EPA omitted conflicting study from new mercury regulations

[JURIST] In issuing new mercury emissions regulations [JURIST report] last week, the Environmental Protection Agency [official website] failed to include conflicting data from a study sponsored by the agency, the Washington Post reported Tuesday. EPA officials emphasized that the mercury regulations could not be more stringent because the costs to businesses already substantially outweighed health benefits. However, a Harvard University study funded by the EPA and co-authored by an EPA scientist found that the health benefits could far exceed the costs of the proposed regulation. The study found health benefits could save $5 billion annually, while the EPA concluded savings would only reach $50 million per year. An EPA staff member said that agency officials had ordered the study removed from consideration. EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland said the study was not considered because it had not been submitted in time, but documents showed the study was received by the Jan. 3 deadline. The EPA has more on the new mercury rule. The Washington Post has more [registration required].



 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.