the nation’s waters and goes through the food chain into fish and humans that consume fish. Forty-four states have issued advisories warning people to limit their consumption of certain fish caught in the nation’s lakes, streams and coastal waters due to mercury contamination.
“Even in those states that rely most heavily on coal for electricity generation, we’ve demonstrated that we can significantly reduce mercury emissions for about the cost of a cup of coffee a month,” says Felice Stadler, an NWF Policy Specialist. “If it works in these states, we can make it work across the nation.” “This is one problem we do not need to hand down to our children,” says Lipman. “Fishing is a way of life for millions of men, women and children in this country. We want to leave a legacy of clean water and healthy fish. Anglers pay millions of dollars per year to help with fish conservation and management efforts. We’re asking the utilities to play their part so that we can make mercury fish consumption advisories a thing of the past.”
Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data on various mercury control technologies, Getting the Job Done assesses the costs of reducing mercury emissions from power plants in five states that generate from 40 percent to 95 percent of their electricity from coal and whose consumers would be likely to see increases in their electric bills due to the cost of mercury controls. The report examines coal-burning plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, and North Dakota. These states rank high nationwide for their mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. Getting the Job Done shows that coal-burning power plants can reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent, at a reasonable cost, regardless of the type of coal burned and the boiler configuration.The NWF report also found:
In Pennsylvania, there are 78 coal-fired boilers at 36 plants. Pennsylvania burns predominantly bituminous coal, and coal provides 56 percent of Pennsylvania’s electricity. Achieving 90 percent mercury control at these plants would raise the monthly electricity bill for residents by approximately $1.10 or 1.4 percent.
* In Ohio, there are 80 coal-fired boilers at 22 plants. Coal provides 90 percent of Ohio’s electricity, and the state burns chiefly bituminous coal. Achieving 90 percent mercury control at these plants would raise the monthly electricity bill for residents by approximately $2.14 or just under 3 percent. Both Pennsylvania and Ohio estimates include the cost of state-of-the-art sulfur dioxide control at certain plants.
* In Illinois, there are 56 coal-fired boilers at 21 plants. Coal provides 46.1 percent of Illinois’ electricity, and the state burns predominantly sub-bituminous coal. Achieving 90 percent mercury control at these plants would raise the monthly electricity bill for residents by approximately 69 cents or 1 percent.
* In Michigan, there are 57 coal-fired boilers at 20 plants. Coal provides 57 percent of Michigan’s electricity and the state burns a mixture of bituminous and sub-bituminous coals. Achieving 90 percent mercury control at these plants would raise the monthly electricity bill for residents by approximately 69 cents or 1.2 percent.
* In North Dakota, there are 13 coal-fired boilers at seven plants. Coal provides 95 percent of the state’s electricity and the state burns predominantly lignite coal. Achieving 90 percent mercury control at these plants would raise the monthly electricity bill for residents by approximately $1.94 or 2.9 percent.
Cost impacts on commercial and industrial customers are equally reasonable. Commercial customers in these states would see average increases of $5 to $15 on average monthly bills of $300 to $600, while industrial customers would see monthly increases of $100 to $300 on average monthly bills of $7,000 to $30,000.
Getting the Job Done comes at a time when the EPA is preparing to regulate mercury emissions from power plants for the first time, a process that has stretched over a period of 14 years, starting when Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 and gave EPA new authority to aggressively regulate toxic air pollutants from major industries. Rather than set strict limits for each plant, however, EPA has proposed a national emissions cap, allowing power plants to meet that cap by either reducing their emissions or buying “pollution credits” from cleaner companies. While the EPA’s proposed cap represents a 70 percent reduction from today’s levels, its emissions trading program for coal-fired power plants would delay these reductions until at least 2025. In contrast, were EPA to follow its congressional mandate, an emission rule requiring each power plant to meet a technically feasible stringent standard would likely reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent by 2008.
“The current EPA plan is too little too late,” says Lipman. “Mercury contamination poses great risk to people and wildlife – and now we have a solution to the problem at a reasonable cost. This report makes a compelling case that we do not need to wait 15 years to begin taking this problem seriously.”
Mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin that interferes with the development and function of the central nervous system, as well as the cardiovascular and reproductive systems. Even at low levels mercury can cause subtle but permanent harm to the human brain and reproductive harm in wildlife.
Other industries that were once very large mercury emitters, like municipal and medical waste incinerators, have been subject to stringent state and federal regulations that are resulting in over 90 percent reductions in mercury emissions. However, power plants are not currently subject to mercury regulation.
“We know that regulations restricting mercury air pollution have a clear positive effect on the environment in a matter of years, not decades,” says Stadler. “The link is clear: reducing mercury in the air will lead to reducing mercury in water, fish and the wildlife and people who depend on them. To do that, we must act now.”
Protecting wildlife through education and action since 1936, the National Wildlife Federation is America's conservation organization creating solutions that balance the needs of people and wildlife now and for future generations.