Mercury plan moves forward in Wisconsin

[Guest guest]

http://www.jsonline.com

Mercury plan moves forward

Utilities fear proposal to cut emissions may force shutdowns, hurt economy

By MEG JONES of the Journal Sentinel staff

June 28, 2001

Kenosha - Despite strong objections from utility companies and business

groups, the state Natural Resources Board on Wednesday moved ahead on a

proposal that would make Wisconsin the first state to force utilities to

reduce mercury emissions.

Environmental groups favor the plan, saying it would clean up Wisconsin's

air and reduce the amount of mercury ending up in the state's lakes and

tainting fish.

Utilities think the proposal is too strict, saying it could force them to

close some of the state's 13 coal-burning plants and would cost an estimated

$1 billion over 10 years to put in place the technology required to reduce

emissions - costs that would be passed on to consumers. In Wisconsin, 53% of

all energy is supplied by coal.

The proposed rule would cut mercury emissions by 90% over 15 years.

Utilities would submit compliance plans to cut mercury emissions by 30%

after five years and 50% after 10 years.

The board voted to schedule public hearings on the proposal. However, the

state Department of Natural Resources may end up tinkering with the

proposal, depending on reaction from residents at public hearings held

around the state in the coming months.

Conceding that " we don't have the perfect proposal, " DNR Secretary Darrell

Bazzell said public input will be important to the plan.

" We believe we have to begin the process now to reduce mercury emissions, "

Bazzell said.

Growing health concern

Why the fuss over mercury emissions? Because of growing concerns over the

level of mercury found in fish caught and eaten in Wisconsin.

The DNR in March issued an advisory warning children under 15, nursing

mothers and women of childbearing age not to eat more than one meal a week

of panfish and one meal a month of larger fish caught in any of Wisconsin's

15,057 inland lakes.

Russ Ruland, of the Musky Club of Wisconsin, said warnings about the danger

of consuming fish will hurt tourism because anglers will no longer want to

fish in the state's streams and lakes if they're worried about getting sick

from eating their catch. Ruland has fished in Wisconsin for more than 50

years and recently taught his 6-year-old grandson to fish.

" I think it would be a shame if I have to tell him we can fish but we can't

eat it because it's contaminated with poison, " Ruland told the board.

Utilities are committed to reducing mercury emissions, but the DNR proposal

is too much, too quickly, said Skewes, executive director of the

Wisconsin Utilities Association, which represents all of the state's utility

companies.

Skewes said mercury emissions are a global problem that can't be solved here

when air currents bring in much of the pollution from Asia and other areas.

" After we have spent what I understand will be over a billion dollars on

control technology and fuel switching, we will not have removed a single

Wisconsin lake from the fish consumption advisory list, we will not have

appreciably reduced the amount of mercury in the global pool and we will not

have decreased the risk of mercury exposure to one Wisconsin citizen, "

Skewes said.

Instead, the association recommends reducing mercury emission levels by 10%

over five years and 40% within 10 years. Skewes said the technology to

reduce emissions by 90% from Wisconsin's power plants does not yet exist.

Forcing utilities to chop emissions by so much could hurt the economy and

threaten the companies' ability to meet the state's energy needs, said Jeff

Schoepke of the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest

business group.

Wisconsin could end up becoming an " energy island " where the cost of power

would be much higher than in other states that don't have mercury emission

rules, Schoepke said.

" Unless you can make sure this rule is enforced in Louisiana and China, it's

not going to reduce mercury emissions here, " he said.

In December, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to

draft regulations to limit mercury releases from power plants, but those

regulations would not go into effect until 2004.

That raises the possibility that the EPA's standards could be less stringent

than Wisconsin's rules, Schoepke said.

But Bill Kordus, of the Twin City Rod and Gun Club, said utility companies

are simply trying to frighten people by saying the plan will be too

expensive.

" These people will spend millions of dollars to postpone anything, " said

Kordus, who lives in Menasha. " If they're not spending money to clean up

their act, then they've got their head in the sand. "

Although mercury emissions float into the state from elsewhere, Bazzell said

Wisconsin has a chance " to help shape debate " over the issue. Other states

may take a cue from Wisconsin and set their own rules to limit the mercury

that comes from power plants.

While the technology to cut 90% of all mercury emissions in Wisconsin

doesn't exist, Ruland said the state's proposal could spur utilities to

devise ways to clean the air.

" As rules like this are passed, the technology will catch up quickly, "

Ruland said.

Mercury Rules

The proposed set of regulations aimed at reducing mercury emissions includes

the following provisions:

Mercury emissions would be reduced in stages over the next 15 years.

Utilities would submit compliance plans to cut mercury emissions by 30%

after five years, 50% after 10 years and 90% after 15 years.

The DNR may adjust mercury reduction requirements to make allowances for

cost and technical feasibility.

Utilities could satisfy 25% of their compliance goals by organizing

community collection and disposal programs to remove mercury from other

sources, such as thermometers and electrical switches.

To provide for industrial expansion, the regulations would set caps for all

sources, beyond which each pound of new emissions must be offset by a

reduction of 1.5 pounds of airborne mercury.

Other sources that emit 10 pounds or more of mercury per year would be

required to determine their average emissions, which would be used to set a

cap.

Source: Department of Natural Resources

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 28, 2001