EPA Chided for Disregarding Mercury Study

[Guest guest]

T

Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:47:42 -0800 (PST)

EPA Chided for Disregarding Mercury Study

 

 

 

 

 

EPA Chided for Disregarding Mercury Study

 

 

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

 

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites)'s

decision to ignore researchers' analysis of possible health benefits

from reducing mercury pollution from power plants was criticized

Tuesday by Democrats in Congress.

 

" Why is the EPA suppressing the evidence that mercury pollution can be

controlled better and faster? " asked Sen. John Kerry (news - web

sites), D-Mass.

 

EPA officials said the study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

wasn't submitted until Feb. 22, more than a month after the deadline

the agency set for considering new data. The agency published its new

regulations on mercury pollution from power plants on March 15.

 

The agency had received an overview of the Harvard study in early

January, but it didn't include the authors' responses to peer

reviewers' comments or all of the final numbers, said James Hammitt, a

co-author of the study and director of the Harvard center.

 

EPA officials said they rejected the preliminary document as flawed.

 

Hammitt's study estimated the potential public health benefits from

cutting mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants in half 15

years from now at $5 billion a year, compared to the EPA's estimate of

up to $50 million a year. The EPA put the cost of the cleanup to

utilities and users of electricity at $750 million a year in 2020.

 

The difference in the benefit numbers comes from Hammitt's inclusion

of fewer cases of cardiovascular disease and less-contaminated

oceangoing fish in his calculations. The EPA estimates that U.S. power

plants account for 1 percent of global mercury pollution.

 

The government now advises that high levels of mercury in some fish,

including albacore tuna, can pose a hazard for children and for

pregnant or nursing women, causing brain and nerve damage.

 

EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said the agency doesn't believe the

science on mercury is solid enough to weigh possible benefits from

fewer cases of heart disease and cleaner ocean fish. She said the

Harvard study assumes each pound of mercury coming from plant

smokestacks will wind up in the ocean, a conclusion counter to what

EPA researchers found.

 

Bergman acknowledged the benefits could be greater than the EPA

estimated, because the agency took into account only freshwater

benefits, but not 100 times greater.

 

Hammitt acknowledged " wide uncertainty " over calculating the benefits.

" It could be ten times bigger, or ten times smaller, " he said. " Part

of the science underlying the subject is just not solid enough to

specify things really precisely. "

 

But Hammitt said the EPA should have provided a range of benefits,

even though that might have undercut its regulatory approach of

letting industry trade rights to pollute rather than insisting each

plant install new pollution controls.

 

" In analyzing the benefits of this or any other rule, we need to be

honest that there is quite a lot of range of uncertainty, and we ought

to characterize that range, " he said.

 

Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said he was

outraged that the EPA would suppress the Harvard study while claiming

stricter controls would cost industry far more than the projected

health benefits of its regulatory proposal.

 

http://story.news./news?tmpl=story & cid=624 & e=6 & u=/ap/20050323/ap_on_sc/\

epa_mercury_study_2