Senator Jefford's Floor Statements on Mercury Pollution

July 25, 2003

Senator Jeffords' Floor Statement on Mercury Pollution

Mr. President, I'd like to spend a few minutes expressing my concerns about a serious public health crisis that this country faces due to mercury pollution.

Perhaps some of you have heard of the small fishing community of Minamata Bay in Japan. If you know this village, you know also that it was nearly devastated by mercury pollution.

Over seventy years ago, a chemical plant began dumping mercury waste into that Bay. For the next thirty years, local citizens who depended heavily on the Bay for commerce and daily sustenance saw strange and debilitating health problems emerge.

At first, those eating fish out of the Bay began experiencing headaches, numbness, tremors, blurred vision, hearing loss, speech problems, spasms, and loss of consciousness. As fish consumption continued, more people became sick.

Plus, pets started becoming violent, and birds fell from the sky. Naturally, the public's panic grew.

Then, a generation of children was born with shriveled limbs and severe physical deformities. This woman here is one of the survivors of what was called, Minamata Disease.

In all, over nine hundred people died, and thousands more were crippled by the poisoning. The Japanese government, which discovered the cause of these illnesses as early as 1956, hid the truth from the ailing public, and refused to halt the industrial pollution. The dumping eventually stopped in 1968.

In other words, knowing this mercury pollution was deadly, the Japanese government allowed it to continue for another twelve years.

Surely such abandonment of the public's well-being would not happen today in our great country.

Surely our government would never delay protections from mercury pollution for a decade, while allowing industry to neglect its responsibilities.

Sadly, I am afraid this is exactly what is happening in our country today over half a century after the lessons of Minamata Bay.

Fortunately, we are not faced with the same concentration of mercury pollution as that Japanese fishing village so many years ago, where an estimated twenty-seven tons of mercury compounds were dumped into the Bay. Although U.S. power plants emit almost twice that amount into the air each year, it is dispersed broadly, resulting in lower concentrations in any one place.

Still, some estimates show that almost one hundred additional tons of this poison are emitted from other U.S. sources every year, bringing our air emissions total to almost one hundred and fifty tons of mercury pollution annually.

Furthermore, the principal route of human and wildlife exposure, namely, the consumption of poisoned fish, is the same in this country as it was in Minamata. And, it is occurring at often dangerous levels.

Power plants are the largest unregulated source of mercury in the country, emitting almost fifty tons each year into our air. To put this amount into perspective, just one-seventieth of a teaspoon of annual mercury deposition can make fish in a twenty-five acre lake unsafe to eat. Utilities, amazingly, are releasing enough mercury into our air every year to contaminate forty-five million lakes.

Medical and solid waste incinerators are also major mercury polluters, but they are regulated under the Clean Air Act. Because of these regulations, incinerators have reduced emissions by ninety-five percent in the last decade. Impressive. The Act also requires any residual risk posed by these sources to be reduced with further emissions cuts.

When utilities burn coal, they release much of its mercury content into the air. This mercury falls with the rain into lakes, streams, and the ocean. It then transforms into a toxic compound called methyl mercury that does not break down easily.

This toxic mercury is eaten by fish, and increases in concentration up the fish food chain as smaller fish are consumed by larger fish. Eventually, humans and other animals eat the fish, and the mercury too. Clearly, our consumption of larger fish can expose us to greater concentrations of mercury contamination than eating smaller fish. This cycle is depicted in the chart beside me.

The EPA estimates that although some atmospheric deposition of mercury in the U.S. is due to non-U.S. sources, sixty percent of what falls to earth in our country is due to our own emissions.

We should take responsibility for the fact that most of our mercury deposition comes from our own country. And, for those sources abroad that affect our nation's environment, I urge the Administration to negotiate a treaty quickly to control non-U.S. emissions.

Mercury contamination of fish in the U.S. has very harmful impacts on our wildlife and our health. In waterfowl such as loons, it interferes with vision and muscle coordination. It is toxic to their developing embryos and hinders reproduction. As a result, loon populations are declining, especially in the Adirondacks.

Other fish-eating wildlife like mink and otters are at risk as well.

