Pressure to Release Mercury Report Rises

BOSTON — The six New England states are pressuring the Environmental Protection Agency to release a long-overdue report on mercury contamination in the nation’s air and waters.

By some estimates, the presence of mercury--which can damage the brain, kidneys and nervous system when ingested--has tripled in the nation’s environment over the last century. Knowing all the facts would help the region stem rising mercury levels in the air, lakes, forests, rivers and ocean, lawmakers said.

It also would prevent premature decisions based on outdated science, they said.

The report was completed nearly 18 months ago but still hasn’t been sent to Congress as required by the Clean Air Act.

Some lawmakers charge that special interests, particularly utilities and fishermen, have squelched the report out of fear that it will create a mercury scare among regulators and consumers.

“Some individuals are said to be understandably concerned that public reaction to the report will cause a panicked reduction in the consumption of finned fish,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. James Jeffords (R-Vt.) wrote in a May 9 letter to President Clinton. “Others are obviously motivated by fear that escalating concerns over mercury will trigger new and more rigorous regulation.

“The evidence suggests that this report is being delayed precisely because it is good science,” the senators said.

Environmental commissioners from the six New England states also have written the EPA asking it to release the report.

The report, required by the 1990 Clean Air Act, was overdue when completed in December 1995. Then it was sent to an independent scientific review panel instead of Congress.

That Science Advisory Board informally approved it in February. An EPA spokesman said May 13 that the agency is including the panel’s recommendations and will submit the report to Congress by the end of the year.

An October 1996 letter by an EPA official to interested parties said the report was delayed to incorporate data from ongoing studies of mercury contamination in children of the Seychelles and Faroe Islands.

Utilities emit mercury through their burning of coal and oil, with the contaminant returning earthward through precipitation. Those emissions could increase if utility deregulation leads to more coal-fired power plants.

A utility lobbying group said it opposed the draft EPA report because it excluded mercury emissions from natural sources, overestimated them from oil-fired boilers and relied on 20-year-old data to predict human health effects.

The Edison Electric Institute, whose members generate more than 75% of the power in the United States, also said mercury in the environment has decreased by up to three times over the last several decades because of recycling and its removal from products like household batteries.

“Our feeling about the mercury report in the draft version is that they were not using the most appropriate and relevant science to date,” said institute spokeswoman Linda Schoumacher.

Of particular importance to New Englanders is the issue of mercury contamination in fish. The risk with mercury is that it accumulates in fish and then travels up the food chain in larger amounts.

The six New England states have issued fish consumption advisories for the general population, with additional restrictions for pregnant women, young children and nursing mothers.

“Mercury has been found at levels of concern in fish everywhere in New England,” the EPA said in its annual report on the New England environment.

One gram of mercury in a 20-acre water body is enough to trigger an advisory. A teaspoon can hold 70 grams.

The EPA also said New England loons have higher mercury levels than loons from other regions “because of the elevated levels in many New England lakes and rivers.”

The National Marine Fisheries Service criticized the draft report in November 1995 because EPA’s “premature” conclusions could cause the public to “become unduly alarmed and perceive the report as recommending against the consumption of fish.”

But the fisheries service said May 13 that it had reviewed an April 1996 draft that addressed those concerns using the Seychelles and Faroe Islands studies.

“There’s nothing there that should alarm the public,” said Malcolm Meaburn, who reviewed the report for the service.