Environmental activists say the White House inserted wording into new Environmental Protection Agency guidelines that will give industry more influence over the agencys risk assessments of cancer-causing chemicals. EPA released its revised carcinogen risk assessment guidelines on March 29.

"The White House took what would have been strong guidelines to protect our children from cancer and turned them into an industry punching bag," says Jennifer Sass, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Chemical companies will be able to pummel any new safeguard to death."

The disputed language was added to the guidelines during White House review of the document in February. An official with the White House Office of Management & Budget tells C&EN, "The change authorizes, but does not require, the use of formal probability judgments by scientists" as part of EPAs carcinogen risk assessments.

This technique is called expert elicitation. It would apply when EPA lacks enough peer-reviewed data to characterize a compound as a cancer risk. Expert elicitations would bring together specialists in various aspects of risk assessmentfor example, dose-response evaluationto review the data. Based on their judgment, the experts would develop probabilities for specific outcomes from exposure to a chemical, Sass says.

The OMB official notes that the National Research Council endorsed the use of expert elicitation in a 2002 report on the benefit of air pollution regulations. Sass criticizes the technique as costly, time-consuming, and shielded from public view.

Under the guidelines, EPA could conduct an expert elicitation as part of its risk assessment. Or, according to Sass, industry could sponsor an expert elicitation, then turn the results over to EPA. This would allow the chemical industry more influence over EPAs policy decisions on carcinogenic substances, she says.

James Solyst, American Chemistry Council senior director for science policy, tells C&EN that his organization did not ask the White House to place the language on expert elicitation into the guidelines. As of March 29, ACC officials were reviewing the guidance and had no comment on it.

EPAs new risk assessment guidelines are similar to draft guidelines released in 2003 (C&EN, March 10, 2003, page 13). They make several changes to the methods that EPA has used for years to calculate cancer risks from exposure to chemicals, explains William H. Farland, EPA acting deputy assistant administrator for science.

Formerly, the agency started with a number of "default" assumptions in risk assessments, switching from them only if data suggested otherwise. For example, the agency would assume that cancer risk increases linearly with increasing exposure, Farland says. Under the new guidelines, EPA will analyze all available data before resorting to default assumptions.

(c) Chemical & Engineering News

It was held by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which identifies itself as "an international learned society composed of the world's leading scientists, scholars, artists, business people, and public leaders."

The Academy held the press conference to draw attention to a new study it was releasing: "Restoring Trust in American Business."

The idea for the study came from three corporate insiders -- securities lawyer powerbrokers Martin Lipton and Larry Sonsini, and Harvard Business School Professor and Computer Associates board member Jay Lorsch -- the same Computer Associates that was recently criminally charged in a massive corporate fraud, and was granted a deferred prosecution agreement, which let the company off the hook for the consequences of the crime.

These corporate insiders said that they found a "disturbing breakdown of values in corporate America."

But search as we would through the 184 pages of "Restoring Trust in American Business," we found nary a suggestion that one way to restore trust and deter corporate criminal wrongdoing would be to criminally prosecute felonious corporations or their executives.

No, in their book, the power brokers talk on and on about ethics, and gatekeepers, and stronger professional standards, lack of judgment, and independence -- but nothing about prosecuting corporate crime.

And so at the press conference, we asked -- why didn't you address this issue in your study?

Damon Silvers, a lawyer at the AFL-CIO, and a friend of ours, rose to answer.

Silvers says that he attended business school.

And he said that on his first day at business school, he attended a mandatory ethics class.

The question addressed on the first day of class was -- do you take a factory overseas where you are certain to benefit from child labor?

Half the class, mostly Americans said -- if it is value maximizing in the short term, do it.

The other half of the class, mostly non-Americans said -- of course not, that is dangerous, bad things will happen to your corporation in the long run if you do it.

Nobody in the class -- no student, nor the teacher -- suggested that there might be things that would be value maximizing but would be wrong to do, short term or long term.

"There are a lot of bad apples," Silvers said. "Maybe there are some sociopaths out there. But when you have a culture where people who are given control of most of the resources of our society believe there are in fact no moral limits, none, that every moral question can be answered on a spreadsheet, then what we have essentially seen in the last few years is doomed to repeat itself. But the solution to that cannot be putting sociopaths in jail. Because that is not the problem. The problem is systemic structures that encourage people to behavior in really destructive ways. It is not about good people and bad people, which is how President Bush framed it. It is about how we channel ordinary people. That's why I think the criminal issue, while important, is necessarily and unavoidably a limited solution."

Well, if the people who are "given control of most of the resources of our society believe there are in fact no moral limits, none," as Silvers puts it, then we have a nation of corporate sociopaths.

And all the informed business ethics courses and codes of professional responsibility are not going to make a dent in corporate crime.

But criminal prosecution might actually do the trick.

Criminal prosecution is not just about catching and holding accountable a few bad apples. It is about society drawing clear lines of right and wrong, and then enforcing those social norms seriously.

Had the academy added even one or two citizen activists, or one or two academics who have studied corporate and white-collar crime, they might have added this to their list of remedies.

Just to name one, they might have talked with University of Tennessee criminologist Neal Shover, who has written a book titled Choosing White Collar Crime.

It will be published by Cambridge University Press in September 2005.

Shover argues that the choice to commit corporate and white-collar crime is a far more careful, prudent and protracted process than it is for street crime.

Therefore, criminal prosecution will have a greater deterrent impact with white collar crime than with street crime.

Translated: Shover wants to crack down hard on corporate crime.

We were thinking about all of this the other day when we pulled over to a rest stop in Virginia.

The Virginia State Police had posters up at the rest stop encouraging the citizenry to join with the police to "crush crime."

According to the poster, the Virginia State Police are seeking to curb "escalating crime" with "112 specially trained state troopers who work with citizens, civic groups, and governmental agencies on crime prevention issues."

To which we counter today with our "Crush Corporate Crime" campaign.

Our "Crush Corporate Crime" campaign will seek to curb escalating corporate crime with the millions of Americans who recognize that corporate crime and violence inflicts far more damage than all street crime combined -- yet receives far less attention from the corporate political, media, academic and law enforcement establishments.

Our first item on the agenda:

Get the District Attorney in Galveston County, Texas to open a criminal homicide and reckless endangerment investigation of BP and its executives.

Last week, 15 workers were incinerated, and more than 70 injured, following an explosion at BP's sprawling refinery in Texas City, Texas.

It was the third fatal accident at the Texas City BP facility in the last four years.

In September 2004, two workers were burned to death and another was seriously injured.

In 2001, a maintenance worker at the facility died after falling into a tank that had been shut down.

Nationwide, BP's facilities have had more than 3,565 accidents since 1990, ranking first in the nation, according to a 2004 report by the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG).

