|
[WASHINGTON (Thursday, March 24) – On March 22 The Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration, in finalizing its recently released mercury rules, had failed to consider a report by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis that estimated much higher levels of benefits from controlling mercury emissions from power plants. The Harvard study estimated $5 billion per year in potential public health benefits 15 years from now by cutting mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants in half, compared to EPA's estimate of up to only $50 million a year. EPA estimated the cost of the cleanup to utilities and their customers to be $750 million a year in 2020. On Thursday, a further news report by Inside EPA revealed that an EPA water office report had reached similar conclusions and had encouraged the Agency to consider the cardiovascular benefits, as well as the neurological benefits, of controlling mercury. U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), James Jeffords (I-Vt., and the Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) Thursday asked Acting EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for an explanation of the omissions, and they sharply criticized the Administration for disregarding these analyses before finalizing the rules. In their letter to Administrator Johnson, the senators also asked him to stay implementation of the rules until the Harvard study’s results now can be considered. The text of the senators’ letter follows, below.]
March 24, 2005
The Honorable Stephen L. Johnson
Acting Administrator
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Johnson:
It was both troubling and disheartening to learn from this week’s Washington Post article that the Environmental Protection Agency omitted consideration of a key piece of analysis, conducted by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, from the mercury rules finalized last week. It appears that EPA excluded consideration of the Harvard study because these findings estimated far greater health benefits, including cardiovascular benefits, from regulating mercury emissions from power plants than the Administration asserted in one of the final rules. The Agency did so even though there was a study done by the EPA water office that found similar results and emphasized the economic benefits of reducing mercury's cardiovascular effects. We would like a full explanation of why this failure occurred, including whether you were aware of the Harvard study results and consented to disregarding its findings.
We know that you, as a scientist and a career EPA employee, understand how important it is that the Agency’s rulemaking process be as transparent, credible and objective as possible. Unfortunately, the Agency’s dismissal of the Harvard study is yet another example of the irregular practices the Administration employed to manipulate these rules. From the beginning, the Administration has ignored scientific evidence, technological opportunities and economic analyses that clearly show much more effective and expeditious mercury controls are warranted and feasible. Criticisms by the Government Accountability Office and the EPA Inspector General remain unanswered. Commitments by your predecessors, both Administrators Whitman and Leavitt, to do a full analysis of mercury control options were not kept.
Instead, it is obvious that the Administration sought above all to maintain its story line and to adhere to industry assertions that stronger controls could not be implemented because of cost concerns and questionable health benefits. The Harvard study and other recent reports fundamentally challenge these claims. The study was paid for by EPA and peer-reviewed by EPA scientists. The report estimates health benefits of up to $4.9 billion if mercury emissions are reduced to only to 15 tons. This health benefits analysis, which is so central to the rulemaking, should have sounded alarm bells for you and others at the Agency before the mercury rules were finalized. The fact that it was not even considered by EPA raises still more questions about what other relevant information was disregarded by your Agency. It is only from the press – not from you or the Administration – that Congress and the American people learned that EPA disregarded this report.
In a recent letter to you, we and 26 of our colleagues in the U.S. Senate expressed our concern about EPA’s rulemaking process. This latest breach only underscores those concerns. We hope that you will recognize that the Administration’s mishandling of the mercury rules – including this serious omission – is risking the Agency’s credibility, and, most importantly, the performance of its mandate to protect public health and the environment. We urge you to ask the Inspector General to look into this and possible other irregularities that occurred in the final weeks of the rulemaking process. If you are to be confirmed as the next Administrator, the Senate needs to know that the scientific and procedural integrity of the rulemaking process at EPA will be restored under your tenure.
In addition, because this report’s findings are so central to these rules, we urge you to personally stay the rules until the findings are considered. The Agency should also postpone implementation of the rule until it quantifies the benefits of mercury reductions with respect to cardiovascular impacts and marine fish consumption. With all of the questions that this omission raises, we think it is entirely appropriate to use your authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule until these benefits are considered.
This breach and the concerns it raises are serious, and they deserve full and prompt answers. We ask that you respond by April 13.
Sincerely,
JAMES JEFFORDS PATRICK LEAHY BABARA BOXER JOHN KERRY
|
