Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

______________________

Mercury Links

______________________

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Mercury

Mercury Utility Subgroup Meeting Summary

Tuesday, April 27, 1999
7:00pm - 9:30pm
Delta Chelsea Inn, Toronto, Ontario

 

The Mercury Utility Subgroup meeting held on Tuesday, April 27, 1999 from 7:00pm-9:30pm was chaired by Tim Denne and Stacey Davis (Center for Clean Air Policy) and Alexis Cain, USEPA-5/BNS Mercury Workgroup Co-Chair. The purpose of the meeting was to follow up on the Utility Workshop hosted by the Mercury Workgroup last November and, more specifically, to develop a set of action items or activities to be undertaken by the newly-formed Mercury Utility Subgroup.

Tim Denne opened the discussion by describing the growing prominence of utility mercury emissions in the U.S. inventory. In 1994-95, utilities were responsible for 32% of the overall mercury emissions. It is estimated that by 2005, utilities will be responsible for 45% of U.S. mercury emissions. This is largely due to increasing levels of control in other sectors rather than emissions growth in the utility sector. He pointed out that one of the main reasons for the lack of emissions reduction activity among utilities is the relatively high cost of controls, but noted that a recent EPA analysis suggests that the costs of activated carbon injection are less than previously estimated. Alexis Cain then reviewed the findings of the November Utility workshop, including:

Following this introduction, the Subgroup turned to a handout outlining five areas of possible BNS Subgroup activity.

The handout can be found at the end of this summary.

Reducing Deliberate Mercury Use

This discussion focused on identifying activities the Utility Subgroup could undertake to encourage utilities to reduce their reliance on mercury-containing products. Lou Pocalujka and Tom Griffiths described Consumers Energy’s in-house inventory of mercury-containing devices and meter-reading training programs (to identify mercury-containing residential thermostats and flame sensor switches). Lou offered to share Consumers Energy’s comprehensive inventory checklist. Brian Stage (NIPSCO), Patti Leaf (NSP), Keith Hanson (Minnesota Power) and Betty Jensen (PSE&G) described efforts underway at their facilities and by their staff. Bruce Lourie also described a pilot project being undertaken by two Canadian utilities working with Honeywell to replace mercury-containing residential thermostats.

Subgroup Action Items

Technology Demonstration

Discussion focused on fuel switching (to natural gas) and activated carbon injection technology. Participants acknowledged that while promising technologies to control stack emissions exist, they are as-yet untested and potentially quite costly. One participant noted that EPRI may be willing to manage a technology demonstration project and that the U.S. Department of Energy will be issuing an RFP to fund a technology demonstration project (hardware costs excluded). Given this information, the group considered what the Utility Subgroup should do to encourage utilities (within the Great Lakes Basin and beyond) to undertake a technology demonstration project.

Subgroup Action Items

Green Energy/Disclosure

Participants discussed various green energy programs, including those being undertaken in California and New England, as a way for consumers to consider mercury and other emissions in their future purchasing decisions. Green energy programs are generally governed by a series of principles and guidelines. Some have developed a “power scorecard” to rigorously evaluate the positive and negative environmental effects of different energy sources. Some green energy programs disclose mercury emissions; others do not. At this time, no national (U.S. or Canadian) standards for green energy exist.

Subgroup Action Items

Incentives to Reduce Multiple Pollutants

Participants discussed how encouraging utilities to reduce multiple pollutants through fuel switching or other means might be a more effective way of achieving mercury reductions. They also discussed incentives for encouraging multiple pollutant reduction approaches. Among the incentives proposed were to offer early reduction credits and support tax credits for early fuel switching. Other incentives and barriers to multiple benefits solutions included failure to consider multiple pollutant benefits in cost analyses, uncertainty with regard to future regulatory requirements, and insufficient information on the costs of multiple benefits alternatives as compared to pollutant-by-pollutant approaches.

Subgroup Action Items

The Center for Clean Air Policy will provide the group with an analysis/research it has conducted of this issue once completed. Next steps will be determined upon review of the analysis.

Other Issues

This discussion focused mainly on ways to encourage and increase consumer energy efficiency. Among the topics discussed were market barriers to installing energy-efficient appliances and equipment and the high energy consumption rate of instant-on appliances. Participants noted that several other government-sponsored initiatives are looking at energy efficiency issues and wondered if there might be a way to “piggyback” on those efforts to ensure that they consider how mercury emissions can be reduced with increased energy efficiency.

Subgroup Action Items

Participants asked that a catalog of energy efficiency programs and initiatives be developed. Felice Stadler (Clean Air Network) volunteered to look at the State of Wisconsin Report for information about energy efficiency programs.

