Great Lakes Article:

Mercury debate taints building of Weston plant
New cleaner WPS facility still under fire for pollutant
By Paul Brinkmann
Green Bay Press-Gazette
Published September 27, 2005

Pon Vang of Green Bay reeled in a small, silvery fish on the Fox River directly across from the J.P. Pulliam coal-burning power plant.

“It’s a white perch I think, but I won’t eat it,” he said, reaching for pliers to remove the hook. “I wouldn’t eat anything from this river.”

Vang, 24, said he knows fish in the river are contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, a probable cancer-causing chemical formerly used in local paper mills. But Vang and several other fishermen said last week they were unaware mercury — a deadly neurotoxin in high amounts — is also found in local fish.

The Pulliam power plant discharged more than 92 pounds of mercury among other pollutants last year, as reported by its owner, Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

Sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and carbon dioxide are some of the concerns at the plant, but mercury has received attention lately because power plants are considered a primary source of mercury entering the Great Lakes, according to a new draft study announced Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

WPS is building a new coal-burning plant, Weston 4, at a cost of around $800 million near Wausau that would produce less mercury — as little as 40 pounds a year — and more power. With a new cleaner plant in operation, Green Bay’s Pulliam plant might be used less. But some environmentalists are attempting to block construction of the Weston 4 project because even cleaner technologies are available such as coal gasification or solar and wind power.

The controversy over Weston 4 could affect air quality, water quality and power bills for Northeastern Wisconsin residents for years to come. Besides the impact on the Pulliam plant, the entire Green Bay region is generally downwind from Wausau, meaning pollution from the new plant generally drifts this way and over Lake Michigan.

Small amounts of mercury can damage human health. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management estimated 1/25th of a teaspoon of mercury per year is sufficient to contaminate a 60-acre lake to the point that fish are not safe to eat.

“The idea that we can generate power by grinding up coal and burning it is a 1950s technology at a time when we know we can do so much better,” said Bruce Nelles, attorney for the Sierra Club in Madison. “We already have too much mercury in the environment. It builds up in our bodies and ends up in our graveyards.”

The Sierra Club is pushing WPS on several legal fronts to reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants. The club has also threatened to sue the company over the Pulliam plant’s emissions.

Weston 4 received approval from Wisconsin Public Service Commission last year with little controversy in public hearings and an air pollution permit from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources this spring. Smokestacks are already rising at the plant. The Sierra Club has appealed the air permit approval and will argue its case next month before an administrative law judge. After that, the club would have to appeal the case to the circuit court level.

Ed Newman, director of environmental services for WPS, said the company would like to use Pulliam less often. To do that, it needs newer, cleaner plants like Weston 4. But the Sierra Club says Weston 4 is not good enough. Nelles points out that Illinois is building several coal gasification plants that are cleaner still.

“I cannot talk about the lawsuit because it is pending litigation, but I can say that we are willing to sit down with the Sierra Club to talk about the issues,” Newman said this week.

Newman acknowledges that one possible benefit of opening the new plant would be reducing dependence on the oldest, dirtiest parts of the Pulliam plant, but he could not say by how much. Running full-steam, Pulliam has a capacity of about 300 megawatts, while Weston 4 would be 500 megawatts. One megawatt is considered enough to power 1,000 homes.

Weston 4 would use a new technology known as sorbent injection to remove about 90 percent of the mercury content of coal. At the Pulliam plant, only 10 to 15 percent of the mercury is removed by other pollution controls.

The sorbent injection system is a cutting-edge technology for reducing mercury in coal-burning plants that use “dry scrubber” systems like the one in Weston 4. The system will inject a powdered flow of treated carbon particles into the exhaust system after the coal is burned. Those particles will trap the mercury in the exhaust.

Newman said the sorbent injection system has a downside. Currently WPS sells its waste product from coal-burning plants — called fly ash — to concrete companies. But ash from the sorbent injection system might contain too much mercury for use in concrete.

David Neu, regional wildlife biologist for the National Wild Turkey Foundation in De Pere, said he would favor an attempt to build a cleaner coal-burning plant.

“The demand for power goes up and up and where’s it going to come from? Until we make some alternate fuels more affordable, the new plant is a good idea for WPS,” Vance said.

Vang, the fisherman, said he knows nothing about WPS’ plan for a new power plant. He said he would welcome any technology that produces less pollution.

“I know better than to eat the fish, but there are many people who still eat fish regularly. Some of them believe the fish are cleaner if they move around the dockwall and fish from the bay instead, but I don’t,” Vang said.

The Sierra Club’s complaints about Weston 4 and Pulliam are based on alleged violations of Wisconsin rules and laws sulfur dioxide and “greenhouse gases” like carbon dioxide, which is believed to contribute to global warming, and particulate matter. But reducing those pollutants would also reduce mercury, one of the club’s top priorities.

Nelles believes the Weston 4 plant could be rendered completely useless in the near future if global warming becomes a larger concern, which could force power companies to abandon coal-burning completely.