Statement on Mercury Study Report to EPA Science Advisory Board
February 27, 1997
Thank you for this opportunity to briefly provide my views on the Science
Advisory Board's review of the congressionally mandated review of the sources,
effects and control methods for mercury.
In my judgement, this review by the Science Advisory Board is an unnecessary
delay in a report that represents the best and most complete assemblage of
state-of-the-art information on mercury that has been undertaken to date. It
has undergone extensive internal and external peer review. Had the report been
submitted to the Congress when it was effectively completed roughly 15 months
ago, the information it contains would have been available to the public and
decision-makers.
Because the report was not submitted, however, a range of decisions have been
made without benefit of the information it contains. For example, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a so-called "open access" rule that
will very likely increase coal-burning and, therefore, emissions of mercury
from electricity generation. Likewise, the state of Minnesota has proceeded
with a utility rate-making proceeding that was designed to reflect the
external costs of pollutants such as mercury.
The draft report documented high levels of mercury in New England. In my state
of Vermont, health warnings are published for pregnant women and children to
limit fish consumption due to mercury. At the same time, the Vermont
legislature is initiating utility restructuring legislation that will take
into consideration existing and potential environmental and health risks
associated with deregulation. Release of the mercury report is essential to
clarify health risks, identify sources of pollution and to develop cleanup and
mitigation strategies. Other states are proceeding with similar decisions on
utility deregulation, rules for medical waste incinerators and disposal
requirements for mercury-containing lights - all without benefit of this
1,700 page report.
Instead of being released, however, the report was referred to the Science
Advisory Board to review science that does not yet exist, and likely will not
become available for another five years. Attached to this statement are
letters from two prominent scientists whose ongoing research is supposedly to
be reviewed by the SAB for the purpose of incorporating their results into
this report. You will note that Dr. Thomas Clarkson states that his team's
"forthcoming examination ... will take about two years to complete and another
two years before the results appear in a peer-reviewed journal." According to
the Environmental Protection Agency, SAB review following publication will
require an additional year, setting final release of this report back to the
year 2002. That is almost one decade after it was due.
These delays unnecessarily expose the public to the avoidable hazard of
consuming contaminated foods, drinking tainted water and breathing polluted
air. As time passes, the information contained in the report becomes
increasingly stale and outdated, making it less reliable for the purpose of
regulatory and judicial decisions.
The Administrator has declined to reverse her referral decision even though 22
United States Senators and 27 Members of the House of Representatives asked
that the report be submitted to Congress without further delay. However, the
Board itself can act to expedite the report and I hope that it will do so and
complete its review promptly.
Thank you.
