Point-Source Polluters of the Air
 |
By Jamey Charter
Over the next decade, the United States must produce more electricity to meet our surging demand. Industry analysts project that in the next ten years, generation of electricity will increase by 40% (Wenzler, 2002). To meet this demand, the Bush Administration says that as many as 1,900 new power plants will be needed (Wenzler, 2002). We have reached a crossroads and Congress must choose our path in coming months. Congress must choose from many proposed acts that include the whole spectrum of our air pollution problem. The proposed Lieberman-Jeffords Clean Power Act will drastically increase emission standards while the proposed Clear Skies Act of the Bush Administration will relax standards of the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act and other proposed acts such as the Lieberman-Jeffords Clean Power Act have more strict codes about specific pollutants such as SO2, NOX, and CO2. Although the Clear Skies Act sounds good, it will reverse many standards of emissions and our air pollution problem will worsen (Wenzler, 2002).
TAKE ACTION NOW: Send a Pre-written Letter to Your State Congressmen to Support Decreasing Air Pollution
TAKE ACTION NOW: Send a Pre-written Letter to Your State Congressmen to Support the New Source Review Program
Current Air Pollution and Standards of Emissions:
Highlights of the Clean Air Act
Although the Clean Air Act of 1990 is a federal law, much of the enforcement happens state by state. The EPA sets limits of how much of a pollutant can be in any place in the United States to guarantee safe air standards for the air we breathe. Some states have higher standards than national standards but every state must comply with minimum national standards. States must create State Implementation Plans (SIPs) so the EPA knows how action will be taken (EPA, 2002c).
Interstate air pollution (especially throughout the NE states) is a problem that the Clean Air Act addresses. There are interstate commissions that work with regional air pollution. There is also a permit program which allows businesses to pollute for a fee. "The permit includes information on which pollutants are being released, how much may be released, and what kinds of steps the source's owner or operator is taking to reduce pollution, including plans to monitor (measure) the pollution (EPA, 2002c)." Businesses where stationary source air pollution occurs must pay permit fees just as individuals pay registration to pollute with automobiles. The law of 1990 makes it easy for the EPA to enforce these permits by allowing fines to be distributed to violators (EPA, 2002c).
There are a few pollutants that are common all over the United States. These pollutants are called criteria air pollutants. There are primary standards for each pollutant that protect human health and secondary standards that protect environmental degradation. Public participation is very important when it comes down to localized issues so action will be taken. One can take part in hearings on the state and local plans for cleaning up air pollution. One can sue the government or a source's owner or operator to get action when the EPA and your state have not enforced the Act. One can request action by the state or EPA against violators (EPA, 2002c). Figure 1 is a table of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants (EPA, 2002b).
| POLLUTANT | STANDARD | STANDARD | |
| VALUE * | TYPE | ||
| Carbon Monoxide (CO) | |||
| 8-hour Average | 9 ppm | (10 mg/m3) | Primary |
| 1-hour Average | 35 ppm | (40 mg/m3) | Primary |
| Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) | |||
| Annual Arithmetic Mean | 0.053 ppm | (100 µg/m3) | Primary & Secondary |
| Ozone (O3) | |||
| 1-hour Average | 0.12 ppm | (235 µg/m3) | Primary & Secondary |
| 8-hour Average | 0.08 ppm | (157 µg/m3) | Primary & Secondary |
| Lead (Pb) | |||
| Quarterly Average | 1.5 µg/m3 | Primary & Secondary | |
| Particulate (PM 10) Particles with diameters of 10 micrometers or less | |||
| Annual Arithmetic Mean | 50 µg/m3 | Primary & Secondary | |
| 24-hour Average | 150 µg/m3 | Primary & Secondary | |
| Particulate (PM 2.5) Particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less | |||
| Annual Arithmetic Mean | 15 µg/m3 | Primary & Secondary | |
| 24-hour Average | 65 µg/m3 | Primary & Secondary | |
| Sulfur Dioxide (SO)2 | |||
| Annual Arithmetic Mean | 0.030 ppm | (80 µg/m3) | Primary |
| 24-hour Average | 0.14 ppm | (365 µg/m3) | Primary |
| 3-hour Average | 0.50 ppm | (1300 µg/m3) | Secondary |
| * Parenthetical value is an approximately equivalent concentration. | |||
Origin of Smog
The word smog originates from the words, smoke and fog. Smog mainly consists of ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone is produced by the combination of pollutants from many sources, including smokestacks, cars, paints and solvents. These smog-forming pollutants rise into the sky and are baked by the sun where chemical reactions make them most dangerous. A sunny day will cook pollutants most quickly and smog is formed (EPA, 2002c).
