[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: November 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  SENATE RESOLUTION 287--TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING 
                 REGULATION OF MERCURY HAZARDOUS WASTE

  Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Jeffords) submitted 
the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works:

                              S. Res. 287

       Whereas there has been a 2- to 3-fold global increase in 
     mercury in the environment since the 1850's, increases of 3.4 
     times have been found in wilderness areas of the United 
     States, and much higher increases have been found in 
     developed areas of the United States;
       Whereas mercury is truly a national and international 
     concern because mercury is atmospherically transported 
     indiscriminately across political boundaries;
       Whereas mercury poses a serious and growing public health 
     and environmental problem even when released in minute 
     quantities;
       Whereas mercury presents particular problems in aquatic 
     systems where mercury bioaccumulates;
       Whereas human consumption advisories have been issued in at 
     least 34 States because of the high level of mercury 
     contamination in fish, resulting in losses to the tourism and 
     fishing industries and related activities;
       Whereas atmospheric deposition resulting from human 
     activities, including waste disposal, contributes most of the 
     mercury loading to the environment;
       Whereas numerous studies have indicated that mercury-
     containing lamps will soon become the largest contributor of 
     mercury to municipal waste streams in the United States;
       Whereas the United States, through the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, is working cooperatively within the 
     international community to reduce global risks of mercury in 
     the environment;
       Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency is already 
     actively supporting efforts to virtually eliminate releases 
     of mercury in the Great Lakes Region; and
       Whereas the waste management priorities of the United 
     States encourage recycling before waste disposal: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Environmental Protection Agency should not exempt mercury 
     hazardous wastes from hazardous waste regulation but instead 
     should adopt waste management policies and rules that seek to 
     minimize all releases of mercury into the environment while 
     encouraging the recycling of mercury-containing fluorescent 
     lamps and other mercury-containing devices.
                                  ____

       Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I would like to draw 
     the Senate's attention to something that is going on at the 
     Environmental Protection Agency that is of great concern to 
     many of our House and Senate colleagues and myself. As one of 
     two alternatives, the EPA has proposed to allow light bulbs 
     containing a highly toxic material to be dumped in regular 
     solid waste landfills. That material is mercury.
       Now let me just state for the record that mercury is the 
     target of major effluent reduction efforts. In the Great 
     Lakes Region, mercury has been labelled a ``Critical 
     Pollutant.'' In October 1993, the Regional Administrator for 
     EPA Region 5 wrote EPA headquarters opposing this proposal. 
     There are now at least 34 states that have issued fish 
     consumption advisories because mercury contamination is 
     evident in the food chain.
       So why is EPA now proposing to grant an exemption for 
     mercury-containing light bulbs from EPA's own hazardous waste 
     rules? What is special about these products? Under EPA's own 
     protocol, these bulbs qualify as hazardous waste, so why 
     would EPA propose to let them be dumped in regular solid 
     waste landfills and not be handled as other hazardous wastes 
     are?
       Not surprisingly, General Electric (GE) and the National 
     Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) are strongly 
     supportive of EPA's deregulation proposal. It would save GE's 
     commercial customers from having to add the cost of 
     environmentally sound disposal into their light-bulb buying 
     budget's.
       Mercury contamination is a major problem in my home state 
     of Minnesota. We are lucky to have thousands of fresh-water 
     lakes, with some of the best fishing in the country. In many 
     of our lakes, you can drink the water. But don't eat too many 
     of the fish. They tell you when you go to the Boundary Waters 
     Canoe Area Wilderness that in some lakes you should limit the 
     number of fish you eat over a certain size. The bigger, older 
     fish tend to have a greater accumulation of mercury.
       So in Minnesota we take mercury, and the products that 
     contain mercury, very seriously. We have a thriving recycling 
     industry that collects our mercury-containing light bulbs. We 
     are trying to keep mercury out of our waste stream.
       But mercury pollution, caused when mercury evaporates and 
     is carried in the air, does not respect state boundaries. 
     That is why we have a federal environmental agency: to set 
     minimum standards to address a national and global problem. 
     Each state benefits from the positive environmental 
     practices of other states, and when the EPA removes a 
     nationwide protection, even the states with the best 
     protections will suffer. If EPA deregulates mercury-
     containing light bulbs, my state of Minnesota--and perhaps 
     the states of some of my colleagues, too--will be harmed.
       Now, in EPA's two-part proposed rule, the agency also 
     provides an alternative to exempting mercury-containing light 
     bulbs from hazardous waste regulations. That alternative is 
     to include these bulbs in the ``universal waste rule.'' In a 
     nutshell, the universal waste rule was designed to address 
     the problem of regulating widely used household items that 
     qualify as hazardous waste. The scheme entails a 
     significantly lower burden on generators of the waste, while 
     still encouraging recycling and keeping the products out of 
     the municipal solid waste stream.
       We are doing something like this in Minnesota, and it is 
     working well. Taking a cue from Minnesota, the EPA ought to 
     choose the universal waste rule option.
       Today I am submitting, along with Senators Leahy and 
     Jeffords, a resolution stating that it is the Senate's view 
     that EPA ought not to exempt mercury-containing hazardous 
     wastes from hazardous waste regulations. Rather, EPA ought to 
     adopt waste management policies that seek to minimize all 
     releases of mercury into the environment while encouraging 
     the recycling of mercury-containing products. On Tuesday, my 
     colleague Representative Sabo submitted a similar resolution 
     in the House.
       Over 20 Members of the House and Senate have signed a 
     letter transmitting comments on the EPA's proposed rule to 
     EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I ask unanimous consent that 
     this letter be printed in the Record.
       Obviously, the Senate will not have time to act on this 
     resolution before adjournment. The purpose of submitting the 
     resolution is to draw my colleagues' attention to the issue. 
     Many of us are opposed to the exemption option, and we want 
     to say that loud and clear. Our comments have been sent to 
     the agency. We will be watching this matter very closely and 
     expect to revisit it next year.

