Hooray for a good decision to postpone action.

At 11:57 AM 04/30/2004, you wrote:
>EPA Delays Mercury Utility Rule Until March 2005
>
>Mail this story to a friend </mail_dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=24959> |
>Printer friendly version </avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=24959>
>USA: April 30, 2004
>
>WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday delayed
>finalizing rules to reduce harmful mercury emissions from aging power plants
>until March 2005 to consider whether stricter rules are needed.
>
>The EPA faced a Dec. 15 legal deadline to finalize the rules, which -- as
>written -- would require utilities to reduce mercury emissions by 70 percent
>by 2018. Mercury contaminates water and seafood, and has been linked to
>neurological disorders in infants.
>EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt said final rules will be delayed by four
>months because of "the complexity of the issue and the desire to assure that
>it's done in the proper and informed way." The agency extended a public
>comment period set to end on Friday.
>Democrats and environmental groups have complained that the rules are weak
>and make too many concessions to industry.
>The delay stems from an offer this week from the Natural Resources Defense
>Council, the environmental group that sued the EPA in 1997. That lawsuit
>spurred the EPA to draft its mercury proposal.
>The NRDC said it would permit a delay if the agency would rethink the
>proposal it originally released in late January.
>The nation's 1,100 coal-burning power plants emit about 48 tons of mercury
>each year, the largest unregulated U.S. source.
>The EPA had proposed two possible ways to reduce emissions -- a
>cap-and-trade system, and requiring utilities to install "maximum achievable
>control technology" at plants.
>Both options are still under consideration, Leavitt said. "We will do what
>analysis is needed to assure that the proper decision is made," he told
>reporters on a telephone call.
>Critics say the Bush administration shunned traditional rule-writing
>procedures and allowed utility officials to dictate terms to the detriment
>of public health.
>"The rule wasn't even written by the EPA -- it was written on K Street,"
>said Sen. James Jeffords, Vermont independent, referring to the Washington
>street lined with lobbyist offices.
>"The Bush Administration has lost sight of its obligation to protect public
>health and safeguard the natural environment," Jeffords said, calling for
>tighter standards.
>Utility lobbyists cautioned the EPA not to enact rules that were too strict.
>"We think a two-thirds reduction in a decade and a half is a pretty steep
>cut in (mercury) emissions," said a spokesman for the Edison Electric
>Institute, a utility lobbying group.
>
>Story by Chris Baltimore
>
>
>Tarah Heinzen
>Sierra Club Conservation Organizer
>3839 Merle Hay Road, Suite 280
>Des Moines, IA 50310
>(515) 251-3995
>[log in to unmask]
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
>[log in to unmask]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]