Peggy,

Thanks for sharing this.  This is a truly moving and inspiring letter, and a
truly moving and inspiring action on Eric Schaeffer's part.  Good to know
about it.  I wish Eric well in whatever he chooses to do next.

Patrick Bosold

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peggy Murdock" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: Resignation letter of EPA Official


> This is the resignation letter of Eric V. Schaeffer, Director of EPA's
> Office of Regulatory Enforcement
>
>
> February 27, 2002
> Christine Whitman
> Administrator
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
> 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20004
> Dear Ms. Whitman:
> I resign today from the Environmental Protection Agency after twelve
> years of service, the last five as Director of the Office of Regulatory
> Enforcement. I am grateful for the opportunities I have been given, and
> leave with a deep admiration for the men and women of EPA who dedicate
> their
> lives to protecting the environment and the public health. Their faith in
> the Agency¹s mission is an inspiring example to those who still believe
> that
> government should stand for the public interest.
> But I cannot leave without sharing my frustration about the fate of our
> enforcement actions against power companies that have violated the Clean
> Air
> Act. Between November of 1999 and December of 2000, EPA filed lawsuits
> against 9 power companies for expanding their plants, without obtaining
New
> Source Review permits and the up to date pollution controls required by
> law.
> The companies named in our lawsuits emit an incredible 5.0 million tons of
> sulfur dioxide every year (a quarter of the emissions in the entire
> country)
> as well as 2 million tons of nitrogen oxide.
> As the scale of pollution from these coal-fired smokestacks is immense,
> so is the damage to public health. Data supplied to the Senate Environment
> Committee by EPA last year estimate the annual health bill from 7 million
> tons of SO2 and NO2: more than 10,800 premature deaths; at least 5,400
> incidents of chronic bronchitis; more than 5,100 hospital emergency
visits;
> and over 1.5 million lost work days. Add to that severe damage to our
> natural resources, as acid rain attacks soils and plants, and deposits
> nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay and other critical bodies of water.
> Fifteen months ago, it looked as though our lawsuits were going to
> shrink these dismal statistics, when EPA publicly announced agreements
with
> Cinergy and Vepco to reduce Sox and Nox emissions by a combined 750,000
> tons
> per year. Settlements already lodged with two other companies ­ TECO and
> PSE&G ­ will eventually take another quarter million tons of Nox and
> Sox out of the air annually. If we get similar results from the 9
> companies
> with filed complaints, we are on track to reduce both pollutants by a
> combined 4.8 million tons per year. And that does not count the hundreds
> of
> thousands of additional tons that can be obtained from other companies
with
> whom we have been negotiating.
> Yet today, we seem about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We
> are in the 9th month of a "90 day review" to reexamine the law, and
> fighting
> a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to
> enforce. It is hard to know which is worse, the endless delay or the
> repeated leaks by energy industry lobbyists of draft rule changes that
> would
> undermine lawsuits already filed. At their heart, these proposals would
> turn narrow exemptions into larger loopholes that would allow old
> "grandfathered" plants to be continually rebuilt (and emissions to
> increase)
> without modern pollution controls.
> Our negotiating position is weakened further by the Administration¹s
> budget proposal to cut the civil enforcement program by more than 200
staff
> positions below the 2001 level. Already, we are unable to fill key staff
> positions, not only in air enforcement, but in other critical programs,
and
> the proposed budget cuts would leave us desperately short of the resources
> needed to deal with the large, sophisticated corporate defendants we face.
> And it is completely unrealistic to expect underfunded state environmental
> programs, facing their own budget cuts, to take up the slack.
> It is no longer possible to pretend that the ongoing debate with the
> White House and Department of Energy is not effecting our ability to
> negotiate settlements. Cinergy and Vepco have refused to sign the consent
> decrees they agreed to 15 months ago, hedging their bets while waiting for
> the Administration¹s Clean Air Act reform proposals. Other companies with
> whom we were close to settlement have walked away from the table. The
> momentum we obtained with agreements announced earlier has stopped, and we
> have filed no new lawsuits against utility companies since this
> Administration took office. We obviously cannot settle cases with
> defendants who think we are still rewriting the law.
> The arguments against sustaining our enforcement actions don¹t hold up
> to scrutiny.
> Were the complaints filed by the U.S. government based on conflicting
> or
> changing interpretations? The Justice Department doesn¹t think so. Its
> review of our enforcement actions found EPA¹s interpretation of the law to
> be reasonable and consistent. While the Justice Department has gamely
> insisted it will continue to prosecute existing cases, the confusion over
> where EPA is going with New Source Review has made settlement almost
> impossible, and protracted litigation inevitable.
> What about the energy crisis? It stubbornly refuses to materialize, as
> experts predict a glut of power plants in some areas of the U.S. In any
> case, our settlements are flexible enough to provide for cleaner air while
> protecting consumers from rate shock.
> The relative costs and benefits? EPA¹s regulatory impact analyses,
> reviewed by OMB, quantify health and environmental benefits of $7,300 per
> ton of SO2 reduced at a cost of less than $1,000 per ton. These cases
> should be supported by anyone who thinks cost-benefit analysis is a
serious
> tool for decision-making, not a political game.
> Is the law too complicated to understand? Most of the projects our
> cases targeted involved big expansion projects that pushed emission
> increases many times over the limits allowed by law.
> Should we try to fix the problem by passing a new law? Assuming the
> Administration¹s bill survives a legislative odyssey in today¹s evenly
> divided Congress, it will send us right back where we started with new
> rules
> to write, which will then be delayed by industry challenges, and with
fewer
> emissions reductions than we can get by enforcing today¹s law.
> I believe you share the concerns I have expressed, and wish you well
> in
> your efforts to persuade the Administration to put our enforcement actions
> back on course. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and our greatest
> environmental President, said, "Compliance with the law is demanded as a
> right, not asked as a favor." By showing that powerful utility interests
> are not exempt from that principle, you will prove to EPA¹s staff that
> their
> faith in the Agency¹s mission is not in vain. And you will leave the
> American public with an environmental victory that will be felt for
> generations to come.
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Eric V. Schaeffer, Director
> Office of Regulatory Enforcement
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
> [log in to unmask]
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]