News

New findings reveal dangerous mercury levels in northeastern North America
by Patti Mikkelsen

Portland--Several speakers presented their latest findings on mercury pollution at a forum that took place at the USM library on March 29. The news was worse than previously thought.

From 2001 to 2005, the BioDiversity Research Institute (BRI) of Gorham, Maine and Environment Canada led a comprehensive effort to compile mercury data from across the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada.

Right, Brownie Carson, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, reports on the progress our state has made in reducing mercury from its waste stream. (Howard Mikkelsen photo)

According to BRI Director David Evers, this groundbreaking project exposed a disturbing finding: many animals, even forest songbirds, have elevated levels of toxic mercury in their systems. 36% of the mink and otter sampled had a high concentration of mercury, resulting in the impairment of sensory and motor skills, reproductive problems, weight loss and in some cases, death. Scientists had once thought that mercury poisoning was limited to fish and fish-eating waterfowl, such as loons and eagles.

Congressman Tom Allen stated that 45 states have issued fish consumption warnings, and 630,000 babies born each year may possess elevated thresholds of mercury. Rep. Allen is dissatisfied with the EPA's new mercury rule involving emissions trading and feels that enforcement of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requiring the use of new technology presently available would "quickly and dramatically" reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and incinerators.

Left: David Evers, Co-Founder of the BioDiversity Research Institute, delivered the keynote speech on the extent and effects of mercury pollution in the northeast. (Patti Mikkelsen photo)

He noted a recent Harvard University study paid for and reviewed by the EPA which found the costs of aggressive mercury pollution control to be dwarfed by the resulting health benefits. Health benefits outweighed pollution control costs by a ratio of 100 to 1. The EPA apparently chose to ignore its own study during the rulemaking process, as its official estimates were much lower.

Brownie Carson of the Natural Resources Council of Maine agreed with Rep. Allen's assessment and asked Sen. Susan Collins to launch an investigation "into the EPA's fraudulent rulemaking." She serves as the chair of the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which oversees the EPA. Subsequently, Sen. Collins sent a letter to the EPA [see below] over its new "and terrible" rules on mercury emissions. She requested a face-to-face meeting with acting EPA administrator Stephen Johnson to discuss instituting stronger mercury emissions rules.

As Mr. Carson stated, "The health of our families and environment is at stake."

The BioDiversity Research Institute website contains a wealth of information available for further information: www.briloon.org

---

Senator Collins Presses EPA administrator to respond to her concerns about new mercury rule

The following is the full text of Senator Collins' letter:

Dear Acting Administrator Johnson:

I am writing to request a meeting to discuss my concerns regarding the Clean Air Mercury Rule and the February 3, 2005 EPA Inspector General report relating to this rule.

On March 7, 2005, I joined 30 of my colleagues in writing to the EPA to express grave concerns regarding the EPA's proposed mercury rule and the findings of the Inspector General report. We asked that the EPA act on the Inspector General's recommendations to perform additional analysis and correct a number of problems with the proposed rule. Nevertheless, it appears that the final Clean Air Mercury Rule, issued on March 15, 2005, largely ignored both our letter and the Inspector General report.

In addition to the Inspector General's report, I am troubled by recent news reports suggesting that important data on the benefits of controlling mercury emissions was withheld from the rulemaking process. I fail to see how the EPA can possibly maintain the appearance of propriety when a Harvard University study allegedly paid for and peer-reviewed by the EPA, and demonstrating a much higher level of health benefits than EPA's official estimates, was apparently not even considered in the rulemaking process.

I am very concerned that, in developing the Clean Air Mercury Rule, the EPA failed to live up to the high standards required of an agency so vital to the well-being of our health and environment. I look forward to meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter.