Prune the Shrub in 2004 #4

[4ABRUZN]

February 2, 2004 | Back Issues

Critics Blast EPA's New Mercury Proposal As Benefiting Industry, Endangering Children

The Bush Administration on Friday released a dramatically weakened plan for regulating toxic mercury from coal-burning power plants, a proposal that was written in part by industry and one that is drawing sharp criticism from its own children's health advisers.


Exposure to mercury by pregnant women and women of childbearing age can cause permanent brain damage to fetuses, infants and young children. But utilities -- the largest source of mercury emissions -- had lobbied against stiffer mercury regulations as too difficult and costly.


The EPA's own panel of experts on children's health lodged a protest with the agency over the proposal last week. The Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, which includes pediatricians, businesspeople and scientists, said it was concerned that the agency's plan "does not sufficiently protect our nation's children," in a letter to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.[1] "While cost effectiveness is important, the priority should be to protect children's health in a timely manner."


Friday's formal publication of the proposal kicked off a 60-day public comment period, during which EPA will hold three hearings and citizens can submit written comments.[2]


The Administration is proposing to allow the single largest unregulated source of mercury -- coal-fired power plants -- to continue emitting high levels for at least the next decade, leaving children exposed to risks of developing problems with walking, talking and learning, clean air advocates charge.


In 2000, the EPA determined that because of the serious health threats posed by mercury, it should regulate mercury from power plants. In 2001, EPA estimated that under the Clean Air Act, available technologies could reduce 90 percent of mercury from power plants.


But Friday's proposal instead would allow some power plants to avoid reducing mercury emissions by letting plants sell pollution "credits" to others that fail to meet their own mercury targets. EPA proposes allowing power plants to emit six to seven times more mercury pollution into the air for a decade longer than its 2001 determination.


Critics charge that the only beneficiaries of the EPA plan are electric utilities that rely on coal-fired plants. They note that President Bush has been by far the top recipient of campaign contributions since year 2000.[3]


The Washington Post noted in a story Saturday that whole passages of the EPA's proposal were taken directly from a memo written by a law firm representing the utility industry -- "at least a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, from the industry suggestions."[4]


White House records show that while utility representatives were invited to discuss the mercury emission proposal with the White House several times last fall, no consumer or public health groups were included.[5]



###

SOURCES:
[1] Letter to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, Jan. 26, 2004
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ochp/ochpweb.nsf/content/20040126.htm/$file/20040126.pdf
[2] Federal Register notice
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...04/04-1539.htm
[3] "Proposed Mercury Rules Bear Industry Mark," Jan. 31, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jan30.html
[4] Center for Responsive Politics
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...=N&sortorder=U
[5] White House records, Mercury MACT rule
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/2060/meetings.html

[RetroEd]

So what is the FACTS ???
What is the current rate of mercury per whatever?
What will be the rate with new change?
What was the rate 10 years ago?
What rate will kill you ?
What rate will effect pregnant women and is it proven and by who?
WHAT WILL IT COST ????
Those are the fact real facts....

[FlowRW]

The FACT is.....and it's simple, this administration is allowing their big business lobbyists, contributors and buddies write the rules for their own industries regardless of environmental, health or general economic impact. The bottom line IS their bottom line.

[RetroEd]

"The FACT is.....and it's simple, this administration is allowing ...regardless of environmental, health or general economic impact"

You have just stated Opinions......Lets have hard facts:
If the mercury is such a health problem, why aren't, we dying off like flys ???????
If were getting Sick, where is the out break of mercury sickness taking place ?????

[4ABRUZN]

Originally Posted by RetroEd

"The FACT is.....and it's simple, this administration is allowing ...regardless of environmental, health or general economic impact"

You have just stated Opinions......Lets have hard facts:
If the mercury is such a health problem, why aren't, we dying off like flys ???????
If were getting Sick, where is the out break of mercury sickness taking place ?????

When you're done with these, let me know...

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/health/me...20is%20mercury

http://www.elpc.org/energy/MercuryBriefing1.html