I Won't Drink To This

[Perknose]

More mercury, anyone?

The Bush EPA is a nightmare of political hacks pushing bad science.

As this article in the Los Angeles Times points out:

"Political appointees in the Environmental Protection Agency bypassed the agency's professional staff and a federal advisory panel last year to craft a rule on mercury emissions preferred by the industry and the White House, several longtime EPA officials say.

The EPA staff members say they were told not to undertake the normal scientific and economic studies called for under a standing executive order. At the same time, the proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants was written using key language provided by utility lobbyists.


The Bush administration has said the proposed rule would cut mercury emissions by 70 percent in 15 years. But critics say it would delay reductions in mercury levels for decades at a risk to public health, while saving the power and coal industries billions of dollars.

Studies designed to address such questions are the ones that were not conducted.

EPA veterans say they cannot recall another instance when the agency's technical experts were cut out of developing a major regulatory proposal.

The administration chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach," said John Paul, a Republican environmental regulator from Ohio who co-chaired the EPA-appointed advisory panel and who says that its 21 months of work on mercury was ignored.

"There is a politicization of the work of the agency that I have not seen before," said Bruce Buckheit, who retired in December as director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, partly because he thought enforcement was stymied. "A political agenda is driving the agency's output, rather than analysis and science."

Russell Train, a Republican who headed the EPA during the Nixon and Ford administrations, said: "I think it is outrageous. The agency has strayed from its mission in the past three years."


. . . And on and on and on. Is there any end to this? Only if enough of us vote the bastards out. :|

 

[ElFenix]

yet another midnight regulation from clinton has the exact effect that he thought it would: to get people pissed when bush repealed it. no one was pissed when clinton didn't do anything the 8 years he was in office, though.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yet another midnight regulation from clinton has the exact effect that he thought it would: to get people pissed when bush repealed it. no one was pissed when clinton didn't do anything the 8 years he was in office, though.

Please read the damn article.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yet another midnight regulation from clinton has the exact effect that he thought it would: to get people pissed when bush repealed it. no one was pissed when clinton didn't do anything the 8 years he was in office, though.

Please read the damn article.

i did. what isn't being followed was yet another midnight regulation from clinton.

In its final days, the Clinton administration determined mercury to be a toxic substance and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act. The administration's decision required that the EPA propose standards for power-plant emissions by the end of 2003. As part of that process, the EPA selected a 21-member federal advisory panel in 2001 to make recommendations to the agency.

 

[Perknose]

ElFenix, are you just adding a comment that this process was started by Clinton, with nothing more to your comment than that, or are you attempting to make some logical argument that because Clinton began this with a lame duck decision that unwise, unprecedented and unethical subversion of the integrity of the process by the Bush administration is thereby Clinton's fault?

Such an argument would be chock full of logical fallacies! :Q

(Nice post there, btw.)

Let me ask you - "butClinton" or no, do you support how the Bush administration handled this?

Finally, given the evidence, even ignoring their substantial dirty tricks during the process, do you support the Bush administration's final answer to this health threat?

 

[ElFenix]

no, i don't support it, but i think it is amusing that there was no outrage that clinton only did this to make bush look bad when bush inevitably stopped the process. it's all politicking of the worst sort.

 

[etech]

It's interesting what is left out and also what was included in the LA Times report.

EPA might stretch out plan to cut mercury emissions

"...
But studies co-sponsored by the Department of Energy and the utility industry have found there is no existing technology to remove mercury equally well from various types and grades of coal. EPA officials say that makes the first option to reduce the pollution to 34 tons by 2008 less feasible.
...
The agency's preference means some plants might have to make only modest reductions, if any, if they choose to buy emissions credits instead of installing pollution controls. That approach differs radically from the Clinton administration's conclusion that mercury could be cut by more than 40 tons annually by 2008 if the best available technology were used.

That conclusion was based on an assumption that technology for removing acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrogen oxides would, as a side benefit, also cut mercury emissions sharply.