Reducing Deliberate Mercury Use

BACKGROUND

Both gas and electric utilities use mercury in a variety of ways. Electric utilities use mercury devices within power plants, primarily for measurement and electrical switching. Gas utilities use mercury gas flow regulators in older homes, and large mercury manometers to measure flow in gas pipelines. Some chemicals used by utilities, such as sulfuric acid and caustic soda, may also contain mercury. Moreover, utilities own office buildings that contain typical mercury devices such as thermostats and fluorescent lamps.

Uses of mercury at utilities can lead to environmental releases. Some uses of mercury manometers lead to frequent spills and the need for storage of mercury in bulk. Other devices, such as switches, may create little risk of release during use, but require proper end-of-life handling in order to prevent environmental release.

Several utilities have undertaken projects to inventory and reduce their use of mercury. For instance, Consumer’s Energy Company found that in 1996 it had a total inventory of 2933 pounds of mercury, divided nearly equally between the company’s electric and gas operations. By the end of 1997, Consumer’s Energy had reduced its mercury inventory by 401 pounds.

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Assistance to utilities that wish to identify and reduce mercury-containing devices. The workgroup could collect and develop educational resources, including a list of products used by the industry that typically contain mercury, where such products could be contained, and alternative products and operational issues. This effort might involve synthesizing data from company inventories of mercury devices, and sharing success stories about reduction projects. This information could be maintained on the BNS web site.

Assistance to state and local agencies about these issues. The workgroup could develop a model training program to help make it easy for states and others to provide training to utilities on how to inventory and reduce mercury. The web site could provide educational materials and a suggested list of expert speakers for such training.

Encourage proper management of mercury through Universal Waste Rule expansion. Adoption of universal waste rule for mercury-containing devices could help reduce the cost of proper management and recycling of these devices as wastes, encouraging more utilities to undertake reduction programs.

POSSIBLE COMMITMENTS

Set reduction goal for industry. Individual utilities could commit to conducting inventories, reducing use, and properly disposing of mercury. Industry trade organizations could commit to encouraging these activities among members.

Technology Demonstration

BACKGROUND

Mercury emissions can be reduced from coal-fired power plants through pollution prevention (which typically involves reduced reliance on coal-fired generation in favor of energy efficiency or cleaner generation sources), coal cleaning and switching, and end-of-pipe control measures. Replacement of coal with natural gas or renewables may be economic for some of the least efficient coal-fired boilers but cannot be relied on as a primary mercury reduction strategy without significant cost. The technological solutions that would appreciably reduce mercury releases to the environment from the electricity sector and enable continued reliance on coal-fired generation, should EPA decide to regulate mercury, have not been sufficiently tested at full scale. Demonstration projects conducted in the context of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS) could help improve our understanding of the performance of various mercury control technologies.

The BNS serves as a forum for collaborative voluntary projects, the ultimate goals of which are to virtually eliminate use and release of toxic contaminants. Because the BNS forum includes representatives from industry, environmental groups and both federal and state government agencies in the upper Midwest and Canada, technological projects that emerge from this process may be viewed as having greater public benefit for the region than similar projects implemented by industry alone. This diversity of support could also help win supplemental funding for environmental projects related to the demonstration.

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Full-scale demonstration projects on activated carbon injection (and/or fluidized carbon bed) at one or more locales with different technology and fuel configurations. According to EPRI, we are getting close to the point where a few full-scale demonstrations would be appropriate to insure that there are no scale-up issues, or to learn what they are. Moreover, sorbent injection is the most likely candidate technology because it is the furthest along. If BNS can help to bring together a coalition of funders, EPRI may be prepared to manage the project. DOE may be able to fund testing but host utilities would need to pay for the hardware.

Projects that demonstrate conversion of elemental to ionic mercury and enhanced capture in a wet scrubber. Also, projects that demonstrate the use of additives in separating mercury from scrubber sludge. Wet scrubbers (25% of coal-fired capacity) are effective in removing the ionic but not the elemental component of the mercury flue gas stream. If the elemental mercury were converted to the ionic form, more total mercury would be reduced. While conversion strategies have been shown to work for short periods at the bench and pilot-scales, they have not been demonstrated over longer time periods. Further demonstrations at the bench or pilot scales are needed over longer time horizons.

Projects geared towards full-scale research on cleaning of western coals for mercury. EPRI is currently doing a small scale cleanability study of western Powder River Basin coal which will help determine whether mercury can be removed through cleaning. Depending on the results of this work-particularly in terms of feasibility and cost-effectiveness-it may be useful to undertake a larger scale test. However, until such results are available, additional work on cleaning of western coals may be premature. Also, funding would be required to move forward on this work.

POSSIBLE COMMITMENTS

Commitments by one or more utilities to host demonstration projects (and provide for capital expenditures) would be essential to this effort. Ideally, a group of utilities would co-fund the effort.

