EPA Plans to Reduce Air Pollution Controls
Have Your Voice Heard

Does this make sense? The government agency that looks out for food safety urges that we limit how much fish we eat because of mercury contamination. Meanwhile, another agency responsible for preventing mercury from getting into the fish (and the rest of the environment) proposes relaxing controls on releases of the poison.

Mercury is known to damage the brains of children growing in the womb.[1] This heavy metal comes out of smokestacks at coal-fired plants, falling back to earth and poisoning its creatures. Like other toxic materials that don't break down, mercury concentrates up the food chain. Because high levels of mercury are now found in many fish, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning this month advising pregnant women and children to stay away from swordfish and to limit the amount of "chunk white" canned tuna they eat to no more than six ounces per week.[2]

April 22 is Earth Day

Our friends at the state PIRGs, Sierra Club and state-based
environmental groups are organizing Earth Day rallies and news conferences across the country, including one in Washington. Click here to check it out.

Yet just as the FDA urges people to eat less otherwise-healthy food, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes delaying the regulation of mercury in coal-plant emissions - the largest source of mercury contamination, but the only one unregulated by our government.[3]

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set limits on power-plant pollution such as mercury, taking into account what can be done using current technology. The EPA said it could require a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2008 using current technology. But instead, the Bush administration proposed dragging out the process until 2018, and even then cleaning up only 70% of mercury emissions.[4]

To weaken the current standards, the EPA will have to change its own rules. This is where you come in. The EPA is required to accept public comments on this proposed rule change. TrueMajority is joining the Environmental Working Group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Council of Churches, the Mercury Policy Project, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Health Care Without Harm to oppose these changes.

To tell the Bush Administration's EPA that you want mercury out of our environment so we can feed fish again safely to our children, click "Reply" and "Send" in your email program to send your free message (text below). If this was forwarded to you or you'd like to customize the message, click here:

http://action.truemajority.com/index.asp?action=10163&ms=merc1&ref=381791
Yours for a safe environment,

Ben


P.S. You asked for 'em; you got 'em. Here are some footnotes for those of you looking to learn more about this issue.

[1] Environmental Working Group (2001). Brain Food: What women should know about mercury contamination of fish. http://www.ewg.org/issues/mercury.

[2] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2004). What you need to know about mercury in fish and shellfish. http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html.

[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress. http://www.epa.gov/airprogm/oar/mercury.html.

[4] Federal Register, January 30, 1994. 69(20). pp. 4652-4752.

As we speak I think Bush and Cheney are hording mercury in a deep salt mine in Utah...After the election they plan to load it on pilotless drones equipped with spray equipment and begin the spraying of the entire US water supply....I'm stocking up on Perrier while the gettin's good!!!

I know that down here in Olympia the coal stacks are pumping that black smoke by the ton.

Does China come to mind, I think that the US is probably the least responsible for those polutants.

Vedder thanks for getting me to do a little research.
US 3.6%, one death worldwide and 5.8% Per/BILLION parts


http://www.conservativemonitor.com/opinion04/5.shtml

PS: I guess you gotta hate the Bush EPA head for coming up with such a silly idea?

Or maybe it's not so silly. Want to learn more?

1. Is air pollution from power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities really still a problem?

Yes. Although progress has been made cleaning up air pollution since the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, air quality has remained poor or has even deteriorated in many parts of the country. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than 120 million Americans live in areas where the air is unhealthy. From the aggravation of respiratory problems such as asthma and emphysema to premature death, air pollution takes a toll on Americans' health. It also harms the environment, causing acid rain, ozone damage to trees and crops, mercury contamination, and global warming.

2. What are the worst sources of industrial air pollution?

Electric power plants. They are the single largest industrial source of some of the worst air pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and mercury. In 1998, power plants were responsible for 67 percent of the annual total sulfur dioxide, more than one-quarter of the nitrogen oxides, 33 percent of the mercury and 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States.

3. What effect does this pollution have on Americans?

Scientists have shown that power plant pollution is linked to serious health effects and environmental damage:

Premature death: In the eastern United States, sulfur dioxide is the primary component of fine particles that can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, and are linked with respiratory disease and premature death. Power plants emit two-thirds of U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and are responsible for shortening the lives of an estimated 30,000 Americans each year.

Asthma: Nitrogen oxides are major ingredients in ozone pollution (smog). During 1999, ozone pollution levels rose above the level the EPA deems healthy more than 7,694 times in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Smog and fine particle pollution are especially damaging for the 14.9 million asthma sufferers in this country, including 5 million children. In 1997, smog triggered more than 6 million asthma attacks and sent almost 160,000 people to the emergency room in the eastern United States alone.

Mercury contamination: Mercury can cause serious neurological and developmental damage, including birth defects, subtle losses of sensory or cognitive ability, and delays in developmental milestones such as walking and talking. Power plants are responsible for 34 percent of all mercury emissions, which settle into our waters, where they accumulate in fish. In 41 states, officials warn against eating fish from mercury-contaminated lakes and rivers.