''It is possible to get a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions in certain coal types and certain boilers, but to then make the jump and assert a 90 percent reduction is possible across the entire industry is simply impossible,'' Riedinger said. ''The actual range of reductions varies, from between about 17 percent to 90 percent.''
"

It seems the question is whether it is possible or not to remove the mercury at all plants with current technology. If it isn't than the harm done by the damage to the economy and the higher electricity costs could very possibly out weigh the benefits. If the technology is available than it should be implemented, the dangers of mercury are well documented.

It's a shame that Clinton waited until the very last days of his presidency to address this.

 

[Draknor]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i did. what isn't being followed was yet another midnight regulation from clinton.

In its final days, the Clinton administration determined mercury to be a toxic substance and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act. The administration's decision required that the EPA propose standards for power-plant emissions by the end of 2003. As part of that process, the EPA selected a 21-member federal advisory panel in 2001 to make recommendations to the agency.

And so, even assuming the Clinton administration arbitrarily classified mercury as a toxic substance (which, I thought it always was, so I don't know what additional classification was claimed here), the fact that the Bush administration ignored and prevented scientific & economic analysis before deciding policy is acceptable? Sure, it might have cost a bit more and taken a bit longer to do the required studies, but when we're dealing with matters of public health, the government has a responsibility to protect its people.

And of course, I'm distrustful of the Bush administration's decision to use "key language provided by utility lobbyists", I'm also aware how easy it is to spin words, in either direction, so without knowing more about the actual legislation I don't have a comment on that aspect, except to say I would consider it very carefully.

 

[DealMonkey]

Mercury is an extremely dangerous substance ElFenix, why would Bush relax rules governing its part in polluting the environment in the first place? If anything, we need stricter controls on mercury emissions.

 

[ElFenix]

good thing both of you apparently read my posts

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
no, i don't support it, but i think it is amusing that there was no outrage that clinton only did this to make bush look bad when bush inevitably stopped the process. it's all politicking of the worst sort.

You equate Clinton's recess regulation with Bush's disgusting subversion of the EPA's review process?

Really??

Amuse me then, with your "outrage" at Bush's two recent recess judicial appointments, since you consider such tactics on a par with what Bush did at the EPA.

Hey, I know you read the article, ElFenix, but amuse me further by re-reading some of the reactions to the crap that Bush pulled below:

But William Wehrum, a senior adviser to Holmstead who also represented industry clients before joining the Bush administration, told the dozen or so employees that comparative studies would be postponed indefinitely.

"I was floored," one participant said. "We pointed out that the studies were required ... that the data runs were promised to a federal advisory committee.

Holmstead did not respond to the expressions of concern, participants said. "There was an awkward silence," one recalled."

AND


"Christie Todd Whitman was the EPA administrator when the career employees say they were told not to conduct the analysis. She left the agency in June, six months before the proposed rule was announced. "I did not know that we were cutting a process short or shortchanging the analysis," Whitman said Monday. Had she heard such allegations, she said, she would have intervened."

AND


"Russell Train, a Republican who headed the EPA during the Nixon and Ford administrations, said: "I think it is outrageous. The agency has strayed from its mission in the past three years."

AND

"There is a politicization of the work of the agency that I have not seen before," said Bruce Buckheit, who retired in December as director of the EPA's Air Enforcement Division, partly because he thought enforcement was stymied. "A political agenda is driving the agency's output, rather than analysis and science."

AND

"The administration chose a process "that would support the conclusion they wanted to reach," said John Paul, a Republican environmental regulator from Ohio who co-chaired the EPA-appointed advisory panel and who says that its 21 months of work on mercury was ignored."

