Unhealthy decision
I was disappointed to learn of the state Department of Environmental Protection's sudden approval of a new coke plant near Ebensburg, Cambria County ("New Coke Plant Gets Quick OK," April 5) and to read DEP Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty's response to criticism of DEP's actions ("DEP Has Done Its Job on the Cambria Coke Co. Plant Approval," April 12 letters). It's not that a new steel facility is being planned that disappoints, but rather the questionable timing with which DEP issued the permit. Had DEP issued the permit one day later, Sun Coke Inc. would have been required to pay pollution "offsets" to reduce soot from other sources. So the plant owners save money at a cost to public health and the well-being of our environment.

On March 31, DEP announced it will sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the new federal Clean Air Mercury Rule, announced in mid-March, claiming the new rule is too lax on power plant emissions and won't protect Pennsylvanians. Then, just five days later, DEP issued a permit for a new coke plant that will produce only one quarter as much coke as the old U.S. Steel Clairton Coke Works, yet which will be permitted to emit almost 12 times as much mercury (47 pounds vs. 4 pounds) annually.

Everyone wants good-paying new jobs created in Pennsylvania, especially in economically depressed areas like Cambria County. But with 22 Pennsylvania counties, including Cambria, already suffering from unhealthy levels of airborne soot, according to the EPA, and with fish advisories in the majority of our watersheds due to toxic mercury and other contaminates, DEP should focus on its mandate to protect the public health and the health of our environment.

JONATHAN NADLE
President
Group Against Smog & Pollution
Squirrel Hill

Feasible limits
The permit recently released by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for a new manufacturing plant illustrates that Pennsylvania's economic development does not need to come with a big environmental price tag ("New Coke Plant Gets Quick OK," April 5).

While concerns remain about several elements of the permit (including the sulfur and nitrogen oxide limits and monitoring requirements), the required mercury pollution limit is welcome news.

It demonstrates two things: 1) Affordable technology exists to require tight controls on emissions of toxic mercury (over 90 percent), and 2) The Pennsylvania DEP appears committed to addressing the mercury problem in a serious manner.

We are encouraged by this development, and hope it is a prelude to an upcoming decision that the agency needs to make with respect to mercury pollution from coal-burning power companies. Requiring technology to control mercury emissions from this source will not impede economic progress.

In fact, with this recent action, Pennsylvania is joining a handful of other states that are issuing permits for new manufacturers and utility companies with tight mercury limits. Similarly stringent mercury pollution limits are not only warranted for the power industry, they are technically feasible.

FELICE STADLER
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.