Showing posts with label Mercury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mercury. Show all posts
Friday, January 28, 2011
Proposed Mercury Rule generates far less committee discussion in the Senate than the House
A proposed DEQ rule requiring an analysis of proposed construction of new or modification of existing mercury emissions of greater than 25 lbs per year generated far less discussion in the Senate Resources and Conservation committee this week than it did in the House committee last week. Senator Lodge asked for a recap of the questions or problems that came up in the House committee. DEQ representatives noted that all questions and issues brought up had been incorporated into his most recent presentation. The committee voted to accept the rule.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Proposed Mercury Rule generates lengthy discussion in House committee
Chairman Raybould engaged the full House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee in negotiated rulemaking this week, noting it would be more efficient than breaking into subcommittees. The first of eight proposed DEQ rules alone generated enough interest for a 90-minute question and answer session.
This rule would require an analysis of proposed construction of new or modification of existing mercury emissions of greater than 25 lbs per year. Additionally, a Tier 2 operating permit would be required of any existing source that has an emission of greater than 62 lbs per year. Sources already subject to federal standards would be exempt.
The rule was initiated as a result of a petition to the DEQ Board filed by the Idaho Conservation League and Monsanto in Soda Springs. It would address such mercury emitters directly by requiring an analysis and the application of best available control technology to minimize mercury emissions above the threshold.
But, legislators asked, would such an analysis be prohibitively expensive? Industry experts and DEQ representatives said such an analysis would list all possible controls and analyze them according to applicability based upon affordability, and other factors.
A sticking point with many on the committee was the rationale behind regulating activities not already regulated by the federal government.
In addition, they asked, what about other sources of mercury? What is happening to keep every home and business from introducing mercury into landfills by throwing out light bulbs?
“I’m a little bit concerned that we may be going overboard … if you pass this rule, this doesn’t stop mercury,” Chairman Raybould said.
Monsanto’s director of public and government affairs, Trent Clark, addressed the committee in support of the rule – for what he says is a rare moment when Monsanto and the Idaho Conservation League on the same side of one issue.
Clark said the proposed rule came out of an original disagreement with ICL, after which Monsanto brought in internationally recognized Mercury consultant Dr. Steven Lindberg. Lindberg spoke on Mercury deposition for an ICIE panel with representatives from ICL and others. In the course of this dialogue, Dr. Lindberg noted one issue he says we can agree on: very large sources of mercury ought to have best available control technology.
Clark, a past president of ICIE, says Monsanto not only recognizes its role in employing best available control technology, but feels that doing so gives the industry a national advantage in negotiations with competing interests in China to employ such technology themselves.
Clark says this rule also makes sense for the state of Idaho. He notes that the attraction of an uncontrolled industry to Idaho will attract notice of the EPA, promulgating what could be a much more stringent standard. Having a state standard, Clark says, helps Monsanto in its dialogue with the EPA.
Finally, Clark noted, the rule would help put potential businesses investors at ease.
“When we’re talking about volatile compounds,” he said, “for many businesses, having something in place like this is actually helpful in getting financing. With no rule in place, potential financiers assume the worst could happen.”
A motion to accept the rule passed with dissenting votes from Nielsen and Van Der Woude.
This rule would require an analysis of proposed construction of new or modification of existing mercury emissions of greater than 25 lbs per year. Additionally, a Tier 2 operating permit would be required of any existing source that has an emission of greater than 62 lbs per year. Sources already subject to federal standards would be exempt.
The rule was initiated as a result of a petition to the DEQ Board filed by the Idaho Conservation League and Monsanto in Soda Springs. It would address such mercury emitters directly by requiring an analysis and the application of best available control technology to minimize mercury emissions above the threshold.
But, legislators asked, would such an analysis be prohibitively expensive? Industry experts and DEQ representatives said such an analysis would list all possible controls and analyze them according to applicability based upon affordability, and other factors.
A sticking point with many on the committee was the rationale behind regulating activities not already regulated by the federal government.
In addition, they asked, what about other sources of mercury? What is happening to keep every home and business from introducing mercury into landfills by throwing out light bulbs?
