Air Pollution in Southeast Ohio: Mercury and Other Problems

While taking an aerial look at the Ohio River Valley, dozens of coal-burning power plants are visibly situated within the landscape.  Many of us are accustomed to seeing these plants as we travel the region, with plumes of smoke rising in air, high fences, and industrial colors fixating us as we drive past. One such pollutant emanating from these plants is mercury, a naturally occurring element released into the atmosphere as coal is burned. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the average coal burning power plant generates 170 pounds of mercury, with only 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake making the fish unsafe to eat.  The EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) tracks pollution, including mercury emissions for 486 electric generating facilities with the latest data available being from 2005.  According to the EPA’s findings the monitored facilities released 48.3 tons of mercury into the atmosphere in 2005.  Out of the top fifty polluting plants for mercury, four are located in Ohio and eleven more are in bordering states.  This positions Ohio in the middle of various air pollution issues.  When we started writing this article, our intention was to give an analysis of how the dangers of pollution from coal-burning power plants in the region have affected the health of people living in the region.  And while there is no question that mercury is emitted from these plants and that it poses a serious health risk with The Centers for Disease Control finding about 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered a risk to a fetus, other factors make it difficult to pin down causes and effects.

Alongside pollutants affecting the landscape, we can see the tangible effects of extraordinarily high levels of poverty in Southeastern Ohio. Many of the poorest Ohio counties are in this part of the state, and poverty usually plays a role when looking at issues of health and the environment.

It is probably no coincidence that some of the highest cancer rates in the state can be found in this area as well, and while one may not necessarily produce the other it is important to keep in mind that all play off of each other.

There lays the crux of all this information.  If the landscape is affected by mercury pollution and the people living there on average suffer from higher levels of certain diseases, with many also living in poverty, we have an environment that needs to be deciphered and local peculiarities understood. But, how then do we begin to articulate what is happening on these sites? Despite their physical presence and their even more direct relationship to our lives through providing electricity, these sites exist off our most of mental maps. This makes it difficult to discern any negative ramifications from these plants.  Also, the idea of pollutants and toxins is not easily understood since we oftentimes do not see these hazards in our air.  The invisibility surrounding pollution and coal burning power plants makes it difficult to understand how they move through and affect the environment.

In this article we will look at what mercury does, at the research on mercury developing in the area, at local perceptions and discourse about mercury, and at what the future of this issue looks like.

What is Mercury?

Mercury is a naturally occurring element, occurring in several forms. Humans do not create mercury, but do release it into the environment primarily through coal-burning power plants, municipal waste combustion and medical waste incineration. Once mercury settles into the water or on land where it can wash into the water, mercury develops into methylmercury through microbial activity. Methylmercury is an organic and highly toxic form of mercury; the primary cause of mercury poisoning. People are mainly exposed to methylmercury through eating fish and shellfish. Elemental or metal mercury is found in items like thermometers and light bulbs, and can be dangerous when inhaled.

According to the EPA, many different factors determine how mercury affects a person’s health. The prominence of mercury in our environment has resulted in most people having some trace of mercury in their bloodstream. Severity of health effects depends on the chemical form of mercury, the dose, the age of the person, the duration of exposure, the route of exposure (inhalation, ingestion etc) and the health of the person exposed (epa.gov). The primary health effect is neurological damage, affecting the cognitive development of memory, attention, language and fine motor skills. This is why mercury poisoning is particularly harmful to pregnant women; the fetus is highly susceptible to the effects of mercury poisoning. Methymercury is able to easily cross into the placenta when the mother consumes mercury-contaminated fish and shellfish, causing fetal red blood cells to rise higher than that of the mother.

Mercury then is undoubtedly harmful, but is linked to an industrial process with many different stakeholders. Citizens use the power generated by these plants, while also living in environments affected by them. The power generating industry and politicians have conflicting and converging interests in developing what acceptable emissions standards are. In February 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court denied to consider a Bush-era rule that would have allowed a cap-and-trade approach to mercury, invalidating the EPA’s 2005 Clean Air Mercury Rule. The trajectory of the Clean Air Mercury Rule illustrates well the complex discourse on mercury by industry, government agencies, politicians and environmental groups.

