The St. Peterburg Times ran
an editorial today about the new proposed mercury rules.
Science or politics?
Published April 12, 2004
Is Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Leavitt going to bring professionalism back to the regulatory process or be a Bush administration puppet? His decision on mercury pollution could provide the answer.
Even Leavitt seemed surprised to learn that, before his appointment, EPA had bypassed the usual scientific method in adopting mercury abatement rules. Instead, the agency borrowed whole paragraphs from suggestions by the utility industry, whose coal-fired power plants produce most mercury pollution. When Leavitt discovered those shortcomings, he ordered more analysis and insisted he wanted the regulation process "done right."
The threat is real. According to EPA experts, as many as 630,000 infants born during the 12-month period studied could have unsafe blood mercury levels. Airborne mercury ends up in the nation's lakes, rivers and coastal waters where it accumulates in fish. Even a small amount of contaminated fish in a pregnant woman's diet can threaten her fetus and lead to developmental delays. Older children and adults can also suffer neurological damage from ingesting too much mercury.
The Bush administration is required to have rules in place by the end of the year to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, but a curious thing happened along the way. EPA staffers were told to postpone studies that would have provided a scientific rationale for choosing among regulatory alternatives, according to the Los Angeles Times. Then a federal advisory panel that was supposed to use that data to make a recommendation had its meetings canceled. Panel member John Paul, a Republican, concluded that EPA officials chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach."
The official who made those decisions is Jeffrey Holmstead, head of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. He was a utility industry lobbyist prior to his appointment. Staffers told the Los Angeles Times that Holmstead cited "White House concern" as his reason for ignoring the established rulemaking procedures.
I've added the bold for emphasis.
For more links and info on this issue, check
my previous journal entries.