Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Chemistry Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Chemistry Forum Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry.


how does mercury kill Re: question: mercury air pollutionfrom coal fired electric plants

how does mercury kill Re: question: mercury air pollutionfrom coal fired electric plants - Chemistry Forum

how does mercury kill Re: question: mercury air pollutionfrom coal fired electric plants - Chemistry Forum. Discuss chemical reactions, chemistry.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2003, 02:45 AM
Teel Adams
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default how does mercury kill Re: question: mercury air pollutionfrom coal fired electric plants



BTW, in case anyone is interested, U.S EPA as shakled by the Son of a
Bush's press release on the non-MACT determination.


Dec. 15, 2003
EPA Proposes Options for Significantly Reducing
Mercury Emissions from Electric Utilities Action
$ On December 15, 2003 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a
rule to
permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from power plants for the first
time
ever.

$ In a separate but closely related action known as the "Interstate Air
Quality Rule", EPA
will propose a regulation to improve air quality in the Eastern United
States. This
proposal would address windblown air pollution by requiring states to reduce
sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. States could comply with
these
requirements through a cap and trade system based on the successful Acid
Rain
Trading Program.
$ EPA believes it makes sense to address mercury, SO2 and NOx emissions
simultaneously. These rules would protect public health and the environment
without
interfering with the steady flow of affordable energy for American consumers
and
businesses.
$ The health benefits of addressing mercury, SO2, and NOx in an integrated
fashion are
dramatic. EPA expects this suite of actions to reduce the number of asthma
attacks
and heart attacks around the country by lowering the levels of fine
particles and groundlevel
ozone in the air. By reducing mercury levels, it also would reduce potential
risks
for pregnant women and young children who consume certain fish from local
streams
and lakes.
$ EPA is proposing two alternatives for controlling emissions of mercury
from utilities and
will take comment on the alternatives before taking final action. The
alternatives
include:
1. proposed rule requiring utilities to install controls known as "maximum
achievable control technologies" (MACT) under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. If implemented, this proposal would reduce nationwide emissions of
mercury
by 14 tons (29 percent) by the end of 2007; and
2. proposed rule establishing "standards of performance" limiting mercury
emissions from new and existing utilities. This proposal, under section 111
of the
Clean Air Act, would create a market based "cap-and-trade" program that, if
implemented, would reduce nationwide utility emissions of mercury in two
distinct
phases. In the first phase, due by 2010, emissions will be reduced by taking
1 advantage "co-benefit" controls - that is mercury reductions achieved by
reducing
SO2, and NOx. emissions. When fully implemented in 2018, mercury emissions
will
be reduced by 33 tons (69 percent).
EPA's modeling projects that applying this approach to controlling mercury
emissions from utilities will yield much greater health and environmental
benefits
than could be achieved through a traditional MACT standard. This modeling is
based on the successful Acid Rain Trading Program, which resulted in more
emissions reductions than required, sooner than required, and at less cost
to the
consumer than expected with a very high rate of compliance.
EPA also is proposing to revise its December 2000 finding that it is
"appropriate
and necessary" to regulate utility hazardous air emissions using the MACT
standards
provisions (section 112) of the Clean Air Act. This action would give EPA
the flexibility
to consider a more efficient and more cost effective way to control mercury
emissions.
$ EPA will take comment on this action for 60 days after publication in the
Federal
Register. EPA intends to hold two public hearings on this proposed rule.
$ This mercury proposal coupled with the proposed Interstate Air Quality
Rule calls for the
largest single industry investment in any clean air program in the past
quarter-century.
Mercury Emissions - Both Naturally Occurring and Man-made Sources
$ Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food
chain. Fossil fuelfired
utilities are the largest source of human-generated mercury emissions in the
United States.
$ Concentrations of mercury in the air are usually low and of little direct
concern.
However, atmospheric mercury falls to Earth through rain or snow and enters
lakes,
rivers and estuaries. Once there, it can transform to its most toxic form,
methylmercury,
and accumulate in fish and animal tissues.
$ Americans are exposed to mercury primarily by eating contaminated fish.
Because the
developing fetus is the most sensitive to the toxic effects of mercury,
women of childbearing
age are regarded as the population of greatest concern. Children who are
exposed to low concentrations of methylmercury prenatally are at increased
risk of poor
performance on neurobehavioral tasks, such as those measuring attention,
fine motor
function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities, and verbal memory.
Cap-and-Trade Basics