In 2004 the EPA developed a suite of rules known as the Clean Air Rules of 2004, which addressed power plant emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, ads well as ozone and fine air particle pollution, nonroad diesel emissions. The Clean Air Mercury Rule was apart of these rules. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was issued in March 2005 by the EPA to address power plant pollution drifting past state borders by using a cap and trade program to target pollutants. The Clean Air Mercury Rule then built upon this legislation. According to the EPA The Clean Air Mercury Rule would involve two phases: capping mercury emissions to 39 tons, then by 2018 reducing emissions to 15 tons.

In February of 2008 the Supreme Court vacated the EPA’s rule removing power plants from the Clean Air Act list of sources of hazardous pollutants, simultaneously vacating the Clean Air Mercury Rule. A coalition of public health groups, tribes and states argued the EPA had illegally evaded protections required by the Clean Air Act by substituting a mercury pollution trading scheme. Had the EPA wanted to not adhere to the rigorous pollution controls in the Clean Air Act they would have needed to have demonstrated that no power plant would “exceed a level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin of safety and no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any”. Rather than making individual power plants to install pollution controls, the legislation would allow certain plants to buy their way out of obligations to reduce emissions. The court did not find the EPA’s approach to emissions controls persuasive, and the EPA said later the decision was made on a “technicality”. In February of 2009 the Obama administration moved to dismiss its appeal by the EPA. Invalidation of the Clean Air Mercury Rule means that the EPA must go back to applying “maximum achievable control technology” as required under the Clean Air Act.

Mercury Focus Group

Researchers at Ohio University are beginning to pull together a wide range of resources and expertise to study mercury accumulation in the area. In 1995, the National Atmospheric Deposition Program developed their Mercury Deposition Network, an initiative to create a national database of weekly concentrations of mercury in precipitation as well as the seasonal and annual flux of total mercury in wet deposition. The Center for Air Quality at Ohio University http://www.ohio.edu/airquality/ is playing a crucial role in this research, using their facility to collect data on the buildup of mercury in our atmosphere, which is the only mercury-measuring site in the state of Ohio.

Dr. Jared DeForest, an assistant professor of environmental and plant biology, focuses most of his research on the effect of human activities on soil processes. As a a PhD student, DeForest’s researched nitrogen deposition through the burning of fossil fuels, which causes nitrogen to go into the atmosphere leading to nitrogen saturating the fertilization of plants. After coming to this region his research has shifted focus from nitrogen to acid deposition. DeForest’s specialized knowledge of how human activities have altered the structure and function of forested ecosystems gives him a valuable perspective in approaching research on how mercury has affected the region.

“Even though aquatic-wise there’s been a relatively large amount of research done on mercury, on terrestrial eco-systems there is very little,” says DeForest. In order to gain a better understanding of how mercury affects the terrestrial eco-system in this area, DeForest is planning to look at how different tree species absorb mercury. As the year progresses, leaves on the trees in the region accumulate more and more mercury. When the leaves fall and begin decomposing, plant litter transports mercury onto the forest floor. Accumulation of mercury on the forest floor is one of the conduits for mercury getting into the streams, as. Insects and other species feeding on these polluted waters will then get mercury bioaccumulation in their bodies.

Researcher Gary Conley supervises The Center for Air Quality which measures many different pollutants aside from mercury.  While Conley sees mercury as an important area for research, he was quick to talk about the importance of looking at other pollutants in the atmosphere and their interactions.  Conley directed us to the National Atmospheric Deposition Program, which is a nationwide network of precipitation monitoring sites.  The NADP provides comparison data for sites across the United States and a even a casual glance at several of their nation wide maps shows that Southeastern Ohio is one of the main destinations for toxic emissions. Mercury is one of four key power plant pollutants, the others being nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. Sulfate ion, which is one of the leading emissions from coal-burning power plants, finds its highest concentration in the Ohio River Valley.  And while the NADP maps show mercury to not be outrageously high in the area, Conley described the need to see all of these pollutants as “parts of a suite” that must be analyzed in relationship to one another. As researchers in the Mercury focus group begin to approach the issue of mercury from their different research areas, it is likely analyzing mercury in relationship to other pollutants will become more viable.

Living in the Environment

Outside the laboratories and test room, all of us deal with the daily positive and negative effects of the power plants.  And despite mercury not being a primary concern in day-to-day life, there is still an awareness in people living in this area that pollution affects what they see and experience in their environment.  With the growing awareness around environmental issues, most of us have know on some level that what happens at the industrial centers have environmental consequences.  In an attempt, to gain a sense on how residents in Athens understand their environment we took to the streets and interviewed people about their feelings towards the coal-burning power plants and the place where they live.  One of our earliest interviewees, who declined to give her name, summed it up by saying “Coal has mercury in it. Mercury is deadly, end of story.” However, despite seeing coal as a dangerous source of energy and feeling that she and her friends know about the dangers, she sees the conundrum of giving it up: “We feel helpless.  I mean go without electricity for five days and see how you feel. No frozen food, no music, no TV, no computer…it doesn’t feel that good.  We’re hooked to electricity and the alternatives are too expensive.”

Several organizations are trying to address this sense of helplessness among citizens.  For example, the Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is one of the leading advocates for fresh air, clean water, and sustainable land use.  They support improve energy efficiency and working to develop renewable power sources and see the development of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) as being a tangible way to cleanup energy production.   According to the OEC, IGCC produces smaller percentages of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions than traditional pulverized coal plants emits. The IGCC uses a combined cycle format with a gas turbine driven by combusted syngas from a gasifier, allowing the exhaust gas heat to be exchanged with water/steam. This generates superheated steam to create a steam turbine. Also, IGCC reduces carbon, with roughly an 80% reduction over traditional pulverized coal plants. Mercury emission is dramatically lower in IGCC production so the OEC advocates that the Ohio and Federal EPAs demand all new coal burning plants employ IGCC technology.

The OEC supports alternative energy and recently, awarded the Athens, Ohio company Third Sun Solar and Wind Power its OEC Environmental Innovation Award.  Third Sun Solar and Wind Power has generated hundreds kilowatts of clean power, which helps to offset pollution produced by coal-fired power plants.

Conclusion

There are many layers surrounding the environment and coal burning power plants.  And while one does not want to “cry wolf” about health risks, it is important to start dissecting the layers and attempt to understand how our lives are affected by our need for electricity.  Ohio Governor, Ted Stickland’s, recent energy plan captures the importance of addressing the risks of coal burning power plants.  Among the proposals is carbon sequestration, and to quote from that section “In no uncertain terms, coal-based electric power generation represents Ohio’s primary vulnerability to future global climate change policies.  And with the recent decision by the EPA to declare “greenhouse gases” air pollutants that are public health risk, it is slowly becoming clear that air pollution is a problem to be addressed.  While we are still decades off from linking the environmental effects caused by coal-based power plants conclusively with health risks, it is important to begin asking questions.  These questions will help us see the holistic approach to addressing environmental problems, where we cannot only focus on what is being emitting from the plants, but also why we need those plants to begin with. The the research focusing on mercury emerging at OU is taking necessary steps towards understanding the way mercury cycles throughout this area, and will help open doors to a better understanding of the possibilities and limitations of regulating mercury in the environment. In this article we took a brief look at the nature of health impacts of mercury, legislation relating to mercury emissions, emerging research on mercury, and organizations attempting to address cleaner energy production. Each of these approaches to mercury is tied to complex issues related to the global economy, which is a crucial factor in attempting to tackle this issue. At the same time, when looking at mercury and other issues related to pollution, it is important to be skeptical of reasoning to skews the concentration of negative effects in localities where there is a concentration of coal power plants.