In humans, once mercury is ingested it has the ability to enter our blood stream and cross the blood-brain barrier. Pregnant and nursing women then can pass the mercury on to developing fetuses and infants, who are at greatest risk for serious health problems.

The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that prenatal mercury exposure is linked to the following:

impaired memory and concentration,

the inability to process and recall information,

impaired visual and motor function,

attention and language deficits,

cerebral palsy,

mental retardation, and

other developmental effects.

These health effects are similar to those caused by lead poisoning. Indeed, mercury is very likely the next lead. As you know, Mr. President, we were able to find an effective solution to the lead problem relatively quickly. However, we can and should address mercury pollution even more swiftly and effectively. We have advanced technology that makes it possible and feasible now.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in twelve women of childbearing age has mercury levels above EPA's safe health threshold - due primarily to consumption of poisoned fish. This totals almost five million women, and results in almost three hundred thousand newborns with increased risk of nervous system damage from exposure in the womb.

EPA recommends that pregnant women, or women who may become pregnant, eat only one serving of fish each week, and adhere to any state advisories that may call for further prohibitions.

What many Americans may not realize is that all other healthy children and adults are also at risk if they consume a large amount of fish. This group includes recreational anglers like this boy here, some Native American tribes, Asian Americans, and the poor. A United Nations Environment Programme report has linked mercury exposure to heart, thyroid, and digestive problems in adults.

This is truly a widespread health crisis. Yet, despite the fact that these at-risk groups can face mercury exposures two to five times higher than the general population, they are often the least informed about the dangers of mercury consumption.

Today we rely on a hodge podge of state advisories to protect citizens from eating too much poisoned fish. Currently, forty-three states have advisories in effect. Forty-three states.

These advisories cover over twelve million acres of lakes, four hundred and fifty thousand miles of river, fifteen thousand miles of coast, and more.

Multi-state water bodies are often covered by inconsistent warnings, leading to confusion for anglers and consumers alike. Many states do not even monitor their own rivers and lakes.

Some state advisories are based on EPA's safety threshold, which has been deemed scientifically justifiable by the National Academy of Sciences. However, others are based on the FDA's weaker standard. EPA itself does not issue advisories, but it offers guidance to states.

The FDA is responsible for warning consumers about mercury contamination of commercially-available fish. However, FDA advisories are rarely posted where fish consumers can see them B at the grocery stores or fish markets. In fact, only this year did one state B California B require that stores begin posting warnings like this one.

This advisory says:

"Warning! ... Pregnant and nursing women, women who may become pregnant, and young children should not eat the following fish: swordfish, shark, king mackerel, and tilefish. They should also limit their consumption of other fish, including fresh or frozen tuna."

Shamefully, the FDA does not make public the information it has collected from fish safety testing. Plus, in 1998, it ceased its mercury monitoring program for shark, swordfish, and tuna, and now does only limited testing.

Does this seem like an adequate way to inform the public about the risks of fish consumption? The FDA must act now to better protect Americans.

The good news is that the Clean Air Act is designed to protect us from some sources of mercury pollution. The bad news is that this Administration seems determined to reverse or weaken such protections.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which I was proud to work on with the first President Bush, called on EPA to study the health and environmental impacts of mercury emissions from utilities by 1993.

Unfortunately, this vital study was not completed until the end of 1997.

The Amendments also ordered EPA to explore available technologies for their emission reduction potential, and to regulate mercury and other air toxics, if deemed appropriate and necessary by the Administrator.

Such a determination should have been made soon after release of the study, during the Clinton Administration. However, the Clinton EPA did not issue such a finding until December 2000.

EPA Administrator Carol Browner found that mercury regulation was, in fact, appropriate and necessary, given the results of the prior EPA's study. This kicked off the drafting of maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, standards for mercury.

However, because EPA missed deadlines in the Act to make that determination, environmentalists sued and obtained a settlement creating a schedule for the development of MACT standards.

Now, the second Bush EPA must propose mercury emission standards for utilities by this December, and finalize them by next December. These standards must be met by the end of 2007 at each unit.

