No Comments! Be The First!
Acid rain a-go go or a no-go?
Posted By katie allison granju
There’s some interesting discussion over at TennViews on TVA getting the okay to end monitoring of the coal-fired plant emissions that produce acid rain.
Randy Neal writes:
TVA will no longer monitor ambient SO2 at the facilities, which are:
• Bull Run
• John Sevier
• Johnsonville
• Kingston
• Cumberland
• GallatinTVA will still monitor point-source “smokestack” SO2 emissions at these facilities.
SO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain, which damages trees, crops, historic buildings, and monuments, and makes soils, lakes, and streams acidic affecting forests and wildlife. SO2 also contributes to the formation of atmospheric particles that cause visibility impairment, most noticeably in national parks.
The variance is a result of an October 2006 EPA rule change that relaxes standards for SO2 monitoring in areas where it is no longer believed needed.
Three conditions must be met to obtain a variance: (1) The actual sulfur dioxide emissions from a fuel burning installation do not exceed 20,000 tons per year; (2) The source must be located in an attainment area and must not significantly impact a sulfur dioxide nonattainment area; (3) Measurements of air quality in the vicinity of the source demonstrate that ambient sulfur dioxide levels do not exceed 75 percent of the ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide.
The good news is that TVA has significantly reduced SO2 emissions over the years and meets two of the three requirements. Ambient SO2 levels at these facilities are less than 25% of the SO2 air quality standards, and TVA has not violated ambient air quality standards at any of these facilities since 1993.
But, TVA does not meet the first requirement. In 2006, SO2 emissions exceeded 20,000 tons at all of these TVA facilities except Cumberland. Johnsonville is the worst offender at 86,800 tons, followed by Kingston at 55,500 tons. Total SO2 emissions for these six facilities were 242,200 tons in 2006.
An anonymous poster claiming expert perspective responds:
It would be nice to get a report of the 10 to 30 highest hourly readings per year. If the number of high readings are sufficiently low (say, # of hourly readings > 30 not more than twice what the state sees), I’d say this is a non-issue, and anyone concerned about health effects would be better served looking at other hazardous air pollutants (like fine particulate from diesel trucks).
Dec 18th, 2007
