On July 6, Alcoa submitted a permit application to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission under the agency’s Voluntary Emissions Reduction Program, enacted by the Legislature in 1999. According to Alcoa spokesman Jim Hodson, Alcoa’s plan calls for an annual reduction in regulated air emissions of approximately 60,000 tons: That would include a 50% cut in nitrogen oxide emissions by the end of 2002, and a 90% cut in sulfur dioxide emissions by the end of 2006.
Earlier this year, under an agreed order with the TNRCC and in response to federally mandated reductions of ozone levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, Alcoa had promised a 30% reduction in its emission of nitrogen oxide. The company’s application adds another 20% to that (based on 1997 emission levels), plus radical reductions in sulfur dioxide that Alcoa officials had consistently rejected as too expensive.
TNRCC officials welcomed Alcoa’s application to its heavily criticized voluntary program, which has thus far failed to produce significant emissions reductions statewide. But members of Neighbors for Neighbors were skeptical, particularly of the notion that Alcoa’s proposed reductions should be considered “voluntary.” “What they’ve announced is just what they’ve been forced to do,” said Ron Giles. “And as long as they continue to burn lignite, they’re going to release huge amounts of CO2.” Billie Woods added, “If you read their application, it goes hand-in-hand with the new grandfathered regulations. We believe the only reason they’re applying is because of amnesty provisions [for past pollution] under the voluntary program.”
“The real reason for these reductions is not because they want to be nice guys,” Neil Carman of the Sierra Club told the Chronicle. “Under the 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act, they were going to have to comply with federal MACT [maximum available control technology] standards by the middle of the decade anyway. It may sound nice, and it’s a good thing they have to do it — but it ain’t voluntary.”
Alcoa’s Hodson responded that while new federal regulations concerning acid gases (which would also affect sulfur dioxide) are indeed in the works, “There is no requirement to do these reductions today — and [the critics] are only speculating as to what might be required in the future.” He said the NOx reduction work is already in progress, with the sulfur dioxide reductions to come later.
David Schanbacher, air program coordinator for the TNRCC, said that while it’s hard to determine precisely what might have been required of Alcoa under pending regulations, the company’s early decision to reduce sulfur dioxide is welcome. “To the extent that they made commitments prior to having the rules in place,” Schanbacher said, “they’ve done more than we’ve expected.”
Robin Schneider of Texas Campaign for the Environment said that she has learned from experience to wait and see on pollution reduction promises, but added, “If they actually go through with it, and lower the emissions at that level, it is a major victory for us. In the past, Alcoa has repeatedly said they did not plan to make those kinds of reductions.”
Asked if Alcoa could succeed in reducing its air pollution to mandated levels while still expanding its lignite mining, Carman said, “Oh, definitely. Air is only one part of the problem out there — you still have to deal with the mine and the water drainage.”
This article appears in July 27 • 2001.