  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                Congress of the United States,

                                                November 29, 1994.
     RE: Comments on EPA Docket No. F-94-FLEP-FFFFF
     Hon. Carol M. Browner,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Browner: In the Federal Register of July 
     27,1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 38,288), the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) proposed two regulatory alternatives, one of 
     which would worsen the already serious mercury environmental 
     and public health problem in this country.
       We are writing to express our strong opposition to one of 
     those alternatives: EPA's proposal to exempt mercury-
     containing lamps from hazardous waste regulations. The 
     exemption would allow over 500 million hazardous waste lamps 
     to be disposed into solid waste landfills each year and would 
     perpetuate uncontrolled releases of mercury into the 
     environment.
       We believe that such a proposed exemption is inconsistent 
     with both national policies and global efforts to reduce 
     risks from mercury. Instead, we urge EPA to adopt the 
     ``universal waste'' alternative, designed to streamline the 
     regulations to foster proper hazardous waste management, 
     including recycling, while maintaining important 
     environmental safeguards for mercury.
       Mercury poses a serious and growing public health and 
     environmental problem even when released into the environment 
     in extremely small quantities. This is especially true in 
     aquatic systems, where mercury bioaccumulates. For example, 
     at least 34 states have issued human consumption advisories 
     or consumption bans because of unacceptable levels of mercury 
     in freshwater fish.
       Mercury is truly a national and international concern 
     because it is atmospherically transported indiscriminately 
     across political boundaries. Therefore, states with more 
     stringent environmental requirements cannot prevent mercury 
     releases from outside their borders from contaminating their 
     waters. Without the adoption of national regulations, states 
     will continue to experience public health and environmental 
     problems and losses in their tourism and fishing industries.
       We believe that is would be irresponsible for EPA to exempt 
     lamps from the hazardous waste regulations because of the 
     detrimental environmental impacts of mercury. Furthermore, 
     the municipal solid waste regulatory system is not designed 
     to prevent releases of mercury into the air and water, and 
     wastewater treatment facilities are not designed adequately 
     to treat and dispose of mercury in landfill leachate. In 
     addition, land-spreading of leachate is a common practice 
     which also results in dispersion of mercury to the 
     environment.
       It is our strong belief that such an exemption by EPA for a 
     waste determined hazardous by EPA's own testing protocol 
     would set an extremely bad precedent. It would also send out 
     the wrong message to the general population that uncontrolled 
     releases of mercury into the environment are not a 
     significant problem. In addition, the exemption alternative 
     would greatly discourage lamp recycling, since disposal in 
     solid waste landfills would be by far the least costly 
     disposal option. Further, the exemption alternative would be 
     a disincentive for manufacturers to reduce the amount of 
     mercury in lamps.
       However, experience in states with lamp management 
     regulations demonstrates that universal waster-type 
     management requirements for spent mercury-containing lamps 
     result in significant increases in lamp recycling, create 
     awareness about the health, safety and environmental concerns 
     related to mercury, produce new jobs and do not diminish 
     relamping under EPA's Green Lights'' programs. In addition, 
     EPA's own data show that the cost of either lamp recycling or 
     hazardous waste management represents only a small percentage 
     of the total cost of relamping and that relamping under the 
     universal waste option would continue to be extremely cost-
     effective.
       Clearly, choosing the universal waste option for managing 
     lamps would support both our national waste management 
     priorities and pollution prevention policies and would remain 
     consistent with current EPA activities designed to minimize 
     or eliminate mercury pollution. At the same time, adopting 
     the universal waste option for lamp management would uphold 
     the United States' commitment to international efforts to 
     reduce uncontrolled releases of mercury and global risks from 
     mercury.
       We urge the EPA to choose the universal waste option in 
     promulgating its final rule on mercury, containing lamp 
     regulation. The exemption alternative is not supportable on 
     environmental grounds and should not be adopted.
           Sincerely,
         Paul D. Wellstone, Patrick J. Leahy, David Pryor, Martin 
           O. Sabo, Charlie Rose, James Jeffords, Dale Bumpers, 
           Russ Feingold, Esteban E. Torres, Bruce F. Vento.
         Joe Moakley, Bern Sanders, James L. Oberstar, John Lewis, 
           Gerry E. Studds, Wayne T. Gilchrest, David R. Obey, Ed 
           Markey, Henry A. Waxman.
         Tony Beilenson, David Skaggs, Eric Fingerhut, John W. 
           Olver, Ron Wyden, Edward M. Kennedy, Carl Levin, Daniel 
           Moynihan, Bill Richardson.

                          ____________________