[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19599-19601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           MERCURY POLLUTION

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will 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 70 years ago, a chemical plant began dumping mercury waste into 
that bay. For the next 30 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. The woman in this photograph 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 12 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 27 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.
  Some estimates show that almost 100 additional tons of this poison 
are emitted from other U.S. sources every year, bringing our air 
emissions total to almost 150 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. It is occurring at often dangerous levels.
  Power plants are the largest unregulated source of mercury in the 
country, emitting almost 50 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 25 acre lake unsafe to eat. 
Utilities, amazingly, are releasing enough mercury into our air every 
year to contaminate 45 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 95 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, as this chart shows.
  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 United States is due to non-U.S. sources, 60 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 United States 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

[[Page 19600]]

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. 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 1 
in 12 women of childbearing age has mercury levels above EPA's safe 
health threshold, due primarily to consumption of poisoned fish. This 
totals almost 5 million women, and results in almost 300,000 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, 43 States have 
advisories in effect.
  These advisories cover over 12 million acres of lakes, 450,000 miles 
of river, 15,000 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 EPA'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, at the grocery 
stores or fish markets. In fact, only this year did one State, 
California, 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 90 percent or more--down 
to about 5 tons per year. Under MACT, the EPA should set its standard 
to match the capability of the best utility performers.
  Not coincidentally, a 90 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--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 10-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 
50 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 15 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 520 percent more toxic 
mercury in our environment and on our dinner tables before 2018, and 
300 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--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--

[[Page 19601]]

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 the 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 46 tons.
  This is an outrage. Utilities today emit about 48 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 2-
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 in 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: 
The 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my remarks be as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________