Tighter rules may loom for plants burning coal
Given that the three judges over the case are known to be "skeptical" of EPA actions, the ruling didn't come as a surprise to Cheryl Heying, director of the Utah Division of Air Quality. "We pretty much saw that one coming," she said.
Previously, the EPA regulated mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants under its "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which the Sierra Club says has a "weak" cap-and-trade program that still allows "dangerously" high levels of mercury pollution. But the 14 petitioners — Utah was not among them — said the rule violated the Clean Air Act by allowing the country's approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 plants to emit 48 tons of mercury annually into the air.
"I think it's a very positive sign," said Tim Wagner, director of the Sierra Club Utah chapter's Utah Smart Energy Campaign. "It's about time our court system told the EPA to start doing their job as it's mandated."
But Wagner and Heying say they're not sure how the EPA will react to the new ruling, which could be appealed to the Supreme Court. Heying said it's uncertain what impact future EPA actions regarding mercury pollution will have on a state program implemented last year to limit emissions.
"We had tremendous buy-in from power plants," she said. "They saw this as an opportunity to do the right thing."
Plans to expand older plants or build new coal-fired units will come to a "screeching halt" until new regulations can be implemented, according to Jeff Salt, the Waterkeeper Alliance's executive director over its local chapter known as Great Salt Lakekeeper. Waterkeeper Alliance was among several public health and environmental groups, dozens of Native American tribes and the 14 states listed as complainants in the case.
Watchdog groups note that in a single year a single gram of mercury, or 1/70th of a teaspoon, is sufficient to contaminate a 25-acre lake so that the fish living in its waters are unsafe to eat. Fish living in waters contaminated by mercury and then consumed by humans are often singled out as a health risk, particularly the impact on unborn babies in women who consume fish affected by mercury pollution.
E-mail: sspeckman@desnews.com
Recent comments
While "Sensible Scientist" may claim the science of nuclear...
Sensible Economist | Feb. 10, 2008 at 3:14 p.m.
"Sensible Scientist" is too funny -- hasn't he/she...
Heard of Chernobyl? | Feb. 10, 2008 at 1:14 p.m.
If nuclear isn't "the answer," why are about a dozen...
Sensible Scientist | Feb. 9, 2008 at 5:45 p.m.