“I’m a little bit concerned that we may be going overboard … if you pass this rule, this doesn’t stop mercury,” Chairman Raybould said.
Monsanto’s director of public and government affairs, Trent Clark, addressed the committee in support of the rule – for what he says is a rare moment when Monsanto and the Idaho Conservation League on the same side of one issue.
Clark said the proposed rule came out of an original disagreement with ICL, after which Monsanto brought in internationally recognized Mercury consultant Dr. Steven Lindberg. Lindberg spoke on Mercury deposition for an ICIE panel with representatives from ICL and others. In the course of this dialogue, Dr. Lindberg noted one issue he says we can agree on: very large sources of mercury ought to have best available control technology.
Clark, a past president of ICIE, says Monsanto not only recognizes its role in employing best available control technology, but feels that doing so gives the industry a national advantage in negotiations with competing interests in China to employ such technology themselves.
Clark says this rule also makes sense for the state of Idaho. He notes that the attraction of an uncontrolled industry to Idaho will attract notice of the EPA, promulgating what could be a much more stringent standard. Having a state standard, Clark says, helps Monsanto in its dialogue with the EPA.
Finally, Clark noted, the rule would help put potential businesses investors at ease.
“When we’re talking about volatile compounds,” he said, “for many businesses, having something in place like this is actually helpful in getting financing. With no rule in place, potential financiers assume the worst could happen.”
A motion to accept the rule passed with dissenting votes from Nielsen and Van Der Woude.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Newly appointed EPA Administrator gives overview of environmental issues
Dennis McLerran was appointed Administrator for EPA’s Region 10 in January. He spoke to the Idaho Environmental Forum on Tuesday, April 6, 2010.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
McLerran noted that he has experience working in local government and has worked on air quality issues in a large urban area, Seattle, and in the smaller community of Port Townsend. He has been on the other side of the fence in private practice as an attorney. He has family ties to Mackay, Idaho, as well.
He voiced his admiration for EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
McLerran outlined the Obama administration’s priorities for the Environmental Protection Agency:
· Climate change: EPA announced its endangerment finding regarding carbon as a pollutant in the absence of any action by Congress to control carbon emissions. The agency put together tailpipe rules for automobiles using a collaboration that included the auto industry and the State of California. The rules will go into effect in January, 2011.
In addition, EPA is looking at regulating large sources of CO2 emissions first with a tailoring rule in January 2011. This will include power plants and very large emitters.
What Congress does in the next year or two will have an impact on what EPA will pursue.
· Air quality: EPA will be setting tighter standards for fine particulate like that found in wood smoke or diesel. New ozone standards will be coming out in late spring or early summer. It is possible that they will be set at .06 or .065 which would mean that the Treasure Valley will be classified as a non-attainment area. He did mention the state’s auto emissions programs for the area. There could also be new standards for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides along freeways.
· Mercury: Idaho has been ground zero for impacts from surrounding states. He commended us for the work we are doing on mercury emissions. DEQ is collecting elemental mercury and EPA has funded mercury contamination cleanups in the last three years. There is still a ways to go in dealing with mercury, he said.
· Safety of chemicals: Work needs to be done to rewrite the toxic substances statute.
· Superfund communities: there is still cleaning up to be done. For Idaho, that means the Silver Valley, a massive superfund site on which a great deal of time, energy and dollars has been spent. Now blood levels in children are down to the national average rather than being way above it. This is still controversial but EPA is moving ahead.
· Protecting American waters: We need to make more progress on this, especially with nutrient loads and stormwater runoff. We need to do more than the traditional methods. We should be looking at trading schemes in Idaho and Washington. Nutrient problems in streams are a big issue. We need to develop innovative programs to deal with that. McLerran encouraged the group to look at innovation to improve water quality in the Boise River.
· Environmental justice: This is on Lisa Jackson’s list of priorities. EPA will be working with the tribes and low income populations to understand the needs of low income communities. The agency will be reaching out to these communities to help improve children’s health.
