Mercury in Products and Waste: Legislative and Regulatory Activities to Control Mercury

Order Code RL31908

Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Mercury in Products and Waste: Legislative and

Regulatory Activities to Control Mercury

May 12, 2003

Linda G. Luther

Environmental Policy Analyst

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Mercury in Products and Waste: Legislative and

Regulatory Activities to Control Mercury

Summary

Mercury is a highly volatile, naturally-occurring element. It is a potent

neurotoxin that can cause brain, lung, and kidney damage. Mercury also has

properties that make it useful in a variety of household, medical, and industrial

products and processes. It is a component in such products as thermometers,

flourescent lamps, electrical switches, dental fillings, and batteries. This report

discusses the health effects of mercury, how it is released into the environment, and

current federal and state activities and recent legislative activity in Congress to

control mercury releases into the environment.

Human-related activities have significantly changed the natural distribution of

mercury in the environment. For example, mercury is released during manufacturing

processes or when mercury-containing products are ultimately discarded as waste.

Significant sources of mercury include coal-burning power plants, cement

manufacturing operations, and the incineration of municipal, hazardous, and medical

wastes. (For a discussion of air emissions of mercury, see CRS Report RL31881.)

After mercury vapors enter the air, they are ultimately converted to the highly

toxic methylmercury. Exposure to methylmercury can cause a wide array of health

problems, including damage to the brain and central nervous system. Potential

sources of human exposure to mercury include eating fish or shellfish contaminated

with methylmercury, breathing mercury vapor from spills or a contaminated

workplace, or absorbing mercury through dental work.

Both federal and state regulations govern the use of mercury in products and

manufacturing processes. Federal regulation is done under the authority of several

statutes and multiple agencies. Regulations are intended to control releases of

mercury to the environment, reduce or eliminate the use of mercury in products, or

specify disposal requirements. Also, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) has established voluntary efforts and education outreach programs aimed at

reducing the use of mercury in products and manufacturing processes and at better

managing mercury-containing wastes.

Recent legislative activity by states has gone beyond the health-based criteria

associated with the use or disposal of particular products. Instead, many states are

trying to reduce the problems associated with mercury by restricting its use

altogether. For example, some states have banned mercury use or required warning

labels on certain mercury-containing products. Some states have also implemented

recycling or disposal requirements for certain types of mercury-containing products.

Recent legislative activity at the federal level has mirrored activities undertaken

by many states. Bills introduced in the 108th Congress seek to reduce the use of

mercury in such products as thermometers, lighting products, and dental fillings, and

to provide warning labels on mercury-containing products. Legislation has also been

proposed requiring that mercury-containing waste be removed from the waste stream

before incineration. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Contents

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Health Effects of Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Mercury in Products and Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Federal and State Regulation of Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Federal Regulation of Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

State Actions to Control Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recent Legislative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Legislation Aimed at Protecting Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Legislation Aimed at Reducing Mercury in Products or Waste . . . . . . 10

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected Health Effects of Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 2. Federal Regulation of Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 3. Summary of Selected State Actions to Control Mercury . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Mercury in Products and Waste: Legislative

and Regulatory Activities to Control Mercury

Background

Mercury is a highly volatile, naturally-occurring element. It is a potent

neurotoxin that can cause brain, lung, and kidney damage. Mercury exists in three

forms: elemental (metallic), organic, and inorganic. All forms of mercury are toxic,

but the degree to which it is toxic to humans depends on the form it takes. This

report discusses the health effects of mercury, how it is released into the

environment, and current federal and state activities and recent legislative activity in

Congress to control mercury releases into the environment.

Elemental mercury is distributed throughout the environment naturally by such

processes as volcanic activity, movement of rivers, lakes, and streams, and biological

processes. Since the industrial revolution, the distribution of mercury has changed

significantly due to human-related (anthropogenic) activities. For example,

elemental mercury is used in manufacturing processes, such as the production of

chlorine gas and caustic soda (known as chlor-alkali production). It may also be an

added ingredient in detonating devices, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, blood pressure

devices, electrical switches, thermometers, fluorescent lights, dental fillings, and

batteries. During such processes, the use or accidental spill of mercury allows it to

vaporize. Once it is released into the atmosphere, elemental mercury may undergo

a photochemical reaction that transforms it into inorganic mercury.