Green Energy/Disclosure

BACKGROUND

Under a competitive electricity market, electricity generators will be looking for ways to distinguish their products from those of their competitors. One way to do this that stands to benefit both the supplier and the environment is by marketing green energy-energy produced by clean sources of electricity generation. While many consumers will continue to base their purchasing decisions on such factors as price and reliability, market research indicates that, given the opportunity, consumers will take into account the trade-off between price and the quality of products, including electricity. With disclosure of additional information about the generating sources, their characteristics and location, and differences between companies’ images or reputations, buyers can exercise their preferences about both quality and price.

The BNS can support green suppliers and products through projects that would help to improve the quality, consistency and public availability of data on mercury emissions. Availability of unbiased information on the environmental and cost characteristics of electricity suppliers will enable consumers to make informed decisions on their electricity purchases.

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Recommendations for harmonizing measurement and reporting across participating states, provinces and countries to improve data quality and consistency. This could involve recommending that governments adopt ongoing mercury measurement and reporting protocols along the lines of those in EPA’s mercury Information Collection Request.

Recommendations for improving the comparability and public availability of emissions data. This could involve developing recommendations for where and how mercury emissions data should be transmitted to consumers. For example, the BNS mercury and utility subgroup could recommend that mercury emissions data be included on utility bills so as to enable consumers to compare their supplier’s mercury emissions against a regional average. The subgroup could also develop a bill insert explaining the reporting system.

Sponsor development of an independent web site that would enable consumers in the upper Midwest and Canada to compare environmental and cost aspects of regional power suppliers and understand the environmental implications of their household appliance choices. Such a web site would enable consumers to select green energy suppliers as well as green (energy efficient) household appliances.

POSSIBLE COMMITMENTS

Utilities could commit to voluntarily disclosing their mercury emissions in customer bills. In addition, participating companies could commit to adhering to recommended measurement and reporting protocols.

Incentives to Reduce Multiple Pollutants

BACKGROUND

Over the coming decade coal-fired power plants are or may be required to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, fine particulates, mercury and carbon pollution. Through fuel switching to natural gas or other cleaner sources of electricity generation, power plants can reduce emissions of all of these pollutants simultaneously. However, because of the pollutant-by-pollutant nature of our environmental regulations in which reduction requirements for each pollutant differ in terms of certainty and timing, power plants do not have an incentive to consider multiple pollutants together when making their early compliance choices. Without proper incentives (and possible removal of disincentives), power plants will likely opt for a series of end-of-pipe control technologies.

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

Recommendations for removal of taxes, subsidies, or other barriers that provide a disincentive for early fuel switching. A number of subtle incentives/disincentives (such as interest rates, depreciation rates, etc.) may influence selection of one compliance strategy over another. The mercury and utility subgroup could conduct an inventory and assessment of such incentives/ disincentives, and recommend any changes that could be helpful.

Recommendations for and/or development of prototype tax credits for fuel switching. Tax credits may be used to encourage fuel switching to cleaner sources of electricity generation such as natural gas, biomass, wind or solar power. Within the context of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS), the mercury and utility subgroup could develop recommendations for tax credit programs and/or prototype tax credit language that could readily be adopted by states/provinces or federally.

Recommendations for and/or development of prototype early reduction credits for mercury. By ensuring that companies get credit for emissions reductions that occur in advance of mandatory requirements, early reduction credit programs remove an important disincentive a company might have for acting early. Within the context of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS), the mercury and utility subgroup could recommend development of an early reduction credits program for mercury at the federal level. The subgroup could also develop prototype early reduction credit language that could then be adopted by states/provinces or federally.

Other

Other ideas for collaborative actions within the Binational Toxics Strategy process include the following:

POTENTIAL PROJECTS

POSSIBLE COMMITMENTS

Attendees

Alexis Cain, EPA Region 5/BNS
Mercury Workgroup Co-Leader		   Joy Taylor, MDEQ
Stacey Davis, Center for Clean Air Policy   Thomas Corbett, NYSDEC
Betty Jensen, PSE&G   Tony DeFalco, National Wildlife Federation
John Pavlish, EERC   Paula Smith, IDEM
Ian Smith, OMOE   Pradeep K. Srivastava, Detroit Water and Sewerage
Tom Griffiths, Consumers Energy   Brian Stage, NIPSCO
Lou Pocalujka, Consumers Energy   Patti Leaf, NSP
Michael Murray, National Wildlife Federation   Keith Hanson, Minnesota Power
Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Federation   Jeri Weiss, EPA Region 1
Julie Metty, National Widlife Federation   Kris Churchill, WI DNR
Tim Denne, Center for Clean Air Policy   Eric Uram, Sierra Club
Bruce Lourie, Pollution Probe   Felice Stadler, Clean Air Network
Cristina Giannetas, Pollution Probe   Bill Grant, Isaak Walton League
John Gilkeson, MN OEA   Anne Dettelbach, Ross & Associates

 

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.