Acid rain: Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants form acids in the atmosphere that fall to earth as rain, fog, snow or dry particles. This "acid rain" is often carried hundreds of miles by the wind. Acid rain damages forests and kills fish, and can also damage buildings, historical monuments and even cars.

Global warming: Power plants emit 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary cause of global warming. Scientists say that unless global warming emissions are reduced, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century -- with far-reaching effects. Air pollution will worsen. Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas. Heat waves will be more frequent and intense. Droughts and wildfires will occur more often in some regions, heavy rains and flooding in others. Species will disappear from their historic ranges and habitats will be lost. Many of these changes have already begun.

4. What is the Bush administration's "Clear Skies" initiative, and will it help reduce air pollution?

The Bush administration developed a plan called the Clear Skies initiative and submitted it to Congress in February 2003 as a proposal to amend the Clean Air Act, which is the primary federal law governing air quality. But "Clear Skies" is a clear misnomer, because if Congress passes the Clear Skies bill, the result will be to weaken and delay health protections already required under the law.

The Clear Skies legislation sets new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants. But these targets are weaker than those that would be put in place if the Bush administration simply implemented and enforced the existing law! Compared to current law, the Clear Skies plan would allow three times more toxic mercury emissions, 50 percent more sulfur emissions, and hundreds of thousands more tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides. It would also delay cleaning up this pollution by up to a decade compared to current law and force residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait years longer for clean air compared to the existing Clean Air Act.

5. How does the president's Clear Skies plan aim to combat global warming?

It doesn't. Despite mounting evidence of the urgency of this problem, the president's plan fails to include a single measure to reduce or even limit the growth of carbon dioxide, the chief pollutant causing global warming. This is a serious mistake that will have serious consequences. If new legislation is passed affecting the electric power plant industry, plant owners will use it as a blueprint for the type of investments they make in coming years. Failing to include reductions in global warming pollution in that blueprint now will only raise the cost and difficulty of achieving them later.

6. I read about a controversy over pollution from older power plants. Is that related to the Clear Skies legislation?

Yes. The president has also used his authority over the Environmental Protection Agency to undermine a key part of the Clean Air Act -- called New Source Review -- that Congress enacted to control pollution from the country's oldest and dirtiest power plants and factories.

In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to strengthen pollution controls, but did not require plants already in existence to meet the new standards, expecting that these plants would soon be retired and replaced with newer, cleaner plants. As a safeguard, however, the law included the New Source Review provision, which requires that if an older plant undergoes changes that increase its emissions, it must also install modern air pollution controls. Without New Source Review, much of the nation's industrial base -- power plants, chemical plants, incinerators, iron and steel foundries, paper mills, cement plants, and a broad array of manufacturing facilities -- would be excluded from modern clean air requirements.

President Bush's campaign to let dirty power plants pollute more began early in his administration. In 2001, the president convened an energy policy task force, chaired by Vice President Cheney. The task force sought extensive advice from energy industry executives and incorporated many of their recommendations into its plan. In an email sent in early 2001 to an Energy Department official, a lobbyist for the Southern Company, an Atlanta-based electric utility, suggested that the administration weaken the New Source Review requirements. The task force subsequently recommended a review of New Source Review regulations. In November 2002 the administration announced new rules that severely undercut the program, and in August 2003 the EPA adopted further changes that weaken the effectiveness of the program as it applies to approximately 20,000 facilities nationwide. NRDC is challenging both sets of rules in court, but if Congress passes the Clear Skies bill, provisions that would similarly hamstring efforts to cut pollution from old plants would become law.

AM: I think killing all the people is a bit extream. But I see nothing extream about keeping current rules. Relaxing the current rules is just crazy. Well, unless the mining companies who pay NO taxes or the coal plant operators, who pay NO taxes, might be huge campaign contributors. Thewn it would make a ot of sense, if you cared more about $$$ then America's health.

Hey Dave turn off your computer save a fish!

BTW the majority of the mercury in the food system is natural the next biggest source is mining.

Anyone that eats non migratory species from the Columbia River system is a fool.

"I'm positive you won't agree, but one of the goals of Republicans and their "poor" policies is to keep the cost of the necessities of life affordable."

I don't agree. Under Bush we have had a fake power shortage, fake natural gas shortage and a fake oil shortage driving prices sky high. Bush was asked to step in with the FERC by members of both parties during the power crisis and refused to do so.
I wonder how much of this was mapped out in those closed door energy meetings? Maybe the supreme court will decide the public has a right to know.....fat chance.

Gramps - Are you tryin' to tell us that the full-body foil suits ain't gonna work on mercury?

I figure when the mercury poisens all our drinking water I will have the last laugh. I will pick up Perrier for 10 cents on the dollar due to the boycott of French products and I will wrap all the cases of water in foil and hide them under my house. When the mercury holocaust comes my conservative friends will be invited over to get a drink of clean , mercury free water. Of course I will don the full body foil suit when I get the secret high sing from Bush and Cheney. Kind of like the Passover....all the liberal environmentalists will be killed and only us Bush supporters will survive with nice clean clear water to drink.