2 coal plants state's top polluters
By Tony Bartelme
The Post and Courier's on-line center for investigative reporting.Are you ticked off by people who illegally use handicap placards? Want to know which restaurants are making you sick or which gas stations have bad pumps?
Check out what our Watchdog reporters found.
Industrial plants in South Carolina pumped more than 46 million pounds of chemicals into the air in 2007, with coal-fired electric generators, paper mills and chemical companies responsible for the bulk of the pollution, new data by the Environmental Protection Agency shows.
Six of the top 10 air pollution emitters were coal plants, including SCE&G facilities in Wateree and Berkeley counties, according to a Post and Courier Watchdog analysis of the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.
Both released more than 3 million pounds of pollutants, mostly hydrochloric and sulfuric acids, which contribute to acid rain.
Other top industrial air polluters include the International Paper mill in Georgetown, the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. plant in Florence and the KapStone plant (formerly owned by MeadWestvaco) in North Charleston. Each released more than 1.4 million pounds of chemicals into the air, the EPA's data shows.
The 46 million pounds released into the air was down about 10 percent from 51 million in 2006.
The EPA's annual roster has its share of critics. The data is provided by industries to the EPA, which has limited resources to ensure the information is accurate.
Watchdog groups were particularly skeptical about the 2007 data because the Bush administration reduced reporting requirements that year. Congress recently restored the stronger requirements.
In addition, total pollution figures can be deceptive because some chemicals are more harmful than others.
One plant might release large volumes of less harmful chemicals, while another might emit small amounts of highly toxic chemicals, such as lead or mercury. Some facilities do both.
Still, the EPA inventory remains the best way for the public to see how industries nationwide pollute the air and water.
"This information underscores the need for fundamental transparency and provides a powerful tool for protecting public health and the environment," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.
Across the country, nearly 4.1 billion pounds of chemicals were released into the environment. That marked a 5 percent drop from 2006, though releases of mercury increased, mainly because of mining operations.
Top mercury polluters in South Carolina were Santee Cooper's Winyah coal-fired plant with 316 pounds, the Savannah River Site with 313 pounds and SCE&G's Cope plant with 226 pounds.
Mercury, a neurotoxin linked to numerous health problems, is dangerous in tiny amounts; the equivalent of a drop can contaminate fish in a 20-acre pond.
Officials with companies on the EPA roster said they're trying to improve their numbers.
Robert Yanity, a public affairs officer with SCE&G, said the Cope station recently installed new pollution equipment that will reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 70 percent, and that the Wateree and Williams plants are installing new scrubbers that could reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 95 percent.
Laura Varn, vice president of corporate communications for Santee Cooper, said the utility was able to reduce its emissions in 2007 because it installed new scrubbers at its Winyah plant.
Other notable numbers from the data:
--Industries dumped 3.7 million pounds of chemicals into the state's waterways.
--Charleston County industries released more than 3,300 pounds of lead emissions into the air in 2007 and 121 pounds of mercury. Other top air pollutants in Charleston include ammonia (196,000 pounds) and barium compounds (136,000 pounds).
--In Berkeley County, manganese compounds (2.1 million pounds) are a major air pollutant. Exposure to these compounds can affect the nervous system.
--Dorchester County's top industrial pollutant was styrene, which has been described by the EPA as a suspected carcinogen (253,000 pounds).
Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, isn't on the Toxics Release Inventory roster, but the EPA signaled that it might regulate it soon. The EPA recently sent a document to the White House calling carbon dioxide a danger to public health and welfare.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
BillytheKid (anonymous) says...
We should take advantage of the nuclear that we have here already, Damn we have all that waste here and we can get energy from it can't we? I would hate to think our leaders didn't leave us an "out".
March 28, 2009 at 2:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dawhetsell (anonymous) says...
the Environmentalist cry about our pollution. Our country is one of the most regulated countries in the world. That is why most factories have left and the rest will probley leave. Can you even imagine what it is like in China and India where there are no pollution conrols on their plants.We need to convert our coal fired plants to nuclar, hydro or tital power. There are 2nd generation energy solutions coming,but our energy cost will more than double. The average energy cost in Europe is $.37 per kilowatt hour. Here it is about half that. Which to you want? Higher energy bills our pollution.
March 28, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Oceanlover (anonymous) says...
I want higher energy bills. Have you ever taken a drive over the Ravenel bridge early in the morning when the air is very still? All the ships and other air pollution sources make us look like LA in the middle of a smog alert. Disgusting. Just because it usually gets blown around and is less visible doesn't mean the pollution ain't there. Agreed on alternative energy sources. But I think we need to also be harnessing all the idle farmland in the state to produce switchgrass and other fuels that could be turned into electricity.
Just sayin.
March 28, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pinckney (anonymous) says...