Inorganic mercury vapors are introduced to the environment through additional

anthropogenic sources, such as, coal-burning power plants, mining operations,

cement manufacturing operations, and the incineration of municipal, hazardous, and

medical wastes. Inorganic mercury may also migrate to water or soil after mercurycontaining wastes are disposed of on land.

When airborne, inorganic mercury is eventually deposited on land or into water,

where it may be transformed into the highly toxic organic form, methylmercury.

This process, which is not completely understood, is known as methylation.

Methylation is a microbial process controlled by certain bacteria and enhanced by

chemical and environmental variables, such as the presence of organic matter and

oxygen.1 Methylmercury poses a particular risk because it concentrates in animal

tissue as it moves up the food chain, a process known as bioaccumulation.

1

Mark E. Brigham, David P. Krabbenhoft, and Pixie A. Hamilton, “Mercury in Stream

Ecosystems-New Studies Initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey,” U.S. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2003.

CRS-2

Health Effects of Mercury. The health effects of mercury on humans

depend on the form of mercury and the intensity and length of time of exposure.2

Humans may be exposed to mercury by breathing its vapors, through ingestion, or by

absorption through the skin. The nervous system is sensitive to all forms of mercury.

Exposure to elemental mercury vapors and to methlymercury is more harmful than

others because the mercury in these forms is capable of reaching the brain and

potentially causing permanent damage.3 Selected health effects of mercury, specific

to each form, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected Health Effects of Mercury

Mercury Type

Primary

Exposure Route

Health Impacts

Elemental

Vapor inhalation and

absorption through the

lungs; readily enters the

bloodstream and crosses

the blood-brain barrier

Short-term exposure to high levels

can damage the lungs, long-term

exposure to low levels can cause

neurological damage.

Inorganic

Ingestion and absorption

through the gastrointestinal

tract

Potentially toxic to the kidneys;

neurological and behavioral

disorders possible.

Organic

(Methylmercury)

Ingestion and rapid and

extensive absorption

through the gastrointestinal

tract; readily enters the

bloodstream and crosses

the blood-brain barrier

Highly toxic and potentially

damaging to the nervous system,

especially in the developing

nervous system of a fetus or child

under six.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data from the U.S.

Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention and from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

December 1997 “Mercury Study Report to Congress.”

Human exposure to mercury would likely come from one or more of the

following sources:

! Eating fish or shellfish contaminated with methylmercury;

! Breathing vapor from mercury spills (e.g., from broken fever thermometers)

or contaminated workplace air (e.g., dental or health services industries that

use mercury-containing devices or chlor-alkali plants); and

! Absorbing mercury through dental work or medical treatments.

2

“Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,” U.S. Health

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2003, available

online at [http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/metals/index.htm].

3

U.S. Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry “ToxFAQs” on Mercury, April 1999.

CRS-3

Mercury in Products and Waste. Mercury conducts electricity, is liquid

at room temperature, combines easily with other metals, and expands and contracts

evenly with temperature changes. These properties make mercury useful in a variety

of household, medical, and industrial products and processes. For example, mercury

is an added component in electrical switches, thermostats, cosmetics,

pharmaceuticals, dental amalgams, scientific instruments, thermometers, and mercury

vapor lamps (e.g., fluorescent or high intensity discharge lamps). In 2001,

manufacturers within the United States used between 200 and 300 metric tons of

mercury as part of their manufacturing processes or to create products that rely on

mercury’s properties.4

While coal-fired power plants are the greatest single source of air emissions of

mercury, significant mercury releases to air, land, and water are also attributed to the

use of mercury in products and manufacturing processes. In such cases, mercury is

released during manufacturing, either from processes where the mercury is exposed

to air or when mercury-containing products are broken while in use. Mercury

releases also occur when mercury-containing products are ultimately discarded as

waste, either through land disposal or incineration. (For a discussion of air emissions

of mercury, see CRS Report RL31881, “Mercury Emissions to the Air: Background

and Legislative Proposals.”)