To charge BP or its executives with reckless homicide, or involuntary manslaughter, the DA would have to find that BP and its executives consciously disregarded "a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a death will occur."

We believe that the families of the dead deserve a full-blown reckless homicide investigation by the District Attorney in Galveston County.

Ira Reiner, when he was district attorney of Los Angeles County in the early 1990s, would open a criminal investigation any time there was a worker death in his jurisdiction.

But Mohamed Ibrahim, the first assistant district attorney in Galveston County, told us that his office had opened no such criminal investigation into the BP matter.

"We have no reason to believe at this point that it was anything but an unfortunate industrial accident," Ibrahim said. "If OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) came to us and said it was a result of criminal recklessness, we would look at an investigation."

But OSHA has proven that it can't be trusted with worker safety investigations.

Why not an independent homicide investigation?

"We don't have the resources or expertise," Ibrahim said.

Well, it's time to ramp up.

We call on all citizens of conscience to take a moment now and write to Kurt Sistrunk, the district attorney in Galveston County, and call on him to open a criminal investigation of BP and its executives in connection with the blast that killed at least 15 and injured more than 70.

Opening a criminal investigation doesn't mean a crime has been committed.

It means only that there are 15 dead human beings -- may they rest in peace -- and the need for an all-out criminal investigation.

The District Attorney can be reached at kurt.sistrunk@co.galveston.tx.us

-- or give him a call (409) 766-2355.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter, < http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com>. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. Mokhiber and Weissman are co-authors of On the Rampage: Corporate Predators and the Destruction of Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2005).

Among those alarmed by Jon Morgan's statements in a "special notice/press release" Tuesday were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials who conducted the study of the El Dorado Hills playgrounds.

The EPA fired back a press release denouncing Morgan's press release.

"The claims Jon Morgan makes in his press release are irresponsible, false, and display a lack of understanding of the complex nature of the challenges posed by asbestos," said Dan Meer, who supervised the EPA study.

The battle of the press releases comes as the EPA and other agencies prepare to release studies assessing risks of asbestos exposure from everyday activities in foothill communities laced in places with the fibrous minerals.

The EPA designed the air tests in October particularly to gauge the asbestos exposure of children at play.

Government contractors in protective jumpsuits with respirators and wearing air monitors played sports that could raise dust containing the invisible, cancer-causing fibers from native rock churned up by development.

Sampling of the air and soil occurred on dirt baseball diamonds and the children's playground at the El Dorado Hills Community Center, and on sports fields at Jackson and Silva Valley elementary schools and Rolling Hills Middle School.

Morgan, who alternately has criticized and welcomed the EPA's help, said in his press release Tuesday that the soon-to-be-released test results "may unnecessarily scare the daylights out of every man, woman and child in El Dorado County."

"EPA lacks accountability, common sense and fails to communicate to the people of El Dorado County," Morgan said.

Meer said the results completed to date should "concern" residents but not "scare" them.

Meer said EPA officials gave Morgan and other county officials a "sneak peek" at some of the preliminary test results earlier this month in preparation for their public release in late April, after the federal agency has received and validated all test results.

Accurately interpreting and communicating the test results will be difficult, he said.

"Our whole communication strategy was predicated on getting the state, the county and school officials all on the same page," Meer said.

"And then this comes out of the blue.

"We are puzzled as to why the county would feel compelled to release this now," he said.

Reached by The Bee on his cell phone, Morgan said he could not comment because he was preoccupied driving through a blizzard on Highway 50 near Strawberry.

He did not return messages left on his phone later Tuesday.

Charlie Paine, chairman of the county board of supervisors, said he and other county officials who reviewed Morgan's statement agreed with the message but "the tone was absolutely unfortunate."

"We're not trying to have an adversarial relationship with the EPA," Paine said.

The Bee's Chris Bowman can be reached at (916) 321-1069 or cbowman@sacbee.com.

A proposed 17-story condominium complex over an Ambler, Pa. asbestos dump has local residents worried.

Tim Hughes lives just across the border in Whitpain Township. He explains the proposed project that will be facing the back of his property:

"Kane Core Developers are asking Borough Council to change the ordinance to allow them to build a a 380-plus condominium tower that is 220 feet tall and a football field wide, right on top of an asbestos dump."

Builder Mark Marino of Kane Core says this project will be supervised by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Marino explains how the asbestos will be handled:

http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60716FA3E5B0C7B8EDDAA0894DD404482

Once praised as a national model, a new law to reduce air pollution at New York City construction sites may end up being weakened before it can ever be enforced because city agencies and contractors are worried about costs.

Environmental and health groups say draft regulations for the law, which was passed in 2003, are riddled with loopholes that allow minimally effective emission control devices to be installed on heavy-duty diesel engines, a major source of pollution that can cause asthma and other respiratory ailments.

The proposed regulations, which will be discussed at a Department of Environmental Protection hearing this morning, are vague about the types of filters that can be used. Contractors may choose superefficient ones that can cost $12,000 or more per engine and cut emissions by 95 percent, or less effective models for as little as $2,000 that remove only 25 percent of pollutants. Or they could go with a whole range of models in between.

"This draft regulation has enough loopholes to drive a bulldozer through," said Richard A. Kassel, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. By leaving so many options, he said, the city is encouraging contractors to pick the cheapest and least effective models.

The law, which called for the "best available technology" to be used, also requires all city-owned equipment - as well as the bulldozers, backhoes and other vehicles of private contractors working on any city project - to use ultralow-sulfur diesel fuel, which can cost 10 cents a gallon more than regular fuel but is many times cleaner.

Emily Lloyd, commissioner of environmental protection, said the range of choices did not open loopholes. Rather, she said, it ensures that the city does not end up pushing owners to install specific filters and pollution control devices that ultimately prove unworkable.

"We will push hard to use the most aggressive controls," she said, "but we will also allow some flexibility as the regulations are being implemented." She said the range of choices would be revisited every six months to ensure that contractors were not abusing the system.

"I don't really worry that they are going to pull the wool over my eyes," Ms. Lloyd said.

While private contractors urged the department not to adopt regulations that were too complex or rigid, the most serious concerns were raised by other departments, like Transportation or Design and Construction, that are involved in projects throughout the city. The interagency tensions were never made public, and spokesmen say the departments intend to fully comply with the law.

But environmental officials have been warned that if regulations are too demanding, only the largest contractors will be able to meet them. That, in turn, could reduce the competition for contracts, and increase the already high costs of construction in the city.

Francis X. McArdle, managing director of the General Contractors Association of New York, said private companies that work for the city were not looking to water down the regulations, but wanted to ensure that they were clear enough for everyone involved to understand.

Mr. McArdle has urged the city to be sure that the pollution controls added to existing equipment do not end up making them unreliable, and therefore unsafe.

The contractors also asked the city not to adopt the same system of technical classification used by the federal government and the State of California to rate pollution controls. Instead, the requirements should be put into "words that people can understand easily," Mr. McArdle said.

The city first considered ways of cleaning up construction equipment when it assessed the environmental impact of rebuilding the World Trade Center. New federal laws will make on-road diesel trucks cleaner in a few years, but regulations on construction equipment are many years away.

In February 2003, the city passed local Law 77, one of the first in the nation to regulate construction equipment. It extended pollution controls from ground zero to all government projects throughout the city and to every contractor hired by city agencies. The measures were supposed to have been phased in starting last June, but objections from other agencies have delayed the adoption of final regulations.

The law could take full effect as soon as 40 days after today's hearing. When it does, the department will be in the position of monitoring its own projects, which are among the largest in the city. They include construction of the massive water filtration plant at the southern edge of Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx.

"It's like having the wolf taking care of the sheep," said Gil A. Maduro, a local resident and member of The Cove-Environmental Justice, a community group that opposed building the filtration plant in the park. "If they're going to be monitoring themselves, then how will we know if they are complying with the law?"

Work on the site has already begun. Nearby residents say that every weekday morning, just after dawn, several bulldozers, backhoes and drilling machines are refueled and then fired up, releasing clouds of black smoke.

Commissioner Lloyd said the new law would be rigorously enforced, even on the department's own projects.

"The real assurance is that there is so much transparency in the rule making, the monitoring and in the decisions about changes in the regulations, " she said.

It should surprise no one that the Environmental Protection Agency, in order to justify its relaxed approach to regulating mercury pollution, ignored the inconvenient findings of its own commissioned cost/benefit study.

Time and again, the Bush administration has demonstrated its view that the only good science is that which justifies its agenda. And from the outset, this administration's agenda on mercury has been to retreat from sensible, overdue rules that were prepared toward the end of President Bill Clinton's second term.

Under litigation pressure, the Clinton EPA belatedly concluded that federal law compelled it to regulate this potent neurotoxin as strictly as such other poisons as lead or asbestos. Coal-burning power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. mercury emissions, would be required to install "maximum achievable control technology"; it was estimated that airborne mercury pollution would drop from 48 tons per year to 5 tons by 2007.

Then along came the industry-friendly philosophy of George W. Bush, and EPA decided to classify mercury as a much less harmful pollutant -- in a regulatory class with the sulfur and nitrogen compounds responsible for acid rain and smog. Instead of installing the best available controls, utilities need only participate in a "cap-and-trade" program in which they could choose between reducing emissions or paying to pollute, whichever was cheaper. Overall emissions would be reduced over time, but at a much more leisurely pace -- to 38 tons per year by 2010, under the final EPA rule announced last week, and to 15 tons by 2018. "Hot spots" of heavy local deposition would continue.

The administration's liberal interpretation of Clean Air Act requirements regarding mercury is highly vulnerable to legal challenge; Pennsylvania immediately announced that it will fight the new rule, and other northeastern states are expected to join that effort. This will not disappoint the utilities, for whom postponement of any new regulatory regime for mercury means instant cost savings. Nor will it offend the administration, which earlier was revealed to have lifted portions of its new policy more or less intact from industry proposals.

When the case gets to court, considerable attention will no doubt be paid to the EPA's suppression of unfavorable cost/benefit data, as revealed this week in the Washington Post.

Taking mercury out of the stricter regulatory class enabled the EPA to weigh the public-health benefits of reducing emissions against the utilities' costs of installing new pollution control equipment. It said its new rules would impose about $50 million per year in costs and deliver somewhat less in reduced health-care costs. The Clinton-era approach, it said, wouldn't deliver much more in benefits but would cost utilities $750 million per year.

However, a study conducted at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis concluded that the stricter rules would deliver health benefits on the order of $5 billion per year by reducing neurological and heart disease. Though EPA commissioned the research and reviewed the results, it ordered them stripped from the records documenting its decision process. To justify that step, EPA officials say the study was submitted after deadline (although the Post found evidence to the contrary) and that some of its methods were flawed.

We have no doubt that the Harvard team's work is open to challenge; that's true of most research in a subject area this complex. In that case, why not challenge the findings openly, rather than trying to sweep them under the rug?

http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=151987

Johnson's nomination was met with approval by Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) and CropLife America, organizations that represent manufacturers and distributors of pesticides. The appointment also won praise from environmental groups. Representatives from both sides of the debate praised Johnson as a fair and open-minded regulator.

RISE is the national association representing the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and others who use pesticide products in turf, ornamental, pest control, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation and other non-food/fiber applications.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2586#more

NEW YORK CITY (March 18, 2005) ­

New York Gov. George Pataki placed the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) in charge of distributing $2.7 billion from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development earmarked for revitalization and restoration of Manhattan post-Sept. 11.

Community groups are continuing to urge the LMDC to focus the remaining $850 million in cash grants on unmet needs they say have been ignored.

A coalition of community groups including New York Disaster Interfaith Services (NYDIS), 9/11 Environmental Action, Labor Community Advocacy Network, Latin American Workers’ Project, and many others, held a forum on Wednesday night entitled "Without a Trace." The forum’s aim was to allow community members to speak out about where the money should go, as well as voice their frustrations about being ignored.

"There is general frustration and anger from these groups and people who are feeling left out of the process," said Daniel Bush, director of disaster recovery and victim advocacy for NYDIS. He said he didn’t believe the LMDC has been transparent about the allocation process.

Bush said most of the community organizations feel that the money has gone "to the higher end" instead of to people who most need assistance. The coalition of organizations agrees that the focus of funds should be on affordable housing, environmental health and employment.

"Much of the conversation (Wednesday night) was around housing. So far the money has mostly gone to higher-end housing – which just makes housing constraints worse," explained Bush.

The health issue involves the toxic cloud of dust that enveloped Manhattan and other boroughs on Sept. 11, contaminating offices and residences. Ground Zero workers and Manhattan residents and employees report they are suffering from health problems tied to the dust, which has been shown to include such toxins as asbestos and lead.

Groups like NYDIS have been helping sickened employees and residents with basic needs, such as rent payments or transportation. The only current screening for Ground Zero health issues is for people who worked at the site, and not those who live or work in the general area. Beyond that, there is no funding for treatment of the sick workers.

"We’d like to see needs addressed on a systemic level – not just treating the symptoms like we’re doing," noted Bush, who said religious groups and community coalitions have limited assistance money.

The LMDC defends its distribution of the funds thus far, citing a residential grant program set up in 2002, as well as one funded proposal for affordable housing. Funds have also gone toward incentives to keep businesses in lower Manhattan, creating community parks, promoting tourism, and creating a Ground Zero historical campaign, said LMDC spokesperson Joanna Rose.

