<quote> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:52:20 -0700 Sender: The
DOJ press release mailing list
<[email hidden]> From: NEWSALERTS NEWSALERTS
<[email hidden]> Subject: [PRESSLIST] Attorney
General Lockyer Joins 11-State Opposition to Bush
Administration*s Lax Rules on Mercury
Attorney General Lockyer Joins 11-State Opposition to
Bush Administration’s Lax Rules on Mercury Attorneys
General Say Emissions Plan Fails to Adequately Protect
Air, Public Health
(WASHINGTON D.C.) – Attorney General Bill Lockyer, along
with Attorneys General and regulators from 10 other states,
today asked the Bush Administration to withdraw its plan to
restrict mercury emissions from power plants, arguing the
rules violate federal law and would not adequately protect
the public from serious health risks associated with
exposure to the toxic heavy metal.
“Exposure to mercury can cause severe health damage,
particularly to pregnant women and young children,” said
Lockyer. “If implemented, these rules will protect the
profits of polluters at the expense of the environment,
people and public health.”
Children can suffer from mental retardation, cerebral palsy,
deafness or blindness if exposed to high levels of mercury,
or if their mothers were exposed to high levels when
pregnant. Low exposure can cause developmental and learning
disabilities. In adults, mercury can affect fertility and
blood pressure, and cause loss of memory and vision.
The most prominent sources of mercury emissions are the
nation’s 1,100 coal-fired power plants, which produce about
48 tons of mercury every year. While California has no such
facilities, mercury emissions from coal-burning plants in
the Midwest ride the winds to California and eventually
enter lakes, streams and the Pacific Ocean. Mercury then
enters fish and, ultimately, people who eat the fish.
Because most large sources of mercury emissions lie outside
California, the state must rely on effective federal
regulation to reduce state residents’ exposure to the
hazardous substance.
Under California’s landmark toxics control and consumer
warning law, known as Proposition 65, mercury is listed as a
substance known by the state to cause reproductive harm.
Proposition 65 requires businesses to post “clear and
reasonable” warnings to notify consumers when they are
exposed to such substances. In 2003, Lockyer sued grocery
and restaurant chains for failing to warn shoppers and
diners about mercury exposure from fresh tuna, shark and
swordfish. Earlier this month, he filed a similar complaint
against canned tuna manufacturers. The cases are pending in
San Francisco Superior Court.
Lockyer said the Bush Administration rules run counter to
the goals of Proposition 65 and his enforcement actions. “At
a time when California is moving to protect its people from
harmful exposure to this environmental danger,” he said,
“the Bush Administration’s proposed rules threaten to
undermine our efforts and move us backward.”
Under 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress listed
mercury as a hazardous air pollutant. The same amendments
required emissions of such pollutants to be controlled as
follows: new sources must have the best available
technology; existing sources must use technology at least as
effective as the equipment used by the lowest-emitting 12
percent of plants of the same type. Together, the emission
control requirements are called Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT).
In January of this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) issued proposed rules to control mercury
emissions in one of two, alternative ways. The first would
place emission control requirements on various categories of
coal-burning plants. The second would implement a “cap-and-
trade” plan. This option would set an annual, nationwide
emissions cap of 34 tons in 2010, reduced to 15 tons by
2018. But less-polluting plants could sell emission credits
to higher-polluting plants, which would not have to take
action to reduce their emissions. The proposal includes key
language, even entire paragraphs, written by industry
representatives.
In objections filed today with the EPA, the Attorneys
General and regulators argue the rules violate the Clean
Air Act’s MACT requirement in two ways. The first option,
they say, does not require facilities to use technology at
least as effective as the lowest-emitting 12 percent of coal-
burning power plants. Additionally, the comments contend
the Clean Air Act does not authorize the cap-and-trade
approach as a method to control emissions of hazardous air
pollutants such as mercury. At bottom, the Attorneys
General and regulators say, the proposed rules would
insufficiently protect the public health by failing to
adequately reduce mercury emissions. Other major arguments
made by the Attorneys General and regulators in their
objections include:
• A cap-and-trade program would do nothing to reduce
emissions in mercury “hot spots” and, as a result, “could
have a disproportionate effect on minority and low-income
populations located near coal-fired power plants.”
• The EPA acknowledged during the rule-making process that
it must adhere to the MACT standard, that it had no
authority to adopt a cap-and-trade program, and that it had
to perform more statistical analysis.
• EPA should adhere to the strict MACT standard because
current science clearly shows that mercury emissions from
power plants have damaged oceans and waterways,
contaminated fish and ultimately expose people to serious
health risks. The rules fly in the face of current science,
as well as the EPA’s own findings about the serious danger
posed by mercury.
The comments conclude by calling on the EPA to withdraw the
current proposal and “expeditiously promulgate an
appropriate plant-specific MACT standard ...” While calling
for more study, EPA Administrator Michael O. Leavitt has
thus far declined to withdraw the proposed rules.
In addition to Lockyer, the objections were signed by: the
Attorneys General of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin; the
secretary of New Mexico’s Environment Department; and the
chief counsel of Pennsylvania’s Environmental Protection
Department.
View the objections at:
ag.ca.govindex.htmOpen ↗ </quote>
Mit freundlichem Gruß
Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster
und Arbeitslose § Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §