On Mercury, Cliffside, and Convenient Ignorance

Some of you may wonder why I have yet to speak out about the recent acquiescence by DAQ in the issuance of a new air quality permit for Duke Energy's Cliffside #6 coal-fired power plant. Frankly, the DAQ's complete reversal from its previous position last fall knocked my legs out from under me, and every time I think about it I see red. It's a good thing I didn't attend the recent protest, because I'd probably still be locked up. That being said, this discussion must continue, and it must be based on the real-world dangers associated with this reckless project.

Before I get into specific concerns about Cliffside's permit, I want to talk some more about mercury. Now, everybody knows it's not a good idea to bite the end off a thermometer and suck the juicy mercury out, and I guarantee nearly every parent reading this had that worry hovering in the back of their mind when they stuck one under their child's tongue. I think I even voiced that concern from time to time: "Don't bite this! Just hold it with your lips." :) You never know, right? But that is not where mercury's danger lies.

Mercury is an extremely toxic heavy metal, and when freed from its carbonaceous prison and re-introduced into the environment through the burning of coal, nature simply cannot handle it or manage it. Once ingested by wildlife or people, it remains in their systems virtually unopposed by any effective immuno-agents, working diligently toward its goal of cellular disruption. And as time goes by, more and more of that destructive agent enters the body and sets up shop, and the damage not only continues, it gets worse. That may sound overly dramatic, but it's apparent to me that the average person out there has absolutely no idea what effect accumulated mercury is having on our health right now. Not sometime in the future, right now.

I'll give you a break from Preachy Steve for a moment, and let someone considerably smarter say a few things:

The neurotoxin—which builds up, or bioaccumulates, in the body over time—poses a particular threat to children and developing fetuses. By damaging the brain and central nervous system, mercury’s effects can range from delays in the development of fine motor skills to poor verbal memory and lowered IQ.

And scientists still are uncovering new ways that mercury can harm humans. Three years ago, for example, researchers from Johns Hopkins University reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that high mercury levels are correlated with an increased risk of heart attacks in adult men. Other studies have suggested a link between mercury and male infertility.

And it's not just us or the fish we eat that are being affected, birds are at risk, too:

The biologists found mercury in all four bird species, yet Bicknell’s thrush showed the highest concentrations. The scientists speculate the birds ingest mercury when feeding on insects, which pick up the toxin from eating even smaller bugs and vegetation. Precisely how the inorganic mercury transforms into toxic methylmercury in the mountains remains a mystery. Evers speculates that acid rain—a problem across the Northeast—helps create conditions that promote the transformation.

For songbirds already stressed by habitat loss, he says, mercury may be one more nail in the coffin. A few years ago, researchers discovered that acid rain is stripping mountains of calcium the birds need to produce eggs. Calcium depletion combined with mercury poisoning may result in a “double whammy,” Evers says. “Those two stressors combined could be one reason why we are seeing declining songbird populations.”

Okay, that's enough about the evil of mercury for now. Suffice to say it is an incredibly powerful, durable and dangerous toxin, and it's in a class all by itself when discussing airborne contaminants. Which leads me to some of the opinions given by DAQ in the complaint/answer section of the review of the permit approval (chubby pdf) for Cliffside:

complaint: This facility's 170 lbs/year of mercury is much higher than a similar plant Reliant Energy has in Pennsylvania that will emit only 1.5 lbs/year.

response: Mercury emissions are limited under Federal and State regulations. While the emissions of mercury are important to the DAQ, it is outside the scope of this hearing regarding the designation of Unit #6 as minor or major for HAPs since mercury emissions are a small contribution to the total HAPs.

As you can see, the DAQ is still working from the position that total tonnage is the overriding concern here, and refuses to acknowledge that mercury is any different than all the other chemicals/elements that will be emitted from Cliffside. That's about as intelligent as adding a few drops of Polonium 210 to the rim of your margarita glass and saying, "Whatever. Salt, Polonium 210, it's all bad for you."

You should also note the comment about Federal and State regulating of mercury emissions. That (I believe) is a reference to CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule), which, along with the delisting of power plants from CAA (Clean Air Act) standards, was a Bush EPA attempt to undermine efforts at controlling mercury emissions. Instead of regulating each facility, CAMR broadened the focus to regional caps on mercury emissions, but it had so many holes in it, we could be swimming in mercury pools before any real steps would be taken. Which was the whole goal of that pointless exercise—do nothing about mercury.