The corporation is also defending its public input process, with Rose saying that LMDC held numerous public hearings and allowed for significant public input to the funding proposals.

"Every single step of the way there’s been public engagement," said Rose. "We welcome input. We are working out now what future opportunities there will be for public comment."

For the remaining money, Rose added that the LMDC is looking at what the priorities are and reaching out to the public for ideas.

Yet no LMDC representatives attended the Wednesday forum, despite being invited, said Bush. Some members of the faith communities in attendance said the evening was another powerful reminder that many are still struggling to recover.

"It was a very inspiring and moving event," said Rabbi Jonathan Glass of New York City’s Synagogue for the Arts. "We saw and heard stories of significant hardship. There is a definite desire for access to money earmarked for people in need who are not getting it."

Glass is a member of a clergy group working with NYDIS to put more pressure on the LMDC about fund distribution and public input. "We lend a moral voice in a way that only clergy can do," explained Glass, who also noted that every community group involved has shown incredible commitment and resolve.

The organizers of Wednesday’s gathering said they were pleased with the results. "It was a wonderful event and we were very proud to be participating in it," said Kimberly Flynn of 9/11 Environmental Action. "It was a celebration of the diverse and interconnected communities of lower Manhattan. Folks who attended represented every area in lower Manhattan, from river to river."

Flynn said the forum’s attendees and speakers asserted that LMDC-distributed funds are the community’s money. The LMDC needs to hear the community, she said, and the corporation’s attempts thus far at hearing from the public are sorely lacking.

"There is a way of holding meetings that fosters discussion and provides for accountability – and then there’s what the LMDC has done," she explained.

As for which needs should take a priority for the remaining $850 million, Flynn said the community should decide.

"The host of organizations working with the community should work together in defining (the needs) and in dividing up (the remaining funds) – because all of these are urgent needs," she explained.

"Health is an urgent need, but I think when you look at rebuilding people’s lives, you can’t really separate health from having a safe clean place to live and being able to make a living. The whole idea of this money was to rebuild people’s lives, and that’s a multi-faceted project."

President Bush recently nominated Stephen L. Johnson, a 24 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the agency’s new administrator. Mr. Johnson has been the acting administrator since January, and prior to that oversaw the EPA office handling pesticides and other toxic substances. In nominating Johnson, Mr. Bush described him as "a talented scientist" and having "good judgment and complete integrity."

Yet his record as the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances casts serious doubt on whether Johnson is suited to lead the E.P.A., an agency directly affecting Americans health and many significant industries, including automobiles and agriculture. During President Bushs first term, Johnson was a strong supporter of pesticide testing on humans.

During President Clintons administration, the E.P.A. would not consider the results of controversial trials that tested pesticides on people. But after Mr. Bush was elected, Johnson changed E.P.A. policy to resume consideration. However, a panel of scientists and ethicists convened by the E.P.A. in 1998 determined that these types of trials were unethical and scientifically unsuitable to estimate the safety of chemicals.

In 2001, the trials considered by the E.P.A. gave paid subjects doses of pesticides 100 to 300 times greater than levels that E.P.A. officials considered safe for the general public. The E.P.A. evaluated three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available, while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska.

In the Dow study, human subjects were given doses four times the level that the E.P.A. knew produced adverse affects in animals. Although subjects suffered numbness in the upper arms, the Dow doctors ruled that this was "possibly" related to the pesticide. Other subjects complained of headaches, nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps. Again, the doctors in the Dow study determined that these symptoms were "possibly" or "probably" related to the chemical. But in the final analysis of the study, Dow concluded that the pesticide did not produce any symptoms. And yet the E.P.A. considered it.

Its wasn’t surprising then that in October of last year, Johnson strongly supported a study in which infants will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to known toxic chemicals for a two year period. The Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study, dubiously known as CHEERS, will analyze how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by children ranging from infants to three year olds. The study will analyze 60 infants and toddlers in Duval County, Florida who are routinely exposed to pesticides in their homes. Yet the E.P.A. acknowledges that pesticide exposure is a documented risk factor for some types of childhood cancer and the early onset of asthma.

Other aspects of CHEERS are equally troublesome. The participants will be selected from six health clinics and three hospitals in Duval County. The E.P.A. study proposal noted that "Although all Duval County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, 75 percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or below the poverty level." The proposal also cited that "The percentage of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole."

The E.P.A. is targeting the poor and African-Americans for the study, presumably in the hope that they will be less informed about the dangers of exposing their children to pesticides, and will therefore continue to expose them over the two year period. The study actually mandates that participants not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides around the home. And the parents cannot be informed of the risks of prolonged or excessive exposure to pesticides. Additionally, the study does not provide steps to intervene if the children show signs of developmental delay or register high levels of exposure to pesticides in the periodic testing.

Parents receive $970 for participating in the study, but only if they continue over the two year period. This is a powerful inducement for these impoverished parents to keep exposing their children to pesticides. Even some E.P.A. officials have been troubled by the lack of safeguards to ensure that these parents are not swayed into exposing their children to the chemicals. Troy Pierce, a scientist in the E.P.A.’s Atlanta-based pesticides office, wrote in an e-mail to his colleagues last year, "This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of (pesticides) related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that (pesticide management) should always be used to protect children."

Additionally, it was disclosed that the American Chemistry Council gave $2.1 million to the E.P.A. to fund CHEERS. The council is comprised of many pesticide manufacturers. These manufacturers have known since the 1970s of the long term toxicity of the pesticides being tested in the study. But since this study only lasts two years, there will likely be little or no obvious short term effects. Consequently, once the study is concluded, this will allow the council to proclaim that the E.P.A. found no side effects, and in turn allow them to lobby Congress to weaken regulations on these chemicals.

Stephen L. Johnson is a scientist of the worst kind. Testing of pesticides on humans provides no health benefit to the subjects, or to society at large. But it does help chemical companies who claim that their products are not dangerous. And that is not who should be leading the E.P.A.

Copyright 2002 - 2004 Intervention Magazine

    Back to Top

How much Lower Manhattan Development Corporation money will be used for the World Trade Center memorial and cultural center and how much will be left for the rest of Downtown? There are no answers yet to either question and as a result, a report outlining the best uses for about $800 million in Downtown community money may be delayed a few weeks past Gov. George Pataki’s March 31 deadline.

Many of the advocates and civic groups that have been debating the best uses of the federal, post-9/11 money for a few years have been more concerned about an open process and may not be upset if the decisions are delayed a little.

"It’ll come together at some point," said one L.M.D.C. board member, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Right now it’s premature. All of the options have to be laid out. I think it will happen soon. It could be a week, it could be two weeks, it could be three. A year would not be soon."

