Pollution watchdogs have turned down Drax Power Station's request to increase sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 per cent.

Now the angry American owners, AES, are to appeal to the Government to overturn the Environment Agency's decision, which they say is unfair and threatens the station's commercial operation.

Drax asked the agency for permission to pump out 60,000 tonnes a year of sulphur dioxide - which causes acid rain - a 50 per cent increase on its current 40,000-tonne limit.

But agency chiefs responded by granting them 47,000 tonnes, despite acknowledging that it was a "very tight" limit.

The agency also conceded that if the new limit reduced Drax's output, it could result in increased sulphur dioxide emissions globally because dirtier coal-fired plants would step in and take up the slack.

The "green" bombshell was dropped on Drax last week.

The station has already gobbled up more than 30,000 tonnes of its sulphur emissions limit - with a third of the year still to go.

It is now inevitable that Drax will go over the 47,000-tonne limit, which theoretically could lead to the agency closing it down.

AES has already moved to avoid any closure risk by submitting an emergency request to emit an extra 13,000 tonnes.

The agency said today it believed Drax could operate at almost full capacity on the new emission limit provided it used more low sulphur coal from abroad.

The agency's heavy industry regulator, John Peak, told the Evening Press he was now examining the emergency submission, which could lead to the granting of a temporary increase.

But he added: "Drax will have to provide excellent evidence in support of their emergency case.

"Whatever happens, we will make strenuous attempts to ensure dirtier coal-fired stations aren't used instead of Drax."

Drax manager Derek Paton said today it would now pursue their case for 60,000 tonnes through the Department of Trade and Industry.

He said the agency wanted them to buy more low sulphur foreign coal, which would cost £26 million more than UK coal.

Mr Paton said: "All we want is a level playing field so we can compete fairly. The agency's decision is negative both from an environmental and commercial point of view, and makes no sense whatsoever."

Updated: 16:18 Thursday, June 21, 2001