Cumberland Chapter Sierra Club Kentucky

The following are comments prepared By Ramesh Bhatt on behalf of the Cumberland Chapter regarding EPA-proposed Mercury Rule. These comments were submitted to Administrator Mike Leavitt, US Environmental Protection Agency, in April, 2004.

Administrator Mike Leavitt
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 20460

Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0056

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

I am writing on behalf of 4600 Kentuckians who are members of the Cumberland (Kentucky) Chapter of the Sierra Club. We are dismayed that the EPA has proposed an extraordinarily industry-friendly and ineffective mercury rule. These weak regulations will not only perpetuate the negative impacts of the toxic chemical across the nation, but will also exacerbate the existing serious pollution problems in our state. We urge you to rescind this rule and come up with more stringent regulations that will protect Kentuckians and their environment.

Health effects of mercury
It is universally accepted that mercury is a developmental toxin that affects prenatal and postnatal development (1). EPA itself has found that as many as 630,000 children are born each year with unhealthy levels of mercury in their blood (2,3). One in twelve women of childbearing age in the U.S. has unsafe levels of mercury in their bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2). Mercury is also known to cause problems with fertility, blood pressure regulation, and heart function in adults (4).

Lack of MACT standards
Given the documented health effects of mercury and the fact that coal-fired power plants are the largest sources of this chemical, it is shocking that the EPA has declined to regulate mercury emissions from power plants as a hazardous substance with a national Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard. Instead, it is proposing to treat mercury like a more benign chemical such as SO2, with a cap-and-trade program (5). This is clearly contrary to the air toxics provisions of the Clean Air Act. The failure to regulate mercury using MACT is especially troubling given that up to 90% reduction in mercury emissions from power plants is possible using existing proven technologies like carbon injection (6). Even the EPA’s own analysis revealed that this kind of mercury pollution reduction is achievable and with relatively little cost (7). Yet, the EPA has chosen to ignore its own findings and has proposed these weak rules.

The cap-and-trade proposal and mercury hotspots
The proposal to allow power plants to buy pollution credits from other facilities and thereby avoid pollution reduction is very troubling. EPA has cited the success of the SO2 cap-and-trade program in proposing a similar program for mercury. Unlike SO2, however, mercury is a toxic chemical whose effects are proportionally more heavily felt around power plants than SO2. Thus, the proposed cap-and-trade program will lead to mercury “hotspots.” States like Kentucky are particularly vulnerable because of the presence of a large number of coal-fired power plants. We are terribly concerned that our state will become a sacrificial zone for the nation.

The viability of the proposed rule
Reports suggest that the proposed rule was heavily influenced by industry lobbyists and lawyers, and EPA’s own staff did not get a chance to conduct the kinds of analyses that typically precede such rule making (8). There is also evidence indicating that, because the proposed regulations are so weak, even the modest goals of the regulations will not be reached until 2030, well beyond the date proposed by the EPA (9). These factors bring into question the viability of the proposed rule, and point out the flaws in the EPA’s rule making process that generated it.

The view from Kentucky
About 95% of Kentucky’s energy comes from coal-fired power plants (10). Kentucky is eighth in the nation in terms of total mercury production and is surrounded by states, such as Ohio and Indiana, which are even higher on this scale. According to data generated by Abt associates, the firm that EPA uses for its own analyses, Kentucky leads the nation in per capita deaths due to power plant pollution (11). Also, EPA data indicate that Jefferson County, which includes Louisville, ranks first out of 736 Southeastern U.S. counties in terms of health risks caused by hazardous air pollutants. A recent study concludes that rainfall in south-eastern states is contaminated with mercury (12). Every body of water in Kentucky already has unsafe levels of mercury, forcing authorities to issue a state-wide fish advisory.

Given all this, the citizens of our state cannot afford more pollution. The proposed regulations will unnecessarily subject Kentuckians to further exposure to the toxic effects of mercury for an unacceptably long period of time. Unborn and recently born children will be affected the most. These regulations are antithetical to the goals of the Clean Air Act and inconsistent with EPA’s mission to protect our nation’s environment and the health of its citizens. We urge you to rescind them and propose more effective regulations. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Ramesh Bhatt
Vice-Chair, Sierra Club Cumberland (Kentucky) Chapter

(1) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "ToxFAQs for Mercury" (April 1999); In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development, Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility (May 2000).
(2) Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2003.
(3) "U.S. EPA Presentation to the Fish Forum," Mahaffey, Kathryn R., San Diego, January 2004.
(4) High levels of mercury in seafood linked to infertility. BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 109:1121-5, 2002. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000.
(5) Proposed National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants," and "Proposed and New Standards for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 60 and 63, January 30, 2004, http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/30jan20041000/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-1539.pdf
(6) Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, 2000. Environmental regulation and technology innovation: controlling mercury emissions from coal-fired boilers.
(7) U.S. EPA presentation to Edison Electric Institute. December 4, 2001. U.S. EPA, 2002. Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers. Interim report including errata dated 3-21-02. EPA-600/R-01-109. April.
(8) Rules geared to benefit industry. Los Angeles Times, March 16, 2004.
(9) U.S. EPA. Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Electric Utility Boilers. February, 2004
(10) A cumulative assessment of the environmental impacts caused by Kentucky electric generating units. Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. December, 2001.
(11) Clear the Air Organization. Death, disease, and dirty power: Mortality and health damage due to air pollution from power plants. November, 2000.
(12) www.nwf.org/cleantherain

Top | Chapter Home |Sierra Home | Become a Sierra Club member.

Cumberland Chapter footer