Lynn Rasic, a Pataki spokesperson, told Downtown Express Wednesday that the report may be released later than planned. "We can’t say with certainty it will be produced by the end of March," she said. "We expect it to be in the early spring."

At a board meeting last week, John Whitehead, L.M.D.C. chairperson and a Pataki appointee, said they were still planning to release a document at the end of the month, but in response to questions from reporters, he and Kevin Rampe, L.M.D.C. president, said it was still too early even to make decisions on what sort of list or document they would be working on, let alone deciding which projects would get funded.

Rampe did say the L.M.D.C. would do more to get public opinion on the recommendations than they have done with previous agency spending plans. He delivered the same message this week in a private meeting with some groups that have criticized the L.M.D.C. process.

Pataki and L.M.D.C. officials have said the first priority is money for the memorial, which will also be funded with private donations. Other projects including improvements to the East and Hudson River waterfronts, street and plaza improvements in Chinatown, near lower Greenwich St. and along Fulton St. are considered higher-priority items off the site. Affordable housing and job training programs are favored by many community groups, which are stepping up their lobbying efforts.

Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York said she wanted to be hopeful the agency "will put forth a plan that would bridge the gap between New Yorkers and the L.M.D.C. board," but added she thought it may be "wishful thinking."

Damiani was planning to attend a Wednesday night forum on the Lower East Side calling on the development corporation to change its priorities. The "Without a Trace" forum, sponsored by several organizations, also drew Billionaires for Bush, an anti-Republican satirical group and Councilmember Alan Gerson.

Gerson, in a telephone interview, said he thought he would be able to schedule a meeting with the L.M.D.C. prior to the recommendation report. Last fall, he delivered his own report to the L.M.D.C. detailing recommendations for the remaining money including $200 million to preserve and build affordable housing, $270 million for waterfront improvements, $60 million for an underground parking garage, and grants to many small arts and community organizations.

He did not include money for the memorial because he said private money and other government sources would be better ways to pay for it rather than out of the federal Community Development Block Grants used to create and fund the L.M.D.C.

"The memorial is so special and so needy, it deserves its own funding stream," said Gerson. "I don’t think Community Development Block Grants were intended for the memorial. It’s not part of community development."

Monica Iken, whose husband was killed on Sept. 11, 2001 and who will be fundraising for the memorial as a member of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, said she does not want to see L.M.D.C. money used up for other projects before financing for the memorial is secure.

"We should definitely make sure the memorial gets done first in a timely manner," she said. The foundation board is looking to raise about $250 million for the memorial and $250 million for the cultural center and will likely need additional money from other sources, such as the L.M.D.C., Iken said.

Dep. Mayor Dan Doctoroff, who is in charge of the city’s Lower Manhattan development plans, told Downtown Express last year that he thought the memorial and cultural center would require several hundred million dollars of L.M.D.C. money. The governor and mayor each appoint half the agency’s members, meaning both sides have to agree before any big decisions can be made.

Madelyn Wils, an L.M.D.C. board member, said the site questions are key to the debate. "What are we going to spend on the site," she asked in a telephone interview. "That is something we don’t have a lot of clarity on…. What if the memorial foundation can’t raise the money and the L.M.D.C. money is already spent?"

The site, which is owned by the Port Authority, will require an elaborate and expensive infrastructure system underground to support the memorial, cultural buildings and office towers. Roland Betts, an L.M.D.C. member, said last year that some L.M.D.C. money will be needed for office infrastructure, but Doctoroff and some others who also have a say over L.M.D.C. money said they were opposed to that.

Betts told Downtown Express last week that it remains unclear how much money will be spent on the site. In contrast to other board members interviewed for this article, Betts said the agency is further along in producing the report. He said a lot of work has already gone into the report and it will explain why each proposal will be funded and how much it will cost. "It’ll be project – dollars, project – dollars," Betts said.

Wils, also chairperson of Community Board 1, said she didn’t want to comment on her off-site spending priorities until her fellow community board members see a presentation on a few more projects.

She said the plans for Greenwich Street South look impressive and she hopes her fellow C.B. 1 members have the same reaction. "I like that one a lot," she said. The idea behind that project is to put a platform over the entrance ramp to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel creating space to build a park and create a residential-friendly area in a somewhat deserted part of Downtown.

The L.M.D.C. received $2.78 billion in the community block grants after 9/11 and the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development has approved $1.91 billion in spending. Some of the largest expenditures have included $750 million to repair public utilities in Lower Manhattan, $300 million for a rent subsidy program to attract and retain Downtown residents and about $165 million to buy and dismantle the contaminated Deutsche bank building across the street. The L.M.D.C. board has also set aside an additional $45 million for the Deutsche project although it hopes to recoup almost all of that from Deutsche and its insurers; and $53 million for affordable housing although it has not yet submitted that plan to HUD.

The L.M.D.C. currently has $877 million of money free although assuming HUD approves all the board’s outstanding spending requests and the agency gets no money back from Deutsche, the figure will drop to $772 million, according to the L.M.D.C..

The $772 million plus the Deutsche fund recovery will be divided between the memorial, cultural center and any number of other projects.

The spring recommendations for the money will come too late for ROC-NY, a group of Windows on the World workers who wanted to open a restaurant in Tribeca.

Saru Jayaraman, executive director of the group, said they applied over two years ago for $1 million - $2 million from the L.M.D.C. and never heard anything. Fearing their Italian investors would pull out of the deal, Jayaraman said the group signed a lease this year near the Public Theater in the Village ­ north of Houston St. and outside the L.M.D.C. jurisdiction.

"Here are these Italian investors willing to invest half a million dollars and no American investors came forward," said Jayaraman. Seventy-three restaurant workers at Windows were killed in the 2001 attack. "We’re doing Lower Manhattan development and we’re survivors – there’s no better use under the L.M.D.C. guidelines. Shame on the L.M.D.C."

"L.M.D.C. has focused its funding on rebuilding the World Trade Center site and on a fitting memorial to the lives that were lost," said Joanna Rose, L.M.D.C. spokesperson, in response to the criticism. The Empire State Development Corp. and the city’s Economic Development Corporation concentrated on small business initiatives after the 9/11 attack, while the L.M.D.C. has funded short-term improvements Downtown in addition to focusing on the site.

With the focus moving to the L.M.D.C.’s remaining money, David Dyssegaard Kallick of the Fiscal Policy Institute is cautiously optimistic at the recent signals that the agency will increase the level of public input before spending the rest of the money. He said public meetings where people break up into small focus groups may be the best way to get comments. In the summer of 2002, 4,000 participants in a forum co-sponsored by the L.M.D.C. led to a rejection of six W.T.C. site plans and led to the current plan by Daniel Libeskind; and in the summer of 2003, the L.M.D.C. held neighborhood workshops to get comments on spending priorities.

