A long-suppressed Washington Department of Ecology study on
the nature and extent of mercury contamination in state landfills is finally
seeing the light of day. Released today by Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER), the 2003 report finds that mercury concentrations are
“wide ranging” in sampled sites and calls for additional testing
that has never occurred.
“Ecology has been sitting on this report for two years while critical
policy decisions about mercury were debated,” stated Washington PEER Director
TJ Johnson, noting that the report would have aided the Legislature’s
consideration of a mercury switch removal bill and the public comments on Ecology’s
Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics strategy. “More disturbingly, Ecology
has not followed through on even the timid recommendations made by its own study.”
PEER has been quite critical of Ecology’s mercury study because the agency
–
- Sampled only those sites that volunteered to participate in the study,
despite clear legal authority to sample any site suspected of contributing
mercury to the environment
- Made illegal confidentiality agreements with the landfills that volunteered
to be sampled. On advice of the state Attorney General, Ecology later retracted
the agreements, but the final report does not identify any sampled sites by
name; and
- Participating landfills were offered advance review of the findings, while
other parties, including Ecology’s own Mercury Advisory Committee, were
not.
Even though Ecology spent approximately $50,000 of taxpayer dollars on the
report, it has still, more than two years after its July 2003 completion, yet
to be officially released.
Concerned employees from the Department of Ecology contacted Washington PEER
to complain that the agency was refusing to create clear guidance as to the
circumstances under which it will exclude regulated sites from scientific studies
as well as to when confidentiality will be offered to the regulated community.
In addition, Ecology scientists are reluctant to raise challenges for fear of
being targeted by management.
“In the Department of Ecology, employees cannot voice honest scientific
opinions without fear of retribution,” Johnson added. “Transparency
in environmental regulation is one area where Ecology has lots of room to improve.
How can Ecology ensure the protection of public health when their best scientists
are not given the opportunity to weigh in on important public policy issues?