Yes.
Limits are crucial to protecting public health, especially in children.
By Yolanda Whyte
As a doctor, I see all too often the impacts to public health because utilities have not planned for how and when to reduce the harmful pollution that comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels. As a pediatrician, I work with children, who are the most vulnerable and most sensitive to dangerous pollutants in our air and water.
I’ve treated hundreds of children whose health is compromised by pollutants in our air and water, so I was pleased to see that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed new rule earlier this spring to limit the amount of mercury and other air toxins that power plants can emit into the air, and scheduled a public hearing on it in Atlanta today. This rule will establish nationwide standards for mercury and toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants, and it is crucial to protecting public health and the environment.
Methylmercury is the type of mercury that poses the most danger to humans, like the children I care for. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that causes a range of developmental and learning disorders when, for example, it passes from pregnant or nursing mothers to their babies. Once a mother or child is exposed, mercury remains in the body and builds up over time. Children are at risk of negative impacts to cognition, memory, attention, language, fine motor skills and visual spatial skills when they or their mothers are exposed to mercury. In fact, babies have been born with severe disabilities even when their mothers show no signs of exposure. Yet we are all exposed.
Here in the Southeast, there are about 300 coal units and in 2005, these plants were responsible for emitting more than 20,000 pounds of mercury into the air. This mercury eventually rains into bodies of water, where it accumulates in fish that then are eaten by humans. To understand how pervasive this problem is, consider that every state in our region has mercury-based fish consumption advisories, and most people have some degree of mercury accumulation in their bodies.
Critics of this proposed rule complain that the EPA is issuing environmental safeguards at a “breakneck pace” and that there is simply not enough time to comply. This argument is hard to accept when I compare it to the ongoing health risks posed by continued pollution. That argument also loses credibility when you consider these standards have been in the works for more than two decades. Power plants could have begun preparing in 1990 when the Clean Air Act was amended in 2000 or when EPA first confirmed that mercury would be regulated as a hazardous air pollutant. Industry should have begun preparing in 2005, when President George W. Bush’s EPA issued a rule capping mercury emissions. The utilities did not feel a sense of urgency, but I can assure you parents of sick children who I treat do.
Although some utilities now warn that this proposal may harm the economy, EPA economists estimate that the net benefits of this rule will far outweigh any costs. Setting limits on mercury pollution will require many coal plants to install upgraded pollution controls. Installing these controls will not only prevent mercury pollution, but also other dangerous pollutants. Together, these pollution reductions may save between $42 billion and $130 billion in 2016 by preventing 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits; 11,000 non-fatal heart attacks; 4,500 cases of chronic bronchitis; up to 17,000 premature deaths and provide other health benefits.
Physicians like me will celebrate the day when fewer children come to my office for treatments due to aggravated air pollution illnesses and diseases. These benefits cannot come soon enough for our children.
Dr. Yolanda Whyte of Atlanta is a pediatrician and volunteer for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
No.
New limits will produce a nonmeasurable reduction in risk.
By Chris Hobson
Southern Co., the leading energy supplier in the southeastern United States and one of the largest generators of electricity in the nation, works hard every day to ensure that its customers have access to reliable and affordable power.
And like the rest of our industry, we are committed to working with our communities, stakeholders and our customers to ensure the environment is clean.
That is why we have invested more than $8 billion in environmental controls in recent years and could spend up to $4.1 billion to comply with existing, revised or new rules over the next three years.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today is hearing public input on the proposed Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule. This proposal is one of the most burdensome, far-reaching and expensive rules the EPA has ever put forward.
If adopted, the rule could put the reliability and affordability of our electricity supply at risk. It would affect nearly 50 percent of total U.S. electricity generation at a cost the EPA estimates to be greater than $10 billion per year. It would impose an unrealistic three-year timeline for compliance, at a time when the industry is laboring to comply with numerous other requirements.
The additional mercury emissions reductions proposed by the rule would be extraordinarily expensive and produce a nonmeasurable reduction in risk. Power plant mercury reductions have had little, and in the future will have even less, impact on exposure.
Past EPA and Electric Power Research Institute work estimated that up to 60 percent of mercury deposited in the U.S. originated in other countries. Past EPRI calculations predict that substantial curtailment of mercury emissions from power plants would reduce mercury exposure in the U.S. by just 1 percent on average.
That’s because the plants impacted by this rule account for less than 1 percent of all airborne mercury emissions — man-made and natural — in the world.
Mercury in the environment is a complex issue. It is produced from many natural and industrial sources. Although estimates have varied over the years, about half of the mercury that goes into the air each year comes from human activities generated from industrial sources. The other half comes from natural sources such as the ocean, volcanoes and the soil.
Southern Co. supports efforts to address emissions reductions that foster achievable and cost-effective targets and timetables. We are a leader in developing, demonstrating and implementing mercury control technologies.
In fact, Southern Co. and its Gulf Power subsidiary in Pensacola, Fla., are operating the only dedicated mercury control research test center in the nation.
This facility is unique in the world because of the completeness of control equipment installed and the large size of the test units. Further, the facility is available to all industry participants and has been used by EPRI and a number of technology providers.
At Georgia Power’s Plant Scherer near Macon, recently installed environmental controls will result in up to 90 percent mercury removal. Since 2001, the company has conducted mercury control technology tests at Alabama Power, Georgia Power and Mississippi Power. Southern Co. is supporting research to examine health impacts, deposition and how mercury emissions react in the environment.
While we believe that Americans are at low risk from mercury, we will continue to seek cleaner, better ways to generate electricity with as little impact on the environment as possible.
Chris Hobson is chief environmental officer for Atlanta-based Southern Co.