Sources of Air Pollution
Stationary sources of air pollution including factories and power plants account for 96% of SO2 pollution, 56% of particle pollution, and 48% of NOX pollution, three major criteria pollutants in the United States (Wiles, et al, 1998). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how much power plants contribute to SO2 and NOX emissions country-wide when compared with other sources such as automobile emissions (Wenzler, 2002). Particulate pollution is the name for a type of toxic air pollution where discrete particles are suspended in air in liquid or solid form (Wiles, et al, 1998). Particulate pollution can include various toxic metals such as lead, copper, nickel, zinc and cadmium, and fine aerosol particles formed in the atmosphere from sulfur and nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (Wiles, et al, 1998). Some 31.6 billion pounds of sulfur dioxide, 18 billion pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 2.5 billion pounds of airborne particles are poured into the atmosphere by industrial polluters each year (Wiles, et al, 1998). Of the top 50 sulfur oxide polluters, 45 are east of the Mississippi. The two states that stick out as the biggest polluters are Indiana and Illinois. The top SO2 polluting facility in the country is the Tennessee Valley Authority steam plant in Cumberland City, Tennessee producing 692 million pounds a year, followed by PSI Energy in Princeton, Indiana at 568 million pounds a year, and Indiana Kentucky Electric in Madison, Indiana at 508 million pounds a year (Wiles, et al, 1998).
Figure 2. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions (Wenzler, 2002) |
Figure 3. U.S. Sulfur Dioxide Emissions (Wenzler, 2002) |
Health and Environmental Effects
The air pollution problem within the United States is already affecting human health and our natural environment. Fine particle pollution or soot takes the lives of 30,000 people per year (Save The, 2002). The EPA estimates that 43% of Americans live in areas with unhealthy air (Wenzler, 2002). Below (Figure 4) is a country-wide risk assessment of how air pollution affects human health and our environment. "People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations may experience various health effects, including cancer, damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (EPA, 2002a)."
Current Growth of Power Plants
Over the next decade, the United States must produce more electricity to meet our surging demand. Industry analysts project that in the next ten years, generation of electricity will increase by 40% (Wenzler, 2002). Figure 5 illustrates the growth in megawatts of electricity being produced and projected growth in our near future. To meet this demand, the Bush Administration says that as many as 1,900 new power plants will be needed (Wenzler, 2002). Figure 6 illustrates regional growth of projected combined cycle and combustion turbine power plants.
Two-thirds of power plants in operation today were built before 1970. Therefore, technologies of today make it possible for new power plants to have higher emission standards than the older ones they replace (Wenzler, 2002). Still, every powerplant protected by the Grandfather Loophole continues to pollute the atmosphere at 1977 emissions standards (Wenzler, 2002). Many power plant owners choose to gradually increase production in dirty plants, rather than investing money in less ecologically destructive plants. There needs to be incentive to have cleaner air. Businessmen want to produce the most electricity at the cheapest cost. Through the proposed Clear Skies Act, the Bush Administration plans to reduce the standards of the Clean Air Act (Wenzler, 2002) and allow as many as 17,000 industrial polluters to continue releasing current emissions (Save, 2002).
In December of 2002, EPA administrator Christine Whitman signed a bill that severely weakened the New Source Review program, a program that keeps grandfather coal-fired power plants in check. These changes represent the largest regulatory weakening of the Clean Air Act in its 30-year history. The “Grandfather Loophole” allowed many power plants built before 1970 to release emissions of pollutants without complying with current standards of emissions. The New Source Review (NSR) program was established to keep the Grandfather Loophole in check by saying that every time a grandfather power plant underwent major modifications or increased pollution, these plants would have to meet current emission standards. Today, many of these dirty plants continue to pollute without meeting current standards or undergoing any “major” modifications.
