| when will it end
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29807-2003Dec2.html
washingtonpost.com
White House, EPA Move To Ease Mercury Rules
More Flexible Enforcement System Sought
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 3, 2003; Page A01
The Bush administration is working to undo regulations that would force
power plants to sharply reduce mercury emissions and other toxic
pollutants, according to a government document and interviews with
officials.
The Nov. 26 document makes the case that the Environmental Protection
Agency, under President Bill Clinton, misread the Clean Air Act's
requirements and that there are less onerous ways to reduce the emissions.
Until recently, the EPA was on track to issue new rules this month
requiring the nation's 1,100 coal- and oil-fired power plants to install
equipment to achieve the maximum possible reductions in mercury and
nickel
emissions, which can cause severe neurological and developmental damage
in
humans. The plan has drawn fierce resistance from industry groups and
their
congressional allies, who say the new regulations would be excessively
costly and should be softened or delayed beyond the 2007 target date.
Now, the White House and EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt are considering
rescinding a December 2000 EPA ruling, which concluded that mercury
emissions are a public health menace that requires power plants to
meet a
"maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) standard to sharply
reduce
toxic pollutants.
Last night Leavitt confirmed that the EPA is considering reversing the
Clinton administration's finding in favor of a more flexible enforcement
system.
The alternative, the document says, would be a mandatory "cap and trade"
program, similar to the successful program to combat acid rain that
was
begun in 1990. It would allow utilities to buy emissions "credits"
from
cleaner-operating plants to meet an overall industry target.
Environmentalists say the approach would save the utility industry hundreds
of millions of dollars while ensuring a relatively high level of mercury
pollution for years to come. Most utility companies, they say, could
achieve the reduction targets as a "co-benefit" or byproduct of reducing
carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, without having to add special equipment
to cut mercury emissions.
Coal-fired power plants are the nation's largest source of unregulated
airborne mercury pollution, sending an estimated 48 tons into the
atmosphere annually. The mercury can enter the food chain and threaten
public health, especially for children and pregnant women who eat tainted
fish. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found
that 8
percent of women of childbearing age had mercury in their blood exceeding
levels deemed safe by the EPA.
A reporter was provided documents from opponents of the rollback that
said
the draft EPA proposal, under review by the Office of Management and
Budget, would limit mercury emissions nationwide to 34 tons a year
by 2010.
That is about 30 percent below current levels, but far less than the
26-ton
limit originally proposed by the Bush administration as part of its
"Clear
Skies" initiative. Administration officials say the alternative "cap
and
trade" approach would achieve 70 percent reductions by 2018.
Environmental leaders yesterday called the administration's efforts
a huge
favor to the utility industry. They predicted that courts will eventually
overturn the decision but said the industry meanwhile could postpone
for
years significantly reducing mercury emissions.
"It looks as if the administration is going totally in the tank with
the
utility industry, in a flat-out violation of the law," said David Hawkins
of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We know this stuff is bad
for
kids, but they don't care."
S. William Becker, executive director of two bipartisan associations
of
state environmental officials, called the administration proposal "an
insult to public health and the environment."
"At a time when 41 states have fish-consumption advisories due to mercury
poisoning, it is unconscionable that EPA is proposing to postpone and
weaken regulatory protection," Becker said.
In an interview last night, Leavitt defended the administration turnabout.
The "cap and trade" approach, he said, would result in substantially
greater mercury reductions in the long run than would the MACT standard
requiring individual plants to meet specific targets. He said the EPA
would
announce both proposals this month and then conduct a series of public
hearings to get reaction.
"Frankly, we're just not satisfied with the level of reduction you get
from
the mercury MACT, so we're making the dual proposal," Leavitt said.
"This
all fits into the construct of aggressively making the next decade
the most
productive period in U.S. history in terms of air-quality improvement."
The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act exempted the utilities from
having
to clean up hazardous air pollutants including mercury and nickel.
But
under legal pressure from the Natural Resources Defense Council and
Earthjustice, the EPA conducted studies that led to its December 2000
decision to regulate mercury and toxic pollutants. The EPA must detail
the
new standards by Dec. 15.
According to the Nov. 26 draft EPA document, the agency instead plans
to
revise the December 2000 finding and cite a different section of the
Clean
Air Act to pursue a regulatory approach more acceptable to industry.
The
draft document says the EPA's original conclusion -- that imposing
tough
new MACT standards for mercury emissions was "appropriate and necessary
--
amounted to an improper reading of the Clean Air Act, which offers
other
avenues for the states and federal government to regulate mercury. |