$ The proposed standards of performance establish a cap-and-trade system for
mercury
based on EPA=s proven Acid Rain Program. The Acid Rain Program has produced
remarkable and demonstrable results, reducing SO2 emissions faster and at
far lower
costs than anticipated, and resulting in wide-ranging environmental
improvements.
2 $ Under the cap-and-trade approach proposed in this rulemaking, EPA would
allocate to
each state specified amounts of emission "allowances" for mercury. The
states would
allocate those allowances to utilities, which would trade them. A utility
must hold
sufficient allowances to cover its emissions each year, so the limited
number of
allowances ensures that the required reductions are achieved.
$ The mandatory emissions caps in the proposed standards of performance,
coupled
with significant automatic penalties for noncompliance, would ensure that
human health
and environmental goals would be achieved and sustained. At the same time,
stringent
emissions monitoring and reporting requirements make flexibility possible.
The
flexibility of allowance trading creates financial incentives for utilities
to look for new and
low-cost ways to reduce emissions and improve the effectiveness of pollution
control
equipment.
MACT Basics
$ The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required EPA to complete two studies
related
to mercury and report their findings to Congress. One focused on the health
and
environmental impacts of mercury, the other focused on hazardous air
emissions,
including mercury, from utilities.
$ In a pair of 1994 legal settlements, EPA agreed to revised deadlines to
complete these
studies. EPA also agreed to make a determination about whether MACT
regulation
was appropriate and necessary and, if necessary propose a MACT standard to
reduce
hazardous air emissions from coal and oil-fired utilities.
$ The "Mercury Study" analyzed mercury emissions from utilities and other
industrial
sources, the health and environmental impacts of those emissions and
available control
technologies. EPA issued the Mercury Study in December 1997.
$ In the "Utility Report" to Congress, issued in February 1998, EPA analyzed
emissions
of toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from utilities.
$ The 1994 agreements were modified several times. In 1998, EPA agreed to
issue its
regulatory determination by December 2000; to propose regulations by
December 15,
2003; and to finalize regulations by December 15, 2004.
In December 2000, EPA announced that it would regulate emissions of
mercury and
other air toxics from coal- and oil-fired electric utilities under section
112 of the Clean
Air Act. While this announcement did find that it was necessary and
appropriate to
control mercury emissions from utilities, it did not specify what those
levels of control
would be. To do so would have prejudged the outcome of the Agency's
rulemaking
effort.
3 $ Under the MACT provisions of the Clean Air Act, sources commonly are
given only
three years to comply with emission reduction requirements. For an industry
like power
generation, which has many facilities requiring controls, the MACT approach
raises
concerns about how quickly new control technologies could be put into place.
Further,
the short compliance window would preclude the effective use of developing
technologies. Relative to an allowance trading system, the MACT also
restricts the
options and incentives for power plants to achieve low-cost reductions.
These higher
costs could lead to increased electricity prices.
$ MACT standards also generally require industries to meet limits that are
currently being
demonstrated by a number of existing facilities. EPA would like to explore
innovative
ways of achieving reductions greater than those being achieved through
existing
technologies.
$ Currently, there are no adequately demonstrated control technologies
specifically
designed to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired utilities. However,
there is
available data that indicate controls for reducing emissions SO2 and NOx
also are
effective, in some cases, at reducing mercury emissions from coal-fired
utilities. This is
another reason EPA believes it important to couple the mercury rule with the
Interstate
Air Quality Rule. The degree of removal depends in part on the type of coal
being
burned.
$ EPA's goal is to provide the highest degree of mercury control possible
while ensuring
the safety, affordability, and reliability of the nation's electricity
supply. These actions
involve a range of options that will encourage the development of new
technologies to
reduce emissions of mercury beyond that which would occur from the
implementation of
a traditional MACT standard alone.
For More Information
C For information on the mercury proposal, visit [Only registered users see links. ]
C For information on the proposed Interstate Air Quality Rule, visit
[Only registered users see links. ]
4


Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
air , coal , electric , fired , kill , mercury , plants , pollutionfrom , question


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question: mercury air pollution from coal fired electric plants Archimedes Plutonium Chemistry Forum 157 05-14-2009 05:03 AM
On The Origins Of People, Mr. Obama Get Started, Now, Please! flexgonzaga@yahoo.com Botany Forum 3 10-19-2008 04:38 AM
Variety Cultivar or Form, how do I know ? Duncan Botany Forum 13 10-28-2005 08:49 PM
Role of RNA Silencing in Plants Raghavendra Botany Forum 2 10-17-2003 10:20 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.14629 seconds with 16 queries