What assurance can the LMDC give that no contaminants of potential concern are escaping from the gash in the building?

The LMDC has undertaken several steps, both in the gash area and the remainder of the building, to ensure that contaminants are not released in to the community. The gash area of the building has previously undergone remediation and has been sealed off from the rest of the building to prevent recontamination, and was done so under the ownership of Deutsche Bank. Since LMDC took ownership of the building, we have continued the ambient air monitoring program on the exterior of the building to monitor potential contaminants from the gash area as well as the building in general. The air monitoring results are available on the LMDC web site for public review.

Has LMDC been working with the MTA? Are subway riders safe?

Yes, the LMDC has been working with the MTA throughout the planning process for the deconstruction project. The MTA is fully aware of the phased approach to the deconstruction and the regulatory approval process that is necessary before we begin work. The MTA will receive the revised Phase I deconstruction plan when developed and this revised plan will include all the locations of proposed air monitoring stations. The LMDC will continue discussions with the MTA to coordinate necessary precautions to prevent any contaminants of potential concern from affecting their operations.

Has the LMDC finalized the procedure for transporting and disposing of contaminated materials in a way that does not impact the surrounding area?

No, LMDC is continuing to review the various alternatives for transporting contaminated materials. These will be explained in the revised Phase I Deconstruction Plan that will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for final approval.

The Comments from the EPA regarding the Draft Phase I Deconstruction Plan included a comment on fine particles and how the deconstruction of 130 Liberty may contribute to "already unhealthful levels of fine particles in Lower Manhattan." Is there an explanation for this statement?

The EPA has clarified that the comment regarding "already unhealthful levels of fine particles in Lower Manhattan" is in relation to a much broader air quality issue than anything directly related to 130 Liberty, or even September 11th. The EPA has developed health-based standards for fine particles in the air and has identified areas throughout the country that attain the standard and identified areas that exceed the standard. The areas that exceed the standard fine particle concentration or contribute to problems in other areas were labeled "non attainment" areas. The five boroughs of New York City and adjacent areas are a non-attainment area as a result of emissions from motor vehicles, construction equipment, industry, power plants and dense population. As such, EPA's comment relates to its concern that all reasonable measures should be taken to avoid exacerbating the existing air quality problem whether it be in Lower Manhattan or any other part of the metropolitan area for that matter. The EPA has numerous initiatives underway to reduce the health threat of fine particles. For more information click http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/

When will the deconstruction start?

The Phase I Deconstruction plan is currently being revised and will be resubmitted to the regulatory agencies for further review and final approval before any cleaning and deconstruction activity begins. Once final approval is received, the LMDC’s contractor will mobilize equipment and prepare for Phase I activities. It is currently anticipated that this work will begin this summer.

The U.S. Senate is gearing up for a fateful showdown that could affect the welfare of the tens of thousands of people who have been exposed to asbestos and are at risk of dying or becoming sick as a result. After the Senate returns from its Easter recess, the Judiciary Committee may take a vote on a bill that has been under consideration for six years.

The bill, which is deceptively named the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, would make it impossible to sue a company for asbestos disease caused by the companys negligence. Instead, the only option for a person injured by asbestos (or the persons heirs) would be to file a claim with the Labor Department, which would decide the validity of the claim and pay a cash benefit that would depend upon the severity of the illness.

The benefits would be paid from a trust fund that would be set up with money from the companies that are now losing thousands of lawsuits to people who they have exposed to asbestos. The negligent companies insurance companies, which also stand to save billions of dollars if asbestos lawsuits are eliminated, would also be required to pay into the trust fund.

The text of the draft bill, in its current form, is not public, because the Senate Republican leadership is trying to prevent informed debate by keeping the bill secret until the last possible moment. Whatever the details of the bill that finally emerges from the closed-door conferences, it is certain to save tens of billions of dollars that the asbestos companies would, under the existing court-based system, expect to pay people with asbestos injuries.

That the bill would save the companies billions is clear from its recent history. The Senate Judiciary Committee was close to reaching a compromise agreement on a similar bill in October 2004. That bill would have saved the companies (and cost asbestos victims) billions, but the size of the projected savings had been reduced several times by the hard bargaining of some Democrats and organizations taking the side of injured workers.

The November election increased the Republican majority in the Senate from a razor-thin 51-48 to a commanding 55-44. When the new Senate convened in January, many Republicans saw a greatly reduced need to compromise with Democrats to pass legislation. In the last two months two new versions of the draft bill have been made public, each of them more favorable to the asbestos companies at the expense of injured workers. The only question is how much more money the next public version will give to the companies.

Its deeply distressing that the Republicans are trying to undo the things that were agreed to last year, said Peg Seminario, Director of Safety and Health for the AFL-CIO. The conservative Republicans are pushing very hard. The dynamic has changed in a bad way. No one knows how its going to come out, but the potential for some major damage to the interests of injured workers is much greater than it was last year.

Under these circumstances no Washington observers expect that the final bill will undo those provisions that were already extremely disadvantageous to injured workers, such as an unscientific definition of asbestos disease that would prevent tens of thousands of workers with asbestos disease from ever filing a valid claim, while denying them any other recourse.

Now the debate among the Republicans is over how many more workers can be excluded from compensation without alienating enough moderate Republicans to join with Democrats and block the bill. For example, according the Senate sources the bill would now deny all compensation to an asbestos-exposed smoker with lung cancer, but with no asbestos-induced lung scarring, under the theory that the cancer could only have been caused by smoking.

Its just contrary to science, its just unbelievable that the bill could exclude people who were exposed to a substantial amount of asbestos, said Dr. Steven Markowitz, an occupational disease specialist and head of the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Queens College. Thirty years worth of scientific studies show that there is a 5-fold increase in lung cancer for people with real asbestos exposure, for both smokers and non-smokers, he continued.. There is plenty of scientific evidence that asbestos exposure can cause lung cancer even when it does not scar the lungs. There is absolutely no scientific basis for saying that asbestos-exposed smokers are not at asbestos-induced risk of lung cancer. I don’t know what that position is based on, but I know that it isnt based on science.

 Similarly, Senate Republicans are now proposing to eliminate the bills coverage for cancer of the colon, the stomach or the larynx. One of the new Republican Senators, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma , said "there is no scientific evidence" that colon cancer is caused by asbestos. That’s just plain wrong, said Markowitz. Its true that the evidence isnt as overwhelming as it is in the case of lung cancer and mesothelioma, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that asbestos exposure increases a persons risk of each of those cancers.