McLerran stressed that it is not EPA’s job to punish states for the economic crisis. The agency would like to figure out a way to make progress during these tough times. Water quality monitoring in Idaho has been suspended because of budget cuts at DEQ, but that cannot go on indefinitely. Perhaps a partnering program with EPA and the use of loaned employees might be a solution.
HUD, DoT and EPA are trying a partnership to drive highway and housing funds in ways that mutually re-enforce the missions of the three agencies.
During questioning, McLerran discussed the cement plant in eastern Oregon, saying that Oregon’s plan may not do enough to lower mercury emissions.
One audience member cited Industrial livestock (CAFO) operations as one of the biggest environmental problems. She said that antibiotics and endocrine disrupters are showing up in drinking water, and that sampling shows that 22% of homes have nitrates above safe drinking water levels. This, she says, is driving people to have to buy drinking water at Wal-Mart.
When asked if carbon trading in going to be included in the analysis of water quality issues. McLerran responded that EPA was in the formative stages on CO2 issues. Carbon trading is not on the radar screen right now. If Congress acts in that area, things would change. He is hoping that Congress will step in.
NPDES permitting, wastewater treatment and phosphate issues are among priorities in Idaho. EPA will be the point on NPDES permits. That is a priority for the region.
Another person asked about the proposed MACT standard for wood-fired boilers which would discourage the use woody biomass. McLerran responded that we would have to find a balance.
McLerran encouraged people to submit additional comments. With the increase in CAFÉ standards for automobiles, any insights in consumer innovative technologies would be welcome. These could include aerodynamic improvements, better fuel combustion, turbo charging and plug-in hybrids.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Research on mercury convinces IDEQ to vote down a motion on mercury emission regulation - Saturday Summary 2/14/09
“Industry Group Rolled the Idaho Conservation League” (reprinted from IACI’s Legislative Report, February 13, 2009)
This was Rocky Barker’s assessment of the IDEQ Board meeting on February 12th at which IACI and ICIE presented its white paper on Sources and Receptors of Mercury in Idaho. The Board voted down a motion that would have asked industries to voluntarily install the best available technology for removing mercury from their smokestacks. The Idaho Conservation League had petitioned to get the Board to regulate mercury in the state in an effort to combat the pollutant that accumulates in fish and has serious health implications.
IACI and ICIE reported on the uncertainty in the science, and included one of the world’s top mercury pollution experts, Steve Lindberg, a retired environmental chemist from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as one of its presenters at the meeting. He has assisted in developing mercury rules for states and the EPA and has worked on both sides of the issue during his career. Lindberg reported that the science linking an industry source to high mercury levels in fish in nearby reservoirs was not yet clear enough. He raised questions about whether atmospheric mercury pollution was as serious a problem in the American west as it is in the east, where there is more rain and more wet deposition of the pollutant. Board member, Nick Purdy, indicated that the confusion and uncertainty about the sources made it hard for them to make rules.
*****
This was Rocky Barker’s assessment of the IDEQ Board meeting on February 12th at which IACI and ICIE presented its white paper on Sources and Receptors of Mercury in Idaho. The Board voted down a motion that would have asked industries to voluntarily install the best available technology for removing mercury from their smokestacks. The Idaho Conservation League had petitioned to get the Board to regulate mercury in the state in an effort to combat the pollutant that accumulates in fish and has serious health implications.
IACI and ICIE reported on the uncertainty in the science, and included one of the world’s top mercury pollution experts, Steve Lindberg, a retired environmental chemist from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as one of its presenters at the meeting. He has assisted in developing mercury rules for states and the EPA and has worked on both sides of the issue during his career. Lindberg reported that the science linking an industry source to high mercury levels in fish in nearby reservoirs was not yet clear enough. He raised questions about whether atmospheric mercury pollution was as serious a problem in the American west as it is in the east, where there is more rain and more wet deposition of the pollutant. Board member, Nick Purdy, indicated that the confusion and uncertainty about the sources made it hard for them to make rules.
