Nov 21 2006
Many states are going beyond a controversial Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mercury emission trading plan by adopting their own more stringent restrictions on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Today marks the date when states are required to submit plans to EPA for how they plan to comply with the federal rule. States have the option of setting tight plant-specific limits on coal plant emissions, or adopting the federal plan which would allow plants to buy emission credits instead of reducing mercury pollution.
“The federal cap and trade program does not guarantee that every plant will clean up its act. As a result, communities downwind of credit-buying plants will continue to be at risk from the harmful effects of mercury,” says Catherine Bowes, Mercury Program Manager at the National Wildlife Federation.
As of today, there are many states including Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Minnesota that have rejected the EPA plan. These and other states have either finalized strong state policies that assign plant-specific mercury emission limits and prohibit emissions trading, or are very close to doing so.
There are several states that are opting into EPA's trading program - but with tighter emission caps or restrictions on emissions trading. EPA can approve these state plans or it may impose its own rule on a state if it finds the state plan inadequate. It is not known how EPA will treat the plans that states submit.
“By allowing plants to avoid cleaning up mercury pollution by purchasing emission credits, EPA’s plan falls far short of what’s needed to protect public health and the environment from toxic mercury. Fortunately, there are many states that have recognized the flaws in EPA’s plan and exercised the leadership necessary to control their local sources of mercury pollution,” says Bowes.
Just two days before the EPA’s deadline, the American Medical Association (AMA) announced its opposition to the federal cap and trade program, calling on the federal government to take a stronger role in reducing mercury emissions from power plants.
“States that have not yet finalized their rules should take this important announcement by the AMA under consideration as they examine how to address mercury emissions. The states that have not yet completed their plans should look to state governments, rather than EPA, for leadership in addressing their mercury pollution sources,” says Bowes. “Adopting EPA’s legally questionable mercury rule lets power plants off the hook from cleaning up their mercury pollution. There is no justifiable reason to leave affordable, effective mercury emission control technology on the shelf when the local benefits of reducing mercury emissions are so clear.”
National Wildlife Federation recently released a report calling attention to the widespread nature of mercury contamination in the U.S. The report highlighted research from over 60 published studies, and found that mercury contamination affects far more wildlife species, in far more geographic areas, than scientists previously thought. The report also identified several examples where reducing mercury pollution resulted in reduced mercury levels in fish and wildlife in local lakes.
“Recent studies show that mercury contamination is widespread throughout the food chain, accumulating in fish and both aquatic and land-based birds, mammals, and reptiles. With wildlife already under intense pressure from global warming, states have to take the strongest action possible to reduce the added threats of toxic mercury exposure,” said Bowes.