Just two weeks ago, environmentalists were hailing a court decision that effectively ended use of destructive water cooling systems in new power plants and other industrial facilities. Now they are preparing to go to court again.
Two days ago EPA issued a rule allowing existing plants to continue using the most environmentally damaging type of cooling system, known as once-through cooling, that kills thousands of fish.
On February 3, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that allowing massive destruction of fish and other aquatic organisms in cooling systems, and then attempting to replace them in the ecosystem, does not fulfill the Clean Water Act requirement to mitigate environmental damage.
"We find that the EPA exceeded its authority by allowing compliance with [Clean Water Act]... through restoration methods, and we remand that aspect of the rule," Judge Robert A. Katzmann wrote in deciding for the case, Riverkeeper vs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The ruling mandates closed-cycle cooling (currently the safest type of system) or better in new plants. [1]
But late this Monday, February 16, EPA instead issued a rule that allows existing plants to continue using the most ecologically-damaging system, "once-through cooling," and allows plants to substitute restoration for mitigation.
Riverkeeper charges that EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt ignored his own staff's recommendation to require extremely low-impact "closed-cycle" technology, in favor of a cost-benefit method preferred by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). [3]
The OMB, part of the Executive Office of the President, oversees regulation, the budget, information collection and distribution, proposed legislation, agency testimonies, and more. While its actions have an enormous impact on the workings of government, it is not clearly accountable to the public. [4]
Eric Eckl of American Rivers notes that the EPA's new rule reflects the Bush administration's continuing bias towards the short-term interests of energy companies over the long-term protection of river ecosystems. "The Bush Administration has worked systematically to get clean water issues out of the way, for energy interests in particular."
"EPA has made a mockery of the Clean Water Act by maximizing fish kills with the worst technology available, when it was required to do just the opposite," Riverkeeper senior attorney Reed Super told BushGreenwatch.org. [5]
"We're going to sue the EPA at the first opportunity, to ask that this rule be set aside, because it is illegal under the Clean Water Act."
###
SOURCES:
[1] Riverkeeper v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 02-4005, 2nd Cir. Feb. 3, 2004.
[2] Riverkeeper press release, Feb. 4, 2004.
[3] Riverkeeper press release, Feb. 17, 2004.
[4] OMB Watch article.
[5]Riverkeeper press release, Feb. 17, 2004.