Not really all that amusing, is it? :|

 

[ElFenix]

yeah, i was going to change the word "amused," but figured noone would get hung up on it

i DID say it is ALL of the worst sort, did i not?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Perknose







. . . And on and on and on. Is there any end to this? Only if enough of us vote the bastards out. :|

I see,,, the LA Times,,,, enough said
:disgust:

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yeah, i was going to change the word "amused," but figured noone would get hung up on it

i DID say it is ALL of the worst sort, did i not?

So, again, you make NO distinctions?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yeah, i was going to change the word "amused," but figured noone would get hung up on it

<STRONG>i DID say it is ALL of the worst sort, did i not?</strong>

So, again, you make NO distinctions?

no. i hate all politicians and all of the political back and forth BS that accomplishes nothing but creating animosity.

 

[Perknose]

no. i hate all politicians and all of the political back and forth BS that accomplishes nothing but creating animosity

And yet you have been posting here, repeatedly.:Q <B>
</B>

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Perknose

no. i hate all politicians and all of the <STRONG>political back and forth BS that accomplishes nothing</strong> but creating animosity

And yet you have been posting here, repeatedly.:Q <B>
</B>

i know. i should go get banned

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Perknose

no. i hate all politicians and all of the political back and forth BS that accomplishes nothing but creating animosity

And yet you have been posting here, repeatedly.:Q <B> </B>

i know. i should go get banned

Well, it's good to have goals.

 

[fjord]

The problem with the EPA is who is in charge. It should not be a political appointee, backed by entire armies of non-technical administrators. Followed by armies of lawyers.

The "staff" scientists (last and least in the pecking order) are the only people qualified, who have the proper training to be making decisions, and they should be allowed to do it independently, without pressure put on them from their many and alteriorly-motivated bosses.

I've heard hundreds of reasons why letting scientist administrate the EPA would be a bad idea.

It seems to me it would only be bad for the foxes that are running the Hen-house.
---

Published on Monday, June 23, 2003 by Knight-Ridder

Bush's Choice for EPA Job Oversaw Worsening Pollution in Idaho



by Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON - Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, President Bush's top candidate to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has cut his state's environmental budget three times and sharply reduced enforcement of environmental regulations.

During Kempthorne's four-and-a-half-year tenure as governor, Idaho's pristine air has gotten dirtier, more rivers have been polluted, fewer polluters have been inspected and more toxins have contaminated the air, water and land, according to a Knight Ridder analysis of Idaho pollution data from EPA and state records.

In the same period, the nation's air and water have gotten cleaner on average, and fewer toxins have been emitted, EPA officials said Monday in a draft report.

Kempthorne is the leading contender to be the nation's top environmental officer and had a good White House interview for the job two weeks ago, according to Republican officials, Washington business leaders and Kempthorne aides.

"We're hearing a constant drumbeat of support for Kempthorne," one well-placed Washington business leader told Knight Ridder on Monday. A top aide to one Democratic senator with strong connections to environmentalists added: "We're anticipating it to be Kempthorne." Both spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from the Bush administration for violating confidentiality about a nomination that hasn't been announced yet.

Coping with a state budget crisis, Kempthorne has cut Idaho's environmental services budget three times in the past two years. A court order this year is forcing the state to increase monitoring and cleansing polluted waterways.

With that expensive court mandate absorbing much of the declining state environmental budget, Idaho is "trying to keep (inspections) to a bare-bones minimum," Jon Sandoval, the chief of staff for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, told Knight Ridder. "Anything else outside the court order either got postponed, stopped or delayed."

Kempthorne, 51, is a former one-term U.S. senator and mayor of Boise. He was elected governor in 1998. He is known in Washington as a hard-line conservative, but in Boise as a pragmatist. He would be a dramatic change from Christie Todd Whitman, a moderate whose resignation as EPA chief will take effect Friday.

Kempthorne clashed in November 2001 with Whitman's EPA over the Coeur d'Alene Basin Superfund cleanup, which the EPA wanted to expand against Idaho's wishes. At a public hearing, Kempthorne said: "I have become so frustrated with EPA that I'm on the verge of inviting EPA to leave Idaho. ... There is a bureaucracy that seems to ignore any efforts at a solution."