Environmental Journalism in 2014

What is your vision of how the public will track environmental issues and developments in five years?

Online journalism has had a profound impact on the way people experience the news. The ability to link, ability to comment and amount of storage space allows for an interaction with the news not possible with print media. One of the most valuable things about the set up of Dot Earth is that is allows for experts to directly comment and engage with the material. Problems that face coverage of environmental issues in print, like not having enough room to do justice to a certain issue, don’t take the same form in online media.

During the past few years I have been amazed at how multimedia journalism has developed. I think the ability for science journalists to provide compelling visualizations of environmental issues will change the way these issues are tracked and discussed. Lack of visual appeal has been a problem environmental journalism in print media has faced. If people are able to interact with a multimedia depiction of an environmental concern this may make it easier for people to better understand the complexities of environmental problems.

Answering this question becomes complicated when desconstructing what exactly the “public” is and how exactly the public or publics track environmental issues and developments right now. Communities, business leaders, government agencies, environmental groups and others all have their own modes of discourse and communication when it comes to environmental issues. Our discussion in class touched on the development of hyperlocal news sites – it will be interesting to see if the hyperlocal could open up new ways for people to engage with environmental issues in their community. In their full potential hyperlocal sites might provide the ability for communities to connect with other communities internationally who have a common interest in a particular environmental issue.

Environmental organizations have the ability more than ever to connect with people through social media – some are doing it well while others aren’t, but this will continue to evolve over the next five years. Grist is an example of an online magazine focused on environmental that has had some success using social media. Independent media and online publications all have to potential to develop new ways to track environmental issues.

Environmental Communication Ch 3 & 4

Emily Hanlon – Response Paper #4

Chapter three and four of Environmental Communication focuses on the precedents and procedures that have shaped citizen’s rights to engage with environmental issues, as well as their shortcomings and alternatives. Cox boils down public participation in Environmental Decisions down to three basic legal rights: the Right to Know, the Right to Comment, and the Right of Standing. For each of these rights Cox gives an overview of their mode of participation, the legislation that gives that participation authority, and the principle signifying their importance.

Environmental Communication – Ch 1 & 2

Emily Hanlon – Response Paper 3

What shapes the way people perceive the environment? How do these perceptions affect they way they engage with the environment? Robert Cox’s Environmental Communication explores these two questions by giving a comprehensive overview of the origins and development of environmental communication. The first chapter explores three main themes: human communication as a form of symbolic action; our beliefs, attitudes and behaviors relating to nature and environmental problems are mediated or influenced by communication, and the public sphere (or spheres) emerge as a discursive space for communication about the environment (4). These themes can be compared and contrasted in the seven areas of study in environmental communication Cox identifies: environmental rhetoric and discourse, media and environmental journalism, public participation in environmental decision making, advocacy campaigns, environmental collaboration and conflict resolution, risk communication, and representations of nature in popular culture and green marketing.

Ideas Into Words 4-7

In the second half of Ideas Into Words, Hancock walks through the entire process of writing a piece – drafting, reworking, editing, and getting out of rut. When getting started on a draft, Hancock says the first thing you should do is think through what you want to say. This might seem counterintuitive to those anxious to dive into their writing, but spending time thinking through structure makes the writing process much smoother. An important component to the preemptive thinking process is reflecting on who the readers are; the goal should be to capture and serve as many readers as possible. Hancock says you should be asking yourself, “Who are these people? What does each group need and expect from you? What will each group want to know? (73).” Readers come many different backgrounds, and a good writer is able to offer something for everyone. After thinking through the story, Hancock offers advice for structuring the story organically to reflect the shape of the material.

Science, Journalism and the Public Sphere

Grappling with environmental issues requires unraveling the complex relationship between the science and the public. The terms “science” and “public” are contested terms that interact with politics, business and culture. In simplified terms, there is a disconnect between science and the public that threatens the effectiveness of the democratic process.  In Ulrich Beck’s words, “scientific rationality without social rationality remains empty, but social rationality with scientific rationality remains blind.”