When the Republicans finally publish the bill early in April, there will probably be very little time to organize opposition before a vote in the Judiciary Committee, followed by a vote by the whole Senate. We cant afford to wait until we can see the text, said NYCOSH Executive Director Joel Shufro. I would be very surprised if the final text gives injured workers a better deal than the version that was published six weeks ago, and we know that that version was much worse than it had been four months ago. We have been fighting this battle ever since 1977, when the asbestos companies first asked Congress to give them protection from judges and juries who heard the evidence that the companies purposely lied to workers and consumers because, in the words of the president of one of the largest asbestos companies, we save a lot of money that way.

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000249.php

As expected, EPA announced new rules that would reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants 20 percent by 2010, with a goal of 70 percent reduction by 2018. Environmental health and other groups assert that greater reductions could be achieved much more rapidly, and that EPA's decision will endanger the health of hundreds of thousands of newborn babies.

Mercury is known to harm the brain and nervous system, especially in infants. It can cause learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder and mental retardation. One in six U.S. women of child-bearing age is reported to have enough mercury in her blood to put a developing fetus at risk. [1] The primary means of exposure is through consumption of certain species of deep ocean fish, such as tuna and pollock.

The Bush Administration is proposing a "cap and trade" system, whereby a national limit on mercury emissions would be set, but in which individual power plants could trade emissions credits. This would mean some states would achieve reductions in mercury pollution while others would actually experience an increase.

John Walke, director of the air pollution program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said this would result in enormous increases in mercury emissions in certain states. For example, an increase of 841% in California; 176% in Colorado; 241% in New Hampshire; and 56% in New Jersey. [2]

Martha Keating, a former mercury expert at EPA who is now a senior scientist at the Clean Air Task Force, joined others in saying that proper enforcement of the current Clean Air Act would be far more effective than the new mercury rule. "If the Clean Air Act was implemented as it should be, we would get significant reductions of mercury, upwards of 90 percent," she said on National Public Radio. "So [the new rule] in our mind is a rollback." [3]

"It is unconscionable EPA is allowing power companies to trade in a powerful neurotoxin--it is unprecedented and illegal," said William S. Becker, executive director of the bipartisan State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators. [4] Becker also heads the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials.

Recent criticism both by the EPA's own inspector general and by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office alleged that EPA ignored scientific evidence in developing its mercury rule, and called for further analyses. A Washington Post article said Agency staff charged that Bush Administration political operatives set the framework of the rule in advance, to support industry's claim that installing the newest air pollution control technology would be too expensive. [5]

Because mercury pollution of the oceans is a global problem, the UN Environmental Programme held an international meeting in Nairobi last month in an attempt to set in motion a plan to reduce the trade, mining and emission of mercury. The European Union has already decided to phase out mercury-cell chlorine production and close the largest mercury mine in Europe (located in Spain).

But U.S. officials blocked any concrete actions, instead calling for self-regulation, more studies, more discussion. Noting that the EPA has defended its new rule by saying mercury pollution is a global problem and therefore tighter controls on U.S. coal-fired power plants wouldn't solve it, Michael Bender of the Ban Mercury Working Group--a coalition of 27 public interest groups from several nations--said "The Administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Today they are saying the only way to solve the U.S. mercury problem is through international action. Yet three weeks ago they hijacked the process and blocked development of a global strategy."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35072-2005Mar14.html

The rule sets broad national limits on mercury emissions that enable power companies to decide which plants will receive pollution controls -- meaning that even as many states reduce their emissions, some could see increases in emissions of mercury, a potent neurotoxin.

The rule is certain to be contested in court by environmental groups, which charge that it places the financial interests of power companies over public health and violates existing law on how the government must deal with dangerous substances.

Mercury is the third major pollutant produced by coal-fired power plants and other industries that the government has sought to limit because of accumulating evidence of their devastating effects on health. The EPA issued a rule last week to control the smog and soot produced by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

The agency plans to offer a full justification for its approach today but defended it in broad terms yesterday. Industry groups back the cap-and-trade approach as more practical and cost-effective than the alternative that environmentalists prefer -- limiting emissions at every plant.

The EPA's actions in developing the mercury rule prompted intense criticism by the agency's inspector general and the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which said the agency ignored scientific evidence. Agency staff have charged that the Bush administration's political operatives decided the framework of the new rule in advance and deliberately made it less ambitious in order not to be tougher than President Bush's proposed revisions of the Clean Air Act, the nation's fundamental air pollution law. Bush's proposal, which has been stalled in Congress, is also based on a cap-and-trade system. Agency officials and industry advocates have defended the rulemaking process as open, credible and efficient.

"It is unconscionable EPA is allowing power companies to trade in a powerful neurotoxin -- it is unprecedented and illegal," said S. William Becker, executive director of two bipartisan state environmental groups, the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. He predicted that states and cities will be forced to institute a "patchwork quilt" of more stringent local emissions controls.

To justify the new approach, the administration needed to reverse a decision by the Clinton administration to list mercury as a "hazardous air pollutant." That allowed for greater flexibility in designing emission controls and made possible a trading system to mesh with the EPA rule issued last week to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, said Scott Segal, a spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents a number of coal-fired utilities.

"There is similarity in how these emissions are produced, and there should be similarities in how they are controlled," Segal said yesterday. The industry spokesman did not dispute that mercury is dangerous but said the trading system is the best way to achieve dramatic cuts at reasonable cost -- with minimal litigation delays.

"This rule is about public health, and this rule is protective given what we know about mercury and how and why we get exposed to it," EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said yesterday. She said she was constrained in speaking about the specifics of the rule because it was to be finalized only today.

The mercury rule is so closely linked to last week's Clean Air Interstate Rule that the initial phase of emissions cuts will be a byproduct of that rule. Bergman said those initial cuts target a particularly hazardous form of mercury, which justified removing it from the list of hazardous air pollutants. Today's rule will call for a cap of mercury emissions at 38 tons per year from power plants by 2010 -- down from 48 tons at present -- and an additional reduction of 15 tons per year by 2018.

Although the broad outlines of the mercury rule have been known for months, environmental groups have waited to see whether the agency would perform the additional analyses demanded by the EPA's inspector general and the GAO. While Bergman had previously said criticisms about the lack of analyses were premature, she confirmed yesterday that some of the analyses demanded had not been performed.

Bergman said that the competing approach -- to reduce mercury at every plant -- could indeed produce dramatic results, but she said it depends on the flawed assumption that the technology is available to make sharp cuts at every plant. She said such technology will not be ready for several years.

At a news briefing yesterday by several environmental groups, John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, contested Bergman's claim about the lack of available technology and said the real purpose of the rule is to invite litigation and "years and years and years of delay" in instituting mercury controls. "This is the most dishonest, dangerous and illegal rule I have ever seen come out of the EPA," he said.