"He has not neglected nor turned his back on the environment," Kempthorne press secretary Mark Snider said Monday. The achievements of the administration are "quite remarkable," Snider said. "There's a lot more to the records than raw numbers would show."

Snider said Kempthorne had elevated the state environmental agency to Cabinet status, increased water and air monitoring and attacked such controversial issues as grass burning and dairy odors. Smoke from forest fires and changes in federal regulations have skewed air-pollution numbers, he said.

In some respects, Idaho under Kempthorne has bucked national trends that showed environmental quality improving, according to EPA records on air pollution, water quality, toxic emissions and pollution enforcement.

While 35 states and the nation as a whole reduced the amount of toxins released into the environment from 1998 to 2000 - the most recent year of available data - Idaho increased emissions by 2 percent. National emissions decreased by 9 percent in the same period, an achievement Whitman hailed Monday as an environmental success story.

Idaho emitted 59 pounds of toxins per resident on average in 2000, according to the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. The national average was 25 pounds of toxins per person in 2000.

With 76 million pounds of toxic releases in 2000, Idaho - population 1.3 million - has more total toxic emissions than California, population 33.9 million.

Although Idaho has some of the cleanest air in the United States, its air quality worsened from 1999 to 2002, while Kempthorne has been in office, compared with the previous four years. There were 11 violations of EPA air-pollution standards in the four years before Kempthorne came to power and 22 in his first four years in office. At the same time, the number of air violations decreased by 3 percent nationally.

Water pollution has changed little in Idaho under Kempthorne, with the amount of polluted rivers and streams barely increasing from 20,900 miles in 1998 to 21,000 miles in 2002, according to a draft state report released this month. In 2002, 56 percent of Idaho's rivers and streams were polluted. The national average in 2000 was 39 percent.

Idaho is under a court order to check and clean its approximately 1,000 polluted waterways faster and better. In 2000, Idaho was one of only five states that didn't report to the EPA on the health of its 700,000 acres of lakes.

Most air- and water-pollution inspections in the nation are done at the state level, and Idaho lags slightly behind. In Idaho, 315 of the 412 facilities that environmental officials keep track of haven't been inspected in the past year, for a noninspection rate of 76.5 percent, according to EPA enforcement data. Nationwide the rate of noninspection is 71.8 percent.

For companies that are known violators of pollution regulations, Idaho has a much worse inspection history than the rest of the nation; 63 percent of "significant violators" haven't been inspected in the past year. Nationally, 48 percent of significant polluters haven't been inspected in the past year.

Idaho statistics show that inspections for air pollution violators dropped 38 percent from 1999 to 2001 and that "warning letters" to air polluters decreased 68 percent in the same period.

After a rocky first four years as governor, when "he wasn't perceived as a very strong leader," Kempthorne has turned that image around in Idaho, said James Weatherby, a Boise State University political science professor. Kempthorne pushed a sales tax increase - the first in 16 years - through the most heavily Republican legislature in the nation.

His environmental record in Washington has earned him a near-zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental political lobby. Kempthorne voted with the environmental organization only once in 70 votes.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests, gave Kempthorne a near-perfect grade, saying he voted on their side in 78 of 81 votes.

Idaho political observers were surprised at Kempthorne's interest in the EPA job, noting that the environment hasn't been one of his top priorities.

"He didn't have a particularly high profile on environmental issues," said Michael O'Connor, who headed the EPA's liaison office with state officials, including Kempthorne, during the Clinton administration.

Those who know him in Boise say Kempthorne would do fine at the EPA.

"He may be defined as anti-regulatory, but you just don't see that. He's a problem solver," said Bill Jarocki, the director of the Environmental Finance Center at Boise State University. "He's a tremendously charismatic speaker. People like him. People like to work for him."

© 2003 Knight Ridder. Fair use.