Leahy, Jeffords, Boxer and Kerry
Ask EPA Administrator/Nominee Johnson For Explanation
Of Studies’ Omissions From Final Mercury Rule
[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.]
[TEXT OF LETTER:]
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,
PATRICK LEAHY
JAMES
JEFFORDS
United States
Senator United
States Senator
BARBARA
BOXER JOHN
KERRY
United States
Senator United
States Senator
