This is apparently breaking news. I was surprised it hadn't been diaried at dkos yet. From the L.A. Times,
EPA Faults Findings on Mercury: Internal watchdog blames administration political appointees for 'compromising' studies on the proper emission levels in power plants.
The Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general said Thursday that the Bush administration violated established scientific practices and regulatory requirements in drafting a controversial proposal to control mercury emissions from power plants.
The agency's internal watchdog determined that EPA officials failed to fully assess the health costs of mercury and understated how much emissions could reasonably be reduced.
Well duh!
more in extended diary
How many more scandals will it take before Bush completely loses all credibility and all of the moral authority of the Presidency? The article recaps the problem:
Some of the mercury particles and gases emitted as air pollution fall into rivers and lakes, where they enter the food chain. An EPA analysis has found that about 600,000 babies born in the U.S. each year may be exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb, primarily from their mothers having eaten fish. Exposure can cause significant neurological and developmental damage.
In its mercury proposal, the EPA included two approaches, both of which Tinsley criticized.
The one preferred by the administration would set a national limit on emissions and then permit companies to choose whether to reduce their emissions or buy "credits" from other companies that make reductions. The EPA and industry contend this would be an incentive to cut emissions quickly without imposing financial burdens that would cause utilities to switch from coal to more expensive natural gas.
But this "cap-and-trade" approach, she said, could result in mercury "hot spots" -- areas with higher concentrations of the pollutant in bodies of water near smokestacks.
Analyzes the conclusions of the report:
The report's strong conclusions are certain to set off a new, intense round of debate on the regulation of mercury, a toxic metal that pollutes water, contaminates fish and accumulates in human tissue.
In her report, Inspector General Nikki L. Tinsley said the EPA's political appointees instructed the agency's staff last year to use a predetermined target for reducing mercury, rather than doing the necessary studies to find the lowest possible emission levels that could be achieved in the shortest possible time.
Rather than relying on "an unbiased calculation" to make this determination, she said, the process "was compromised" by intervention from top officials.
"Compromised" by intervention from top officials." Couldn't they come up with a tamer euphemism for bald faced lying and corruption? At least the mercury issue is back on the table, instead of under the rug:
The report's strong conclusions are certain to set off a new, intense round of debate on the regulation of mercury, a toxic metal that pollutes water, contaminates fish and accumulates in human tissue.
The Times includes some blowback from Bush administration tools and industry hacks.
When the EPA announced its proposed rule in December 2003, it said the regulation would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 70% by 2018. Officials have since dropped any reference to the time by which the reduction would be achieved.
A Washington lobbyist for the industry, Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said the 70% reduction was an ambitious target for an industry working hard both to generate power and to meet clean air standards. He also said Tinsley was unqualified to examine such complex technical questions.
"They've dropped any reference to the time" for achieving reduction? Isn't that an admission that they were just making shit up and lying about it? The administration basically pulled the scientific conclusions they wanted to reach out of thin air.
She concluded that EPA officials had instructed staff to set a modest reduction level that matched a separate administration legislative proposal known as "Clear Skies," rather than determining the maximum amount of achievable reductions by using the best available pollution control technology.
This is the good part. When you get caught, lie. SOP for the Bush administration.
Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, defended the administration's review of mercury and children's health. She said the administration did not fully review the costs and benefits of mercury regulation on children because "agency staff at the time did not believe they had the technical capability to quantify the benefits, and it is quite difficult to do it. However, as we move to finalize the rule, we are working hard to do as much quantitative analysis as possible."
It's hard work! We didn't have the technical capability to quantify the benefit? You would think even the freepers would be embarassed by this point. If the damn Democrats would just start calling Bush and everyone in his adminstration a damn liar the American people would agree. I just don't believe the American people are happy about mercury being in their food and water because it's (1) too expensive for industry and (2) it's hard work protecting the environment.
