Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to EPA pollution rule

“The question thus presented is: Whether the court below erred by concluding that EPA’s authority to include an adequate margin of safety allowed the court to avoid determining whether the revised sulfur dioxide national ambient air quality standard was more stringent than is necessary to protect public health,” Asarco’s petition for Supreme Court review stated.

{mosads}The company claimed that EPA’s rule will force the nation’s industries to incur “enormous expense.”

The Supreme Court rejected the certiorari petition without comment Tuesday.

EPA has said the rule will bring major benefits.

“EPA estimates that the revised standard will yield health benefits valued between $13 billion and $33 billion, including reduced hospital admissions, emergency room visits, work days lost due to illness, and cases of aggravated asthma and chronic bronchitis, among other benefits,” the agency said in a 2010 summary of the standards.