EPA could expedite finalization of the standard to give industry more time to comply, but instead the Agency has opted for delays. I would also note that EPA is currently violating the Clean Air Act's schedule for air toxics controls for many other sources, sending millions more pounds of dangerous emissions into the air we breathe.

Mr. President, industry information shows that the technology exists today to reduce utility mercury emissions by ninety percent or more down to about five tons per year. Under MACT, the EPA should set its standard to match the capability of the best utility performers.

Not coincidentally, a ninety percent cut in utility mercury emissions is guaranteed in my bill, the Clean Power Act of 2003.
However, the current Bush Administration has proposed to derail EPA's mercury standard B in essence, to violate the intent of the Clean Air Act.

This Administration's multi-pollutant plan, called Clear Skies, does away with the Clean Air Act's technology standard for mercury. In its place, Clear Skies calls for weaker standards and a ten-year delay in their achievement.

Plus, EPA is prevented from using its existing authority to require further reductions if residual risk from utility air toxics remains a problem.

Could it be that the Administration is more interested in giving polluters a free ride than in protecting public health?

This harmful bias towards irresponsible industry is something we saw fifty years ago in Minamata Bay and we should have learned a lesson about its ill effects.

The Clear Skies polluter payoff does not aim for this five ton goal by 2008, but for fifteen tons in 2018 and on for eternity. As this chart shows, compared to a strict interpretation of what the Clean Air Act could do for our health, this rollback totals five hundred and twenty percent more toxic mercury in our environment and on our dinner tables before 2018, and three hundred percent more mercury after 2018.

Why would we pass this risk on to our children? I have to believe that no compassionate parent- or grandparent-to-be would knowingly do that.

EPA has thoroughly studied the mercury threat and devised an adequate health threshold B which has been supported by the NAS. The Agency must follow through with the law of the land and cut mercury emissions from utilities now. In fact, this Administration does not have the authority to do any less. We in Congress must not and cannot in good conscience give them that authority through the Clear Skies rollback.

If any of my colleagues doubt the potential benefits of the current Clean Air Act, I suggest they ask this Administration for its long overdue economic analysis of today's best technologies B what the Act would require utilities to install.

My colleagues should know that they won't get an honest, fair, or timely response, because that response would show that, by comparison, Clear Skies is just a license to keep sending uncontrolled mercury into our air.

It is hard for me to grasp why any Administration would want to keep Congress and the public in the dark about the real benefits of the Clean Air Act. Could it be that this Administration wants to distort the perceived benefits of any proposed changes?

To make matters worse, in a recent hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee, an official from the Council of Economic Advisors suggested that the Administration now wants Congress to modify the mercury cap in their air pollution giveaway to make it even less protective.

Instead of capping mercury at twenty-six tons in 2010, the Administration would like us to consider a cap as high as forty-six tons.

This is an outrage. Utilities today emit about forty-eight tons of toxic mercury every year. So, the modified Clear Skies cap would mean only more inaction.

Candidate George W. Bush started with a four-pollutant bill, then dropped carbon in 2001 to get to three pollutants. Now, his Administration is more or less admitting they support merely a two-pollutant bill. Is that what they consider progress?

Why on earth would we allow them to go forward with this plan?

The scientific evidence about the dangers of mercury exposure mounts annually. The technologies exist today to dramatically reduce emissions and the associated risk. To do otherwise abdicates the Administration's and our responsibility to protect public health.

We have a vital choice to make in Congress this year. Either we uphold the law as written in the Clean Air Act, or we shut our eyes while the pollution and damage to our health and environment goes on.

The delays and distortion must stop. This is not the 1950s, as much as the Administration would like it to be. I have no doubt there will be misguided efforts to stall the mercury standards, which are already late. I promise that I will keep a watchful eye. But I urge all mothers and fathers to pay heed as well your children's and grandchildren's health hangs in the balance.

I have my own health advisory to post on the walls of Congress today: This Administration appears less interested in protecting mothers and children from mercury poisoning, and more interested in protecting the polluters' bottom line. This may explain why they are trying to replace current law with Clear Skies.