Given the Bush Administration's cynical notions in nearly every other regard, Mercury likely will be labeled by it as a nutrient for human consumption...
Rand ReDemocracy http://www.autobuyology.org/car15.html on 3/19/04 1:15 PM, Will Affleck-Asch at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ----- forwarded message ----- > Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 12:19:59 -0700 > From: Teresa Binstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: A Plea to Scrap Mercury Emission Plan - slanted toward industry and > is too weak to protect public health > > A Plea to Scrap Mercury Emission Plan > A bipartisan group says the Bush proposal is slanted toward industry and > is too weak to protect public health. > By Alan C. Miller and Tom Hamburger > LATimes Staff Writers > March 17, 2004 > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mercury17mar17,1,5598494. > story > > WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of senators, a former head of the > Environmental Protection Agency and health, labor and religious groups > urged the Bush administration Tuesday to withdraw its controversial > proposal to curb mercury emissions from power plants. > > They said that the plan was too weak to protect public health and that > the internal process that produced it was so slanted toward industry > that the final rule would not survive legal challenge. > > In a letter to EPA Administrator Michael O. Leavitt, Sen. James M. > Jeffords (I-Vt.), the ranking minority member of the Environment and > Public Works Committee, said the EPA had violated requirements calling > for agencies to review alternatives and disclose their analysis when > proposing a major regulation. > > Jeffords also referred to the proposal's "gross inadequacies in > controlling mercury." He called on Leavitt to request an investigation > by the agency's inspector general "into the allegations of undue > industry influence in the rule-making process." He said it appeared that > EPA political appointees and White House officials had worked "to skirt, > if not directly violate, the law and rules of ethical behavior." > > But an agency spokeswoman said Tuesday that work on the mercury rule was > ongoing and that no judgment "should be made until the rule is finalized > in December." > > EPA officials said, at this point, they stand by their "cap-and-trade" > approach to regulating mercury, which creates market-oriented incentives > for coal-fired utilities to either clean their emissions or buy > "credits" from those that do. > > "Our goal and our commitment remains the same: to reduce mercury > emissions by 70%," said Cynthia Bergman, the spokeswoman. > > Leavitt said this week that he was directing his staff to undertake > additional studies and analysis of the mercury proposal, which was > announced in December, shortly after he took office. He said he > considered this part of the "normal process," which he suggested could > result in changes to the proposal. > > He emphasized that the administration was the first to propose > regulations that would limit mercury emissions from power plants. > > President Clinton's EPA administrator, Carol Browner, said the Bush > proposal "is fundamentally flawed. It can't withstand a legal test, and > it must be withdrawn." > > Speaking at a news conference hosted by Physicians for Social > Responsibility, she said Bush administration officials "decided where > they wanted to go before they completed the analysis and then they > cooked the analysis to get to where the industry was willing to be. That > is not the way a regulatory process should operate." > > Jeffords and Browner said they were largely responding to a Los Angeles > Times report Tuesday that disclosed that EPA political appointees had > bypassed agency professional staff and a federal advisory committee last > year to develop a mercury emissions rule preferred by the White House > and industry. > > The Times also reported that EPA staffers said they were told not to > undertake routine economic and technical studies called for under an > executive order and requested by the advisory panel. Significant > language from utility lobbyists was included verbatim in the proposal. > > Also Tuesday, Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Olympia J. Snowe > (R-Maine) reiterated an earlier plea to scrap the EPA's proposed rule. > They have collected nearly three dozen signatures on a letter urging > Leavitt to submit a new proposal. > > Critics say the EPA should regulate mercury under the provisions of the > Clean Air Act, which call for much steeper and earlier emissions > reductions than the agency has proposed. > > Christie Whitman, who headed the agency last spring -- when EPA staffers > say they were told to forgo the normal analysis of the mercury proposal > -- said Tuesday that she supported Leavitt's decision to order new > studies. He has the option of publishing the findings before the > deadline for public comment and well before the final rule is enacted, > she said. > > Still, Whitman said, "ideally you have the underlying analysis when you > go out with a rule." She reiterated that she never requested that her > staff not produce its normal analysis or skew the data and, had she > known that was happening, "I would have stepped in." > > Further support for Leavitt's approach came from a powerful Senate ally. > > Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public > Works Committee, believes that "this controversy is testament to the > length environmentalists will go to politicize the normal workings of > government," said a spokesman for Inhofe. He also said the plan had > undergone extensive review, "so it is a stretch to say it has not been > analyzed." > > A recent study found that about 60,000 children a year could suffer > learning disabilities from being exposed to mercury while in the womb. > That can happen when pregnant women eat fish from waters contaminated by > the mercury emitted from power plants. > > But coal and utility executives warn that overly aggressive regulation > of the nation's 1,100 coal-fired plants could seriously damage those > industries as well as the nation's economy. > > A spokesman for coal-fired utility companies said Tuesday that > withdrawing the current mercury proposal would create unnecessary delay > and undercut the spirit of the proposal's public-comment period that > allows for more research and study. > > Scott Segal of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council suggested > that Browner's criticism of the administration was unwarranted, > particularly because her record on regulating mercury from power plants > was marked by delay. > > Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times > > * > The material in this post is distributed without profit to those > who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included > information for research and educational purposes. > For more information go to: > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html > <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm> > http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm > <http://oregon.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/documents.htm> > If you wish to use copyrighted material from this email for > purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission > from the copyright owner. > >