Higher energy bills to reflect something of the true cost of producing electricity.
March 28, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jnot (anonymous) says...
Nobody wants to pay more for power but what's happening now is that energy costs are being subsidized by our increased healthcare costs. What we aren't paying for in cash, we're more than paying for in our health.
March 28, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newbattleaxe (anonymous) says...
dawhetsel, learn to spell and do your research. Oceanlover and Pinckney and BillytheKid, do your research. Don't ANYBODY tell me what YahooAnswers or Wikipedia told them. Check out REAL sources - the people in the industries who answer to DHEC and EPA. These are the people whose jobs are on the line every quarter and year when they fill out the reports for these agencies. Talk to the people who monitor the stack gases from the ships, power plants, etc. Talk to the people who monitor the ash ponds, the landfills, etc.
Alternate energy sources are still in their infancy, for the most part. Since the current administration shut down Yucca Flats, we have lost not only the only safe place to dump nuclear waste, but also who knows how much we have been paying in our utility bills over the past several years.
Check the facts, y'all. I did.
March 28, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
buff_o_rilla (anonymous) says...
Dont Panick People!!! The Government/UN will tax these evil polluters, only problem is your going to be the one who pays for it when you pay 2 or 3 times more for your energy needs. Obama's Cap and Trade tax program is what we all need, you really dont need what little extra money you have in your wallet.
March 28, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by Oceanlover "But I think we need to also be harnessing all the idle farmland in the state to produce switchgrass and other fuels that could be turned into electricity.
Just sayin."
======================================================
There is already too much non idle farmland being devoted to producing expensive inefficient ethanol. We still have to eat.
Wind and solar energy are desirable but impracticable as of now. Maybe one day.
In the meantime nobody , including dreamy eyed environmentalist are willing to forfeit any of "their" energy consuming gadgets.
Carbon credits, there's a real scam job. If your wealthy like Al Gorp you just pay a fee and produce all the pollution you wish.It doesn't lower the amount of pollutants being produced but it salves the conscience of the producer. Nice!
The rest of us just pay higher energy bills.
newbattleaxe; Good post!
March 28, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
meow (anonymous) says...
Wow the PC is going to beat these stories to death. TRI reports are not exact, companies have to report the highest amounts possible of emissions. Most of the time the actual amount is much lower than the reported amount. Of course an electric utility is going to produce higher emissions than most. How many times do you flip your light switch and expect lights to come on? 100% of the time because these plants run all the time. And that smog you see everyday ruining your view of the majestic Cooper River? It comes from cars, all of which are stuck sitting in traffic, because of the unbridled growth. Yes, please raise the electricity rates so that we can breath easier. I guess we do not need all of the businesses that depend on cheap electricity. They will pack up and leave in a heartbeat. Hey we can always work at Walmart right?
March 28, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cinnabar (anonymous) says...
This article fails to mention...(SC Data)
1) Total air emissions 1988-55.5 million pounds; 2007-22.5 million pounds.
2006-25.5 million pounds(bad Bush, shame on you. You fixed the books like Dodd, Frank & co on finance issues..)
2) Total Landfill disposal 1988 586,000 tons; 2007 3.0 million pounds.
A clear indicator of population increase in SC.
Guess what...No tailpipe emissions from automobiles(ie, voters) is mentioned. You wanna help? Stop driving your car, oceanlover....
Once again, clearly slanted against industry in general and utilities in particular. When SCE&G puts their new scrubbers in service, they will drop off the top 10 list...Will post courier be happy? No.
Post courier is fully staffed by the product of liberal College professors that SC taxpayers financed for the last 30 years. They report only the negative about our economy & industry. Anyone who knows anything about their stories knows how slanted, biased and 'yelling fire in the movie theater' they are. Keep up the bad work, PC, soon you'll be grovelling at the stimulus trough...
Google EPA TRI for the data. Air emissions have been cut in half from stacks since 1988...Cheers!
March 29, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rollo (anonymous) says...
Does the P&C intend to curtail its' own energy usage? Or do they deny that they are as much a contributor to pollution as any utility provider, or any individual household?
The P&C is a consumer of energy, as well as the trees that are cut to manufacture their print paper. How much pollution is produced and energy is consumed simply to provide P&C with paper and ink every day?
These people are hypocrites and this story is a fraud.
March 29, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chemist493 (anonymous) says...
Having worked in the enviromental field for several years and having studied environmental science in college, I can easly say that we take better care of the environment now than we ever have in our history.
At one time, there were no stack scubbers, no EPA, no proper treatment or storage of hazardous waste. Waste of any sort was considered treated if dumped in a river or just buried somewhere.
Of course, none of this matters to the tree huggers, if they had their way, we'd all be living in caves!
April 2, 2009 at 12:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