Currently there are limited choices for the management of mercury-containing

wastes. Essentially, it can be incinerated, disposed of or stored long-term on land,

or recycled. Each option ultimately returns the mercury to the environment. As an

element, it does not degrade and cannot be eliminated from the waste cycle once it

is introduced. It can only change forms.

Federal and State Regulation of Mercury

Both federal and state regulations govern the use of mercury in products and

manufacturing processes. Those requirements regulate mercury either directly or

indirectly.5 Regulations with a “direct” impact on mercury involve restrictions or

requirements related to the use or release of mercury in products or manufacturing

processes. For example, the regulations promulgated under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 321) established handling and

disposal requirements for mercury-containing wastes.

The “indirect” regulation of mercury is achieved through setting health and riskbased environmental standards. Environmental standards specify maximum

acceptable mercury concentration limits for certain media. Mercury limits that have

been established include those for groundwater and drinking water, fish tissue, and

mercury-containing waste disposed of in landfills. Standards indirectly regulate

mercury because they do not specify how a certain limit must be achieved. For

4

U.S. EPA’s “2002 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy -Annual Progress Report 2002,”

released in March 2003.

5

This delineation of regulatory categories is discussed by EPA in its report “Background

Information on Mercury Sources and Regulations,” available online at

[http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/mercsrce/mercreg.html], undated.

CRS-4

example, the maximum contaminant level for mercury in drinking water, established

under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f), is .002 milligrams per liter.6

It is left up to public water systems to determine how they will reduce mercury

concentrations if they are above this level.

Federal Regulation of Mercury. Federal regulation of mercury is done

under the authority of several statutes. Regulations to control releases of mercury to

the environment are generally centered around health-based criteria. Regulations

may also serve to reduce or eliminate the use of mercury in products or to specify

disposal requirements. For example, RCRA and the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401)

have provisions intended to reduce or control releases of hazardous constituents to

the environment, including mercury. Also, limitations on mercury-added products

have been specified in regulations promulgated under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 135) and the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 301).

The regulation of mercury also falls under more than one agency’s jurisdiction.

For example, EPA regulates mercury in pesticides, and mercury releases to air, water,

and land. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates mercury in drugs,

cosmetics, food, and dental products. The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) regulates mercury air exposures in the workplace. Federal

requirements regulating mercury are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Federal Regulation of Mercury

Statutory Authority

6

Requirements Regarding the

Use or Release of Mercury

Pursuant to Attendant Regulations

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

7 U.S.C. 135 (1972)

Banned or phased out the use of mercury in

paints and certain pesticides.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

Act (FFDCA)

21 U.S.C. 301

• Limits the use of mercury as an antimicrobial

or preservative in cosmetics.

• Regulates the use of mercury in dental

amalgams.

Food and Drug Administration

Modernization Act of 1997

(FDAMA)

Amended 21 U.S.C. 301

Required FDA to compile a list of drugs and

foods that contain intentionally introduced

mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative

and qualitative analysis of the mercury

compounds in the list.

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or

Superfund)

42 U.S.C. 9601 (1980)

Requires that mercury spills of one or more

pounds be reported to the National Response

Center.

40 CFR 141.62

CRS-5

Clean Water Act

33 U.S.C. 1251 (1977)

Requires a permit system to regulate industrial

discharges to surface water. Permits may assign

a facility a specific mercury discharge limit or

require them to monitor and report on mercury

discharges.

Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA, Title III of Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization

Act)

42 U.S.C.9601 (1986)

• Establishes reporting requirements for

accidental and intentional releases.

• Establishes requirements to report inventory

information to state and local authorities.

• Requires facilities to submit a report to the

Toxics Release Inventory when they

manufacture, process, or otherwise use 10

pounds or more of mercury.

Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA)

42 U.S.C. 321 (1976)

• Establishes disposal requirements for wastes

that contain mercury (e.g., thermometers,

medical & dental wastes, and mercury

switches).

• Allows states to adopt less stringent

“Universal Waste Rules” if certain oftenused, mercury-containing wastes are

recycled (i.e., thermostats, fluorescent and

high-intensity discharge lamps, and

batteries).

Mercury-Containing Rechargeable

Battery Management Act (Battery

Act)

42 U.S.C 14301 (1996)

Phased out the use of mercury in batteries;

established labeling, collection and recycling,

and disposal requirements for certain regulated

batteries.