*****
Monday, December 15, 2008
Annual Meeting Features Mercury Expert
Steven E. Lindberg, Ph.D. is a Corporate Fellow Emeritus of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His presentation to the ICIE Membership on November 25, 2008, Mercury – from the Geosphere to the Biosphere and Back Again, posed the question “once the genie is out of the bottle, is it too late?”
Right now, Dr. Lindberg noted there is a lot of mercury in circulation – which he referred to as the “Billion Dollar Dilemma,” referring to the industry estimated expense it would cost to develop technology to address this.
Dr. Lindberg noted the following about mercury:
• It has a complex cycle
• It doesn’t stay put
• There is a great deal of redox chemistry
• Hotspots can be a red herring
• Natural sources large & not regulated
• Actions require multimedia perspective
• Expensive actions are sometimes ineffectual
• Legacy Hg is a consideration (atmosphere not only pathway)
• We probably know more about sources than sinks
• The methylation of mercury (the way in which it is absorbed) is influenced by lake characteristics
Therefore, Dr. Lindberg noted there is no simple solution to this dilemma. But, he said, there is also no good reason to emit mercury if it can be avoided, or if it can be captured with reasonable control technology.
Dr. Lindberg contrasted the mercury dilemma with the issues we had in the 1960’s with lead in gasoline. In the 60’s we took lead out of gasoline and directly addressed the problem.
The problem with mercury is its complicated cycle. With mercury there are lots of reactions going on – from mercury in the air turning into mercury in the rain, many of these have never been measured in the lab, but just estimated, then put with a comprehensive ecosystem model. Where does mercury go and how does it behave once it gets there? The fact is that we don’t know exactly.
Dr. Lindberg noted there are two sources of mercury in the air:
• Anthropogenic Emissions to air are globally distributed
• Geologic Emissions are also globally distributed
With that in mind, how much of the deposition of mercury is from US sources in the US? In the West, 80 to 90 percent of mercury is from sources outside of the US, and that percentage (of non US sources that make up the whole) goes down the further east you go.
Minnesota and Florida are the two states that are furthest along in understanding total maximum daily load of mercury, and therefore understanding the changes they can make that can help that system respond. Of the options presented by Hayes and the ICL, Dr. Lindberg couldn’t be sure.
Right now, Dr. Lindberg noted there is a lot of mercury in circulation – which he referred to as the “Billion Dollar Dilemma,” referring to the industry estimated expense it would cost to develop technology to address this.
Dr. Lindberg noted the following about mercury:
• It has a complex cycle
• It doesn’t stay put
• There is a great deal of redox chemistry
• Hotspots can be a red herring
• Natural sources large & not regulated
• Actions require multimedia perspective
• Expensive actions are sometimes ineffectual
• Legacy Hg is a consideration (atmosphere not only pathway)
• We probably know more about sources than sinks
• The methylation of mercury (the way in which it is absorbed) is influenced by lake characteristics
Therefore, Dr. Lindberg noted there is no simple solution to this dilemma. But, he said, there is also no good reason to emit mercury if it can be avoided, or if it can be captured with reasonable control technology.
Dr. Lindberg contrasted the mercury dilemma with the issues we had in the 1960’s with lead in gasoline. In the 60’s we took lead out of gasoline and directly addressed the problem.
The problem with mercury is its complicated cycle. With mercury there are lots of reactions going on – from mercury in the air turning into mercury in the rain, many of these have never been measured in the lab, but just estimated, then put with a comprehensive ecosystem model. Where does mercury go and how does it behave once it gets there? The fact is that we don’t know exactly.
Dr. Lindberg noted there are two sources of mercury in the air:
• Anthropogenic Emissions to air are globally distributed
• Geologic Emissions are also globally distributed
With that in mind, how much of the deposition of mercury is from US sources in the US? In the West, 80 to 90 percent of mercury is from sources outside of the US, and that percentage (of non US sources that make up the whole) goes down the further east you go.
Minnesota and Florida are the two states that are furthest along in understanding total maximum daily load of mercury, and therefore understanding the changes they can make that can help that system respond. Of the options presented by Hayes and the ICL, Dr. Lindberg couldn’t be sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)