“Under the new rules, refineries, manufacturers, and some utilities will be presented with new ground rules for upgrading or expanding their plants (and likely increasing their emissions) without the threat of lawsuits and without having to add costly antipollution equipment required by law to control smog, acid rain, and soot. (Pianin, 2003)” The day after this bill was passed, nine northeast states sued the Bush Administration for relaxing these standards. The Bush Administration has plans to relax air standards further by replacing the Clean Air Act with the Clear Skies Act, an act that would eliminate the NSR program. We need to move forward by decreasing air pollution, rather than taking steps backward.
TAKE ACTION NOW: Send a Pre-written Letter to Your State Congressmen to Supporting the New Source Review Program
New Proposals and Future of Air Standards:
Legislators will look at several key issues in coming months. Clean Air proposals will address nine key issues:
1. Reduction of sulfur oxides pollution
2. Reduction of nitrogen oxides pollution
3. Reduction of mercury pollution
4. Reduction of carbon dioxide pollution
5. Closing the "grandfather" loophole
6. Allowing emissions “trading”
7. Protecting local air quality
8. Using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency
9. providing electric utilities with regulatory uncertainty
Below (Figure 7) is a table proposed Acts that will be addressed in front of Congress. These proposed acts cover the whole realm of our air pollution problem. The Jeffords-Lieberman Clean Power Act is radical emissions reduction plan when compared to current standards of the Clean Air Act. The proposed Clear Skies Act of the Bush Administration will relax standards of the current Clean Air Act standards. Figure 8 is a comparative table of the Clean Air Act and the proposed Clear Skies Act. The far end of the spectrum is the Edison Electric Institute Proposal. This proposal drastically reduces the amount of clean-up efforts of the Clean Air Act in the next decade.
Figure 7. Proposed Clean Air Acts (Wenzler, 2002) |
Comparison of Current Clean Air Act and the Proposed Clear Skies Act
Figure 8. Proposed Clean Air Acts (Wenzler, 2002) |
TAKE ACTION NOW: Send a Pre-written Letter to Your State Congressmen to Support Increasing Air Standards
TAKE ACTION NOW: Send a Pre-written Letter to Your State Congressmen to Support the New Source Review Program
EPA, 2002a."Air Trends." Retrieved on 3/11/03 from http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/toxic.html.**
EPA, 2002b."National Ambient Air Quality Standards." Retrieved on 2/15/03 from http://www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html.
EPA, 2002c."Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act." Retrieved on 2/15/03 from http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaain.html.
EPA, 2003. "Clear Skies Act of 2003." Retrieved on 3/11/03 from http://www.epa.gov/air/clearskies/fact2003.html.
Kaufman, Yoram, NASA, 2001. "Pollution Tracks Over Land." Retrieved on 2/2/03 from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Pollution/pollution_3.html.
Leahy, Patrick, 2003. "Joining Lawsuit Filed By Ten State Attorneys General." Retrieved on 2/28/03 from http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200302/022703g.html.
Missouri State Public Interest Research Group (MoPirg), 2003. "Smokestack Pollution." Retrieved on 2/2/03 from http://www.mopirg.org/.
Pianin, Eric, Jan. 1, 2003. New Pollution Standards Prompt Suit. Washington Post. Page A01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60934-2002Dec31?language=printer.
Save The Clean Air Act, 2002. "Stop the Attack on the Clean Air Act." Retrieved on 2/2/03 from http://www.savethecleanairact.org/public/.
Wenzler, Mark, National Environmental Trust, 2002. "Cleaning Up Air Pollution From America's Power Plants- The Facts." Retrieved on 2/2/03 from http://cta.policy.net/relatives/20440.pdf.
Wiles, R., J. Savitz, A. Art, C. Campbell, B. Cohen, Environmental Working Group (EWG), 1998. "Smokestacks and Smoke Screens- Big Polluters, Big Profits, and the Fight for Cleaner Air." Retrieved on 2/2/03 from http://www.ewg.org/reports/smoke/smokestacks.pdf.
