EPA Has Control Power of Plant Emissions but Must Use Discretion

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

As you know from my previous e-mails, I'm not a big supporter of the EPA and Democratic (socialistic) philosophy. However, Democrats and even Pres. Obama will occasionally do something right.

According to C&E News, there was a recent effort in the Senate to allow only the states to control emissions from coal-burning electricity generating power plants. The present EPA regulation involves national control. The measure attempting to revert back to state control was defeated, which is a good thing.

The fact is that gaseous and particulate emissions of coal-burning power plants do cross state lines, and therefore are a National problem, rather than a State problem.

In addition, we know from previous experience that at least some emissions of coal-burning power plants are significantly detrimental to the environment. Some years ago, the Northeast was particularly affected by acid rain, which significantly increased the acidity of lakes and ponds. The acidity changed the floriculture of these water reservoirs and in many cases was detrimental to fish population. Actual monetary harm to the economy was probably negligible, but most people believe that we have an obligation to preserve the natural environment, wherever possible, and within the limits of economic good sense.

The acid rain problem was technically traced to sulfur contamination in coal being burned in the power plants. The sulfur contaminant burned to give gaseous sulfur dioxide. The sulfur dioxide later oxidized in the atmosphere to sulfur trioxide, which in turn reacted with rainwater to form sulfuric acid. It was the sulfuric acid content of rainwater which caused the environmental change. The problem was resolved by reducing the sulfur content of coal burned at the power plants. We hear no more about acid rain.

The likelihood is that some sulfur is still being burned in power plants leading to sulfuric acid, but the concentration is now so low as to basically alleviate the acid rain problem. The key point here is not only recognizing emission contaminants potentially detrimental to the environment, but also recognizing concentrations that actually do damage.

The accent on power plant emissions at present involves sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury.

We have experience to know that sulfur dioxide is a detrimental environmental contaminant, which concentration must be controlled to a non-detrimental level.

Carbon dioxide has become a political football for purposes of redistribution of wealth through taxation. It is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and there is no data to show that even significant increases in concentration are detrimental to the environment.

NOx is a mixture of NO and NO2. One of these gases has been traced to further atmospheric reaction to form ozone, which is environmentally protective at high atmospheric levels, but detrimental to humans at ground-level. In addition to human toxicity, it is generally considered to be involved in smog formation. There is some justification for control of NOx from power plants. The question remains as to what is a reasonable level of permissible concentration, where there is no obviously significant damage. It is also possible that power plants can install catalytic systems to reduce NOx concentrations. This has already been accomplished in automotive vehicles. It will cost the power plants to install such catalytic equipment, and the cost will be transferred to increased electricity cost for the consumer. There is a level of justification, but it should not be overdone.

I have previously written about mercury emission. Mercury in the atmosphere is brought to ground level by rain. In swampy areas, microbiological action converts the mercury to methylmercury, which is toxic to humans and wildlife. However, note that the conversion to methylmercury is only applicable to a very limited ground area, and even in that area, we have not noticed detriment to the environment. In effect, there is no significant case for controlling mercury emissions. For those who still have doubt, we could justify spending a little money on research.