Occupational Safety and Health

Act

29 U.S.C. 651 (1970)

Sets permissible exposure levels for mercury in

workplace settings.

Clean Air Act

42 U.S.C. 7401 (1970)

Establishes emission limits for selected sources

of mercury emissions, such as medical waste

and solid waste incinerators, hazardous waste

combustors, and chlor-alkali plants

(chlorine/caustic soda manufacturers).

Emission limits are also required for electric

utilities, but have not yet been established.

Statutory Authority

Indirect Regulation:

Environmental Standards

FFDCA

Establishes an FDA action level for

methylmercury in fish at 1 part per million.

Clean Water Act

Requires EPA to issue water quality criteria

that may be used by states, territories, and

tribes as the basis for their own enforceable

water quality standards; if water quality criteria

are exceeded, fish consumption advisories may

be issued by states.

CRS-6

Safe Drinking Water Act

42 U.S.C. 300f (1974)

Sets a maximum contaminant level for mercury

in drinking water at 0.002 mg/l.

RCRA

Establishes land disposal restriction levels for

mercury waste.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a review of current

environmental regulations and EPA report “Background Information on Mercury Sources and

Regulations,” available online at [http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/bnsdocs/mercsrce/mercreg.html],

undated.

Voluntary Activities Initiated or Funded by EPA. In addition to

regulatory requirements, EPA is pursuing a number of voluntary initiatives to reduce

or eliminate the industrial uses of mercury. EPA is also participating in a variety of

outreach programs aimed at educating sectors of the population that either

manufacture or use mercury-containing products. Following is a sample of voluntary

mercury-reduction and educational/outreach activities initiated by EPA:

! EPA identified mercury as one of the persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT)

chemicals being targeted as a “priority PBT.” As such, EPA has issued a draft

“National Action Plan for Mercury,” aimed at reducing the intentional

introduction of mercury into all environmental media (i.e., air, water, land).7

A draft strategy to monitor PBTs is anticipated by the end of 2003.

! On September 9, 2002, EPA identified 30 “priority chemicals,” including

mercury, that are commonly found in hazardous wastes. EPA is working with

manufacturers to either voluntarily reduce the use of those chemicals by 50%

or to eliminate them from production processes altogether.

! The United States, through EPA, and Canada have been working jointly since

1997 to reduce certain target pollutants, including mercury. In March 2003,

the “Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 2002” was released to report on

the progress in achieving the pollution reduction goals established under the

joint strategy.8 The U.S. goal of a 50% reduction in national mercury

emissions by 2006 was nearly met at 40%. The U.S. goal of reducing the

national use of mercury by 50% was exceeded.9

! In 1999, with funding from EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office, the

University of Wisconsin Extension’s Solid and Hazardous Waste Education

Center developed a “mercury in schools” educational outreach project. Key

project activities included: creating and maintaining a basin-wide

clearinghouse for information on reducing mercury usage, increasing mercury

recycling and improving mercury management in schools, and educating

students and teachers about eliminating mercury. In 2001, funding was

provided by EPA to extend the mercury in schools education and outreach

program nationwide.

7

The draft plan is accessible online at [http://www.epa.gov/pbt/hgaction.htm].

8

The report is accessible online at [http://binational.net/bns/2002/index.html].

9

In setting national goals, the Strategy evaluated total nationwide reduction in the use and

emissions of mercury from all sources. Goals did not set specific reduction percentages for

individual sources.

CRS-7

! On June 24, 1998, EPA and the American Hospital Association (AHA) signed

a memorandum of understanding to advance pollution prevention efforts in

U.S. health care facilities. One goal of the agreement was the virtual

elimination of mercury-containing waste from health care facilities’ waste

streams by 2005. The agreement also led to the creation of Hospitals for a

Healthy Environment whose aim is to educate health care professionals about

pollution prevention opportunities in hospitals and health care systems.10

State Actions to Control Mercury. Due to the method in which mercury

is transported through the environment, it is deposited in some areas of the U.S. in

greater concentrations than others. This makes potential mercury contamination a

local or regional issue. According to EPA’s 1997 Mercury Study Report to

Congress, the following geographical areas were determined to have the highest

annual rate of deposition of mercury:

! The southern Great Lakes and Ohio River Valley;

! The Northeast and southern New England; and

! Scattered areas in the South with the most elevated deposition occurring in the

Miami and Tampa areas.

