sci.energy

its too late a whole generation of people are being poisoned as we speak
like nothing else in the US history except when there were no pollution
controls. I feel it and I suffer exactly to the exact degree this is allowed
to pollute and where there is no pollution I dodn't suffer. The difference,
the poison has taken its toll, there is no going back just like smoking. Its
too late and its still poisoning this country in a dysfunctional funk for
jobs for medicine. The problem is after oil no one can afford health care

"Bill Ghrist" wrote in message
news:$@trnddc04...
> /cgi-bin/?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/02-28-2008/0004764727&EDATE=
>
> NRDC: 32 Coal-Fired Power Plants in 13 States Now Up in the Air After
> Major Court Ruling on Mercury
>
>
>
> MI, WY, IL, NV, OH, PA, TX, IA, KY, LA, GA, NM and NC Are States With
> Largest Number of At-Risk Dirty Power Plants; At Stake: Health of Hundreds
> of Thousands of . Children.
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The prospects for 32
> coal-fired power plants in 13 states have been shaken up in the wake of a
> February 8, 2008 federal appeals court ruling that requires each new
> coal-fired power plant in the . to adopt stringent toxic air pollution
> control measures meeting the most rigorous standards under the Clean Air
> Act, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRD).
>
>
>
> The states identified with the most coal-fired power plants now up in
> the air are: Michigan (four), Wyoming (four), Illinois (three), Nevada
> (three), Ohio (three), Pennsylvania (three), Texas (three), Iowa (two),
> Kentucky (two), Louisiana (two), Georgia (one), New Mexico (one) and North
> Carolina (one).
>
>
>
> The ruling will impact various aspects of three dozen or more
> coal-fired power plants, including some now already under construction.
>
>
>
> Major coal-fired power plants impacted by the ruling include: LS Power
> White Pine (1500 MW - permit pending in Nevada); Sierra Ely (1500 MW -
> permit pending in Nevada); Toquop (850 MW - permit pending in Nevada)
> Desert Rock (Sithe Global's 1500 MW in New Mexico); Longleaf ( LS Power's
> 1200 MW Plant in Georgia); Cliffside (Duke Energy's 800 MW Plant in North
> Carolina); Alliant Marshalltown (600 MW - permit pending in Iowa); LS
> Power
> Waterloo (750 MW - permit pending in Iowa); AMP (1000 MW - permit
> challenged in Ohio); LS Power/Dynegy (750 MW in Michigan). For a complete
> list of all 32 plants, go to .
>
>
>
> Natural Resources Defense Council Clean Air Director/Senior Attorney
> John Walke said: "The February 8th court ruling will have far-reaching
> consequences for coal-fired power plant construction, permitting and
> pollution controls. This important new legal tool will increase the
> pollution control obligations for new coal-fired power plants, raise the
> already considerable expense of these projects, and add to the weight of
> arguments that the public deploys to oppose conventional coal-fired
> plants."
>
>
>
> Dr. Jennifer Sass, senior scientist, NRDC Public Health Program, said:
> "We need to remind that this is not just some fight in a court room. It
> also goes to the heart of a major public health crisis. Failing to clean
> up
> mercury pollution sentences our children to a life of lost opportunities.
> Mt. Sinai researchers have used data from the . Centers for Disease
> Control and Prevention and studies that link elevated mercury levels with
> IQ loss to estimate that 300,000-600,000 children each year are born with
> mercury in their blood at levels associated with a loss of IQ. The Mt.
> Sinai study limited its calculations to the costs associated with loss of
> intelligence only. There also are data from Europe suggesting that mercury
> poisoning is associated with increases in deaths from heart disease, which
> is the top killer in the United States."
>
>
>
> In New Jersey v. . EPA, No. 05-1162, the . Court of Appeals for
> the . Circuit vacated (overturned) two EPA mercury rules covering coal-
> and oil-fired power plants. Under the court ruling, power plants will need
> to install pollution control equipment to control not just mercury
> emissions but arsenic, lead, chromium and all other air toxics emitted
> from
> coal-burning. This legal tool will require a new and additional evaluation
> of pollution limits and control technologies covering all air toxics
> emitted by power plants, and will increase the pollution control
> obligations for new coal-fired power plants.
>
>
>
> In 2005, EPA issued two highly controversial regulations covering just
> mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants: (1) a rule that removed
> such power plants from the list of industries requiring the Clean Air
> Act's
> rigorous "Maximum Achievable Control Technology" (MACT) standards for each
> electric generation unit in the country to sharply reduce its toxic air
> pollution; and (2) a regulation that substituted a mercury pollution
> trading regime, which greatly weakened required mercury cuts from power
> plants, dispensed with the need to reduce mercury from each electric
> generation unit in the country, and walked away from regulating all other
> forms of toxic air pollution from power plants. EPA's mercury pollution
> trading rule also stretched out full compliance with the trading scheme
> until the mid-2020's, rather than requiring full compliance with more
> protective MACT standards by no later than 2008.
>
>
>
> Before EPA illegally removed power plants from the regulatory list
> requiring adoption of MACT standards, each new coal-fired power plants
> proposed for construction starting in 2001 was required to be controlled
> to
> levels no less stringent than MACT, established by permitting authorities
> in the plant's preconstruction permit. Several states issued
> preconstruction permits for new coal-fired power plants between 2001 and
> 2005 containing mercury emissions limitations that were far more stringent
> than the weak mercury limits that EPA's 2005 mercury rule applied to new
> coal-fired power plants: EPA's trading rule allowed anywhere from 4 to 20
> times more mercury from new coal-fired power plants than these state
> permit
> mercury limits. The court's ruling makes clear that power plants remain on
> the regulatory list requiring adoption of stringent MACT standards and
> pollution controls for all new coal-fired power plants.