If that is what DAQ is talking about, then they don't know what they're talking about. Both CAMR and the delisting of power plants was vacated by a D.C. Circuit Court last year:

New Jersey, fourteen additional States and various environmental organizations
contended, and the Court agreed, that the Delisting Rule was contrary to the plain text and
structure of section 112. Section 112 requires EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) and more specifically, section 112(n) requires EPA to regulate EGUs under
section 112 when it concludes that doing so is “appropriate and necessary.” In December 2000,
EPA concluded it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury emissions from coal- and
oil-fired power plants under section 112 and listed these EGUs as sources of HAPs regulated
under that section. However, in 2005, EPA reconsidered its previous determination and removed
these EGUs from the section 112 list. Thereafter it promulgated CAMR under section 111. The
Court held that EPA’s removal of these EGUs from section 112 list violates the CAA because
section 112(c)(9) requires EPA to make specific findings before removing a source listed under
section 112 and EPA conceded it never made such findings. Therefore, because coal-fired EGUs
are listed sources under section 112, regulation of existing coal-fired EGUs’ mercury emissions
under section 111 is prohibited, effectively invalidating CAMR’s regulatory approach. EPA
must now proceed to regulate the HAPs from EGUs under the maximum available control
technology (MACT) standards of section 112(d).
Despite the Court’s vacation on February 8, CAMR and EPA’s Delisting Rule remained
in effect until the Court issued its mandate. Generally, the mandate is generally not issued until
seven (7) calendar days after the time to file a rehearing expires; however, in this case the Court
issued its mandate earlier than normal. On February 25, 2008, the Environmental and Tribal
Petitioners and Environmental Healthcare intervenors filed a motion for an expedited issuance of
the mandate. The D.C. Circuit Rules, specifically Circuit Rule 41, expressly provide the D.C.
Circuit to issue a mandate whenever it so chooses and they allow a party to move for an expedited issuance of the mandate if good cause is shown. On March 6, EPA filed an opposition
to the motion for an expedited hearing. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the Environmental and
Tribal Petitioners and Environmental Healthcare intervenors and on March 14, 2008, the court
granted the motion for the expedited issuance of the mandate, which was issued later that day.

I understand this is kind of confusing, but please hang with me here. The Bush EPA removes power plants from the list of emitters that are covered under the Clean Air Act, even though those EGU's were at the top of the list Congress was concerned about when the Act was passed. Early last year, a D.C. court overturned that decision, and then the EPA filed a motion with the Supreme Court to overturn the overturning. Well, there's a new EPA calling the shots now, and it agrees with the circuit court decision:

Announcements

EPA has decided to develop emissions standards for power plants under the Clean Air Act (Section 112), consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s opinion (PDF) (18pp, 51k, about PDF) on the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). Accordingly, on February 6, 2009, the Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, asked the Supreme Court to dismiss EPA’s request (petition for certiorari) that the Court review the D.C. Circuit Court’s vacatur of the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR).

If anybody from DAQ is reading this, you may recall a request I made a few months ago: that you should not lean on Bush-era regulations when considering this application, and should wait to see what changes the new EPA would institute to regulate HAPs. Well, you should have paid attention, because those new regs are coming. In addition, CAMR is gone. Das kaput.

Meaning, whatever plans you've made to regulate total state outputs of mercury, and whatever state-level mercury emissions formulas you've come up with for individual North Carolina facilities, will both have to take a back seat to the EPA's forthcoming standards. Just like the Clean Air Act intended. And speaking of the Clean Air Act, pay close attention to the second half of this section:

(1) Major source
The term “major source” means any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants. The Administrator may establish a lesser quantity, or in the case of radionuclides different criteria, for a major source than that specified in the previous sentence, on the basis of the potency of the air pollutant, persistence, potential for bioaccumulation, other characteristics of the air pollutant, or other relevant factors.

Is it becoming clearer now? Those who wrote this LAW understood that some chemicals/toxins have extraordinary characteristics, that a simple 10-25 ton/year formula could not safely address. Mercury (potential for bioaccumulation) is one of those. But you know, a simple-minded idiot like me shouldn't have to explain that to the "experts" we pay to monitor our air quality.

In closing, let me summarize: DAQ has (once again) issued an air quality permit prematurely for the Cliffside #6 project, and will likely have that permit challenged and nullified. And this time, the power of the Federal government will probably be backing up the plaintiffs, instead of opposing them.