More toxic pollution is emitted from electric utilities andmines than any other industries in the U.S. — up to 63% of thenation’s reported releases — according to the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. The EPA released its annual Toxic ChemicalInventory Report last week, which for the first time includedfossil fuel-burning utilities – but it wasn’t a “first” for whichthe industries would most like to be known.

The reporting period covered emissions released from facilitiesbetween 1997 and 1998, and included seven industrial sectors. Theannual reports are required under EPA’s Emergency Planning andCommunity Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires certainindustries to report on releases to the environment of 650 listedchemicals.

EPA’s annual report, also known as the TRI, is not acondemnation of the industries that report, rather it is a listing— made available by company reporting — that details the typesand amounts of certain emissions that contribute to pollution.Until the 1998 reporting period, manufacturing plants had been theonly facilities required to report toxic emissions. EPA upgradedits rules in 1997, adding seven more types to report, includingelectric utilities, mines and commercial hazardous wastefacilities.

Electric utilities’ sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acidemissions put them in second place for their first year’sinclusion, second only to mining facilities, which topped the list.Mines, which EPA says accounted for 3.5 billion pounds of toxinsreleased in 1998, released both toxic heavy metals unearthed in themining process, as well as materials added to ores to leach outrecovered minerals.

According to EPA 1998 data, top five electric utility emittersin the country, and their total releases in pounds located in Ohio,113,923,643; West Virginia, 75,881,813; Pennsylvania, 73,183,707;Florida, 68,738,697; and Indiana, 61,887,971.

American Electric Power Co. in West Virginia was that state’sleading toxic polluter, with reported emissions of more than 41million pounds of acid aerosols from fuel combustion and metals. InMaryland, Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE), a unit ofConstellation Energy Group Inc., reported releases totaling 11.4million pounds – the highest toxic pollution of any company in thestate.

According to the consumer advocacy U.S. Public Interest ResearchGroup, U.S. electric utilities released 1.1 billion pounds oftoxins in 1998, including hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid andhydrogen fluoride.

“We now have a much more comprehensive record of toxics in ourenvironment,” said EPA regional administrator Bradley Campbell. “Aswe expand and refine the toxics reporting process, we raise publicawareness, and our ability to make more informed environmentaldecisions.”

At BGE, officials supported EPCRA, and pointed to the fact thatelectric consumption is higher, and thus, higher emissions will bereflected in that.

“The community has a right to know how we operate our plants,”said Ronald W. Lowman, BGE vice president, Fossil Energy. In April1999, BGE launched an education campaign to inform the public ofthe high-volume, low-impact releases that are natural byproducts ofcoal and oil combustion. “The amount of emissions is directlyrelated to the amount of energy produced to meet customer demandfor power,” said BGE officials.

“The EPA and the state of Maryland have strict regulations onemissions and BGE meets or is below all of those requirements,”said Lowman. “We’re striving to reduce plant emissions even furtherwith the help of new technologies.”

BGE’s six coal-fired plants produce more than 2,000 MW ofelectricity, and supply about 40% of the electricity used incentral Maryland. Lowman pointed to an effort by BGE to loweremissions by installing Selective Catalytic Reduction Technology inboth units of its Brandon Shores Power Plant, and in Unit 3 of theadjacent Wagner Power Plant. The technology works like thecatalytic converter in an automobile, according to BGE, and willreduce Brandon Shores’ nitrogen oxide emissions by 90%. That movewill make the plant the “cleanest coal-fired plant of its size” inthe country, according to BGE. SRC technology is expected to beoperational there by May 2001, and at Wagner the following year.

Though it had no comment last week on the EPA report, earlierthis week, AEP asked a court in San Francisco to dismiss the claimsagainst it in a pending lawsuit by EPA related to emissions fromits coal-fired plants.

“AEP believes firmly that these complaints are without merit,”said Janet Henry, assistant counsel for AEP in a statement. “Wehave complied with both the letter and spirit of environmental lawsand regulations.”

In November 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice, acting onbehalf of EPA, filed a lawsuit against seven major utilities forfailing to reduce emissions at older coal-fired plants that EPAclaims are the cause of airborne pollution in most of theNortheast. EPA and the Justice Department announced enforcementactions against AEP and six other electric utilities, and thestates of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont intervened in thecase. On March 1, the Justice Department and EPA added 12 morefacilities to the lawsuit.

The gist of the legal battle is this: EPA contends that thenation’s utilities ignored a 1970 federal law requiring olderplants to install anti-pollution equipment when they made majormodifications to their facilities. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA)allows facilities to be grandfathered in, which exempts them frommeeting some of the more stringent regulations as long as they donot add generating capacity or increase their use of coal. Underthe CAA, any grandfathered plant that made major modifications hadto apply to EPA for a permit, and had to add state-of-the-artpollution equipment.

However, Columbus, OH’s AEP argued that the requirement was notapplied to routine activities such as maintenance, replacing old orbroken equipment, or other regular repairs to ensure reliable, safeand efficient operation. It said AEP projects cited in EPA’slawsuits fit the description of routine activities, and said thatnone of the maintenance work resulted in an increase in generatingcapacity, but some had helped to reduce plant emissions.

Carolyn Davis, Houston

©Copyright 2000 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.