Susan West Marmagas, environment and health program director at the group Physicians for Social Responsibility, said 630,000 babies each year in the United States are at risk of mercury toxicity and 1 in 12 American women who could become pregnant have heightened risk of mercury toxicity.

Bergman and Segal said that, contrary to the impression conveyed by environmentalists, global mercury emissions are responsible for the bulk of mercury toxicity in the United States -- meaning that pregnant women and children should limit their intake of certain types of fish, irrespective of what happens with mercury emission controls.

Felice Stadler, a policy specialist at the National Wildlife Foundation's Clean the Rain campaign, said that controlling fish consumption is indeed the right short-term approach but that strong mercury emissions controls could help protect millions of Americans who catch and eat fish every year.

Controversy Continues Over EPA Mercury Standards, BushGreenwatch, March 10, 2005

http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000247.php

This week, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the EPA analysis, on which the standards will be based, had distorted its analysis by failing to fully document the toxic impact of mercury on human brain development, learning ability and neurological functioning. The GAO called on EPA to correct its analysis before issuing a final rule.

Last month EPA's inspector general released a report asserting that EPA ignored both scientific evidence and agency protocols in order to set a timetable and standards consistent with the Bush Administration's desire to relieve coal-burning power plants of Clean Air Act requirements that such plants install the newest and best pollution control technology when they expand.

In the report by EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, EPA was charged with setting unrealistically low limits on mercury pollution and then working backwards to justify its upcoming rule.

As for the GAO report, EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman told the Washington Post that the final rule would include comparisons between the impacts as measured by EPA and the impacts measured by its critics. [1]

Environmentalists strenuously object to the Bush Administration's plan to use a cap-and-trade system for mercury pollution, in which an overall limit would be set, with individual plants trading pollution credits. Environmental health organizations argue that such a system has never been used when toxic chemicals are involved.

They say this would allow dangerous levels of pollution to continue to threaten populations both near the power plants and those downwind from the plants.

Mercury contamination of fish has become a serious enough problem that both the Food and Drug Administration and dozens of states have issued health advisories recommending that women of childbearing age reduce consumption of several types of fish, and that they refrain altogether from eating shark and swordfish.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6621-2005Mar4.html

If Johnson is confirmed by the Senate, as is expected, he will become the first professional scientist to head an agency that has become a flash point for controversy on such issues as global warming, pesticide safety and drilling for oil in the Arctic.

Johnson's agency is facing tough budget challenges and sustained accusations that its scientific mission has been undercut by political pressures. Former EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman cited such interference in her decision to quit, and a recent inspector general's report suggested that political operatives stampeded agency scientists into a plan for regulating mercury pollution that is biased toward industry interests.

Bush said Johnson would balance environmental concerns with economic imperatives: "His immediate task is to work with Congress to pass my Clear Skies initiative. . . . Congress needs to get it to my desk this year."

That legislation, which Republicans have been struggling in recent weeks to get out of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, is only one of the tough challenges ahead. Environmental advocates said Johnson had earned substantial goodwill but would need to prove he can keep politics out of the agency's scientific and regulatory activities.

"I can't say enough positive about him from the standpoint of his fairness and rigor and openness," said Kenneth Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has often clashed with the EPA -- and with Johnson. "The big question will be whether he will have the freedom to call 'em like he sees 'em, or whether there will be the kind of interference that Governor Whitman has written about."

In a break from Washington's usual climate of hostility over environmental issues, Johnson's appointment drew praise from groups as diverse as CropLife America, which represents the pesticide industry; the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which represents utilities; and environmental advocacy groups such as the National Environmental Trust and the League of Conservation Voters.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) said he hopes the appointment "will help repair and restore the credibility of the Bush administration's environmental record with the American public, Congress and the world." Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate committee debating Clear Skies, who has clashed with Jeffords, also welcomed the appointment and said he looks forward to working with Johnson. Both senators, along with Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), have been in tough negotiations over the Bush proposal.

Johnson is likely to find himself in this crossfire immediately. Carper said he congratulated Johnson on his nomination yesterday -- and demanded to know why the EPA had been slow to provide data that would allow comparisons between the Bush plan and alternatives. Carper said he does not think agreement on the initiative will be possible by Wednesday, when the committee, after numerous postponements, hopes to take action on the bill.

"There is obviously somebody constraining the provision of that information," Carper said in an interview. "We have been told for a couple of years that the hands of EPA have been tied by direction from the White House."

Bush's legislation seeks to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury, but Carper contends that its provisions do not go far enough fast enough and that they would weaken the 1990 Clean Air Act. The two sides are also far apart on whether the proposal should control carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

The EPA is expected to issue two regulations this month that would also control most of those pollutants, but the administration has made it clear it would prefer to see a legislative solution, because it would be less vulnerable to legal challenges. Fred Krupp, president of the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said the first test of Johnson's independence would be whether the EPA issued those rules; spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman said the rules are on the way.

Johnson has worked at the EPA for 24 years, most recently as acting administrator of the agency, which has more than 18,000 employees and a budget of $8.6 billion. His education in biology and pathology led to his taking on responsibilities involving the regulation of pesticides and toxic substances.

Many Washington insiders had expected James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, to take the job, and Johnson's appointment came as a surprise. But Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch, predicted that Connaughton might still decide policy.

"The real story is that on major issues, the decisions are going to be made directly by the White House," O'Donnell said. Johnson's appointment "is another sign that the EPA is, in effect, being downgraded to put a career guy there instead of a former governor," he said.

Whitman, a former governor of New Jersey, was succeeded by Mike Leavitt, former governor of Utah. Bush tapped Leavitt in December to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

An EPA economist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, said many staff members were relieved that Johnson had been chosen: "It will be good for morale, but people in the agency are skeptical about whether he is really going to be allowed to accomplish anything."

Those concerns were balanced by industry worries that Johnson might not be independent of his longtime colleagues, said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1512&printmode=true

Mar 4 - According to a study by researchers with the New York State Department of Health, nearly half of a survey population of low-income asthma patients in New York City experienced worsened symptoms after the September 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. The study analyzed the health impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks on asthma patients enrolled in Medicaid managed care, and sheds light on how low-income and minority communities might have been affected by the disaster with respect to both respiratory and mental health.

The findings, published in the latest issue of the Journal of Urban Health, corroborate previous studies on the public health ramifications of the collapse of the WTC, which released massive amounts of pulverized glass, cement particles and other irritants into the environment. Activists have charged that the government has failed to respond adequately to public health problems associated with the collapse, and they have demanded more comprehensive treatment measures and further research on the possible long-term effects of the environmental contamination.

Department of Health researchers analyzed over 3,600 responses to a mail survey administered in the summer of 2002. Of those surveyed, approximately 40 percent were black and an additional 40 percent were H