Once again, the Bush Administration has proposed a rule change that would weaken Clean Air Act safeguards and leave communities, especially children, at serious risk for health complications from mercury. Your help is urgently needed before April 30 to tell the EPA we need stronger rules to protect our health and environment! Click here to learn how.

How to send comments

Background on Mercury Pollution:

Coal-fired plants are the nation's largest source of mercury air emissions, emitting approximately 48 tons of mercury each year.

• Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that "falls out" from power plant smokestack emissions into lakes and streams near the power plant, building up in the food chain so that some fish have millions of times more mercury in them than the surrounding water.

• Because mercury adheres to particulates that "fall out" in areas close to the plants, mercury accumulates locally, creating a dangerous public health situation known as "mercury hot spot" development.

• Consuming mercury-laden fish can cause damage to the brain and nervous system and can lead to developmental neurological disorders, such as cerebral palsy, delayed onset of walking and talking, and learning disabilities. The most sensitive populations are children and the developing fetus.

• Fish consumption advisories, based on high levels of mercury found in fish, and the dangers associated with eating too much of this fish, have been issued in 45 states and territories.

• According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost 8 percent of the roughly 50 million American women of child-bearing age (16 to 49) have blood levels exceeding the 5.8 parts per billion precautionary standard set by the U.S. EPA.

• According to a 2000 report by the National Research Council, approximately 60,000 children may be born in the U.S. each year with neurological problems due to mercury exposure in the womb.

• EPA has recently added to the NRC study by reporting that up to 600,000 infants are born each year with blood mercury levels higher than 5.8 parts per billion, the EPA level of concern. After birth, young children who ingest mercury, either in breast milk or contaminated foods, remain especially susceptible to the pollutant's neurotoxic effects, because their brains are still in a period of rapid development.

• There are commercially available technologies and techniques in use today that achieve up to 91 percent mercury reductions, and do so very cost-effectively (on the order of 1/50th of a penny per KWh). Up to 98 percent reductions have been observed in tests of other kinds of mercury controls. According to EPA, estimated costs for mercury control are similar to the costs associated with technologies currently used at power plants to control nitrogen oxide pollution (that which causes acid rain).

• If 90 percent mercury reductions were required from existing coal-fired power plants, that would bring the total annual tons of mercury emitted by that industrial sector down to approximately 4 or 5 tons per year, achievable in the relatively near term (2008), as required by the Clean Air Act.

EPA's Proposed Rule

• Back in 2001, EPA presented information to the energy industry that estimated the Clean Air Act would require 90 percent mercury reductions by 2008. However…

• EPA's proposed mercury reductions are as follows: a 30 percent cut by 2010 and a 70 percent cut by 2018. Compare this to the Clean Air Acts requirements of a 90 percent cut by 2008. (Also note that EPA publicly admits that coal plants will meet the 2010 30% requirement, if they haven't already, without having to install any mercury control technologies whatsoever).

• EPA has proposed 3 alternative options for regulating mercury from power plants, none of which comes close to requiring 90 percent reductions, and none of which would require the installation of any mercury control technologies until at least 2018. Two of the proposals would permit trading -- so that dirty plants could continue to emit high levels of mercury beyond 2018 and create mercury "hotspots" by simply purchasing mercury pollution credits from cleaner plants.

• While mercury is the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) of greatest concern from power plants, it is not the only one emitted. EPA must regulate all HAPs emitted by power plants, or explain why it is not doing so in terms of public health effects.

• EPA's proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard sets a "floor," or minimum standard, for existing power plant mercury emissions. However, EPA's proposal is many times weaker than what is actually required by Clean Air Act. For example, EPA's proposed floor for existing plants that burn bituminous coal is 2 lbs/Tbtu. However, the actual average performance of the top 12% of existing bituminous coal-fired units (the calculation required by the Clean Air Act) is 0.118 lbs/TBtu. That is 17 times weaker than what the Clean Air Act requires!

• EPA's proposed MACT standard also sets "floors" for new power plants. Again, EPA's proposal is many times weaker than what is actually required by Clean Air Act and what is currently being required for new plants at the state level. For example, while the best performing similar unit (again, the calculation required by the Clean Air Act) emits mercury at a rate of 0.663 x 10-6 lbs/MMBtu, (and the state of Iowa permitted a similar unit at a rate of 1.7 x 10-6 lbs/MMBtu) EPA's proposed MACT floor for new units in that subcategory translates to 2.05 x 10-6 lbs/MMBtu. This is 3 times weaker than the Clean Air Act allows!

• The Bush Administration is attempting to avoid the Clean Air Acts mandates, by manipulating the mercury floor-setting process to allow EPA to calculate a mercury emissions cap of approximately 34 Tons by 2010, so that it mirrors the Bush Administration's weak legislative proposal for mercury, misnamed the "Clear Skies" bill.

• In 2000, EPA listed power plants as a category for which MACT standards must be developed. One of these proposals would "de-list" power plants, but without any of the public health and environmental justifications mandated by the Clean Air Act. Such de-listing is illegal.

• In this same proposal, EPA would cease regulating mercury emissions from power plants under the MACT approach required by Clean Air Act for toxic pollutants, and instead would issue much less stringent "New Source Performance Standards" for mercury, which existing power plants would not have to meet until they underwent major modifications. This proposal would also allow trading of mercury pollution.

• Trading mercury emissions is unacceptable from a public health and public policy perspective, because it would create local hot spots of even greater mercury contamination in areas close to plants that buy credits and therefore are allowed to continue polluting our water with mercury. This puts our local communities at risk, especially urban communities of color, who are already subjected to industrial pollution in their neighborhoods every day.

• For the sake of the health of our families and children, we urge you to reduce mercury emissions at coal plants by 90 percent by 2008 a goal that is not only achievable, but one that is required by the Clean Air Act itself.

Impacts on Missouri and St. Louis

Missouri has 16 coal-burning power plants, with three of the largest in the St. Louis area (Meramec, Labadie, and Sioux). Furthermore, our area is affected by emissions from coal plants across the Mississippi River in Illinois, such as the Baldwin plant. Peabody Coal has proposed building another coal-fired plant south of St. Louis in Washington County, IL.  Missouri Fact sheet.

Thank you for taking time to help protect our health and environment from mercury pollution!

For more information, please contact Sierra Club organizer Jill Miller at (314) 645-2032, or email jill.miller@sierraclub.org