The potential for regional impacts is one reason many states have enacted their

own legislation aimed at controlling mercury. Recently, several states have moved

beyond the health-based criteria associated with the use or disposal of particular

products. Instead, they are looking to reduce waste disposal problems by restricting

mercury use altogether. For example, Great Lakes states, such as Minnesota, are

banning or limiting the sale of certain mercury-containing products and imposing

recycling requirements and disposal restrictions on others. Table 3 summarizes the

types of legislation enacted in selected states or activities undertaken by state

organizations to control mercury.

10

For more information about Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), see

[http://www.h2e-online.org].

CRS-8

Table 3. Summary of Selected State Actions to Control Mercury

States/

Organization

Legislation/Activity

CA, IL, IN,

MN, NH, NY,

OH, OR, PA,

VT

Labeling/Notification Requirements: Mercury-containing products,

such as dental amalgams, pharmaceuticals, thermostats or flourescent

bulbs, must be labeled or notification provided directly to users

regarding the mercury content in products, dangers posed by

mercury, and/or safe disposal practices.

CA, CT, IL,

IN, IA, ME,

MD, MI, MN,

NH, NY, OR,

RI

Restrictions on Product Sale or Usage: Limits or prohibits the use

or sale of certain products such as dental amalgams, mercury vapor

lighting, fever thermometers, electronic equipment, medical

equipment, mercury switches (particularly in automobiles).

IA, MI, MN,

OR

Special Disposal/Recycling Requirements: Directs state agencies or

manufacturers to accept mercury-containing products for recycling,

such as cathode ray tubes or other electronic devices, or to dispose of

mercury-containing products, such as dental amalgams, in an

environmentally appropriate manner.

IA, ME, MN

Mercury Recovery Requirements: Identifies a responsible party to

recover mercury from a class of products before disposal. For

example, auto makers are being required to remove mercury switches

from automobiles before being scrapped.

Interstate

Mercury

Education and

Reduction

Clearinghouse

Regional Cooperative Agreement: Environmental agencies in eight

northeastern states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont )

created the Clearinghouse as an umbrella group to assist the states in

implementing mercury reduction laws and programs aimed at getting

mercury out of consumer products, the waste stream, and the

environment. The clearinghouse will coordinate regional mercury

reduction efforts and assist state environmental agencies in

developing and implementing specific legislation and programs for

notification, labeling, collection, and eventual phase-out of products

that contain mercury.

The

Quicksilver

Caucus

Coalition of State Environmental Organizations: The Quicksilver

Caucus is an EPA/state workgroup formed in May 2001 to develop a

joint approach to controlling mercury. The Caucus is a forum for

state environmental associations (e.g., the Association of State and

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials), the Environmental

Council of the States, and the National Governors’ Association to

coordinate their mercury initiatives. EPA is currently working with

the Caucus to resolve two issues: 1) how to meet mercury reduction

goals for specific water bodies where mercury water pollution is

caused primarily by air deposition; and 2) how to ensure safe

stewardship of mercury supplies and wastes. Reports on each topic

are available online at [http://www.sso.org/ecos/].

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on a review of current

state laws and legislative activity and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control draft

report on mercury, Appendix A-Summary of Nationwide Mercury Efforts.

CRS-9

Recent Legislative Action

A variety of legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress to minimize

or eliminate the use of mercury. Generally, the legislation is aimed at protecting

children from exposure to mercury or at reducing mercury in products or waste.11

Recently introduced legislation related to mercury is summarized below.12

Legislation Aimed at Protecting Children. The Leave No Child Behind

Act of 2003 (H.R. 936 and S. 448) introduced on February 26, 2003, by

Representative George Miller and Senator Christopher Dodd, proposes to amend

Section 313(f) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

(EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)). These bills would require the EPA Administrator to

establish reporting thresholds for releases of specific toxic chemicals, including

mercury, that the Administrator determines may present a significant risk to

children’s health or the environment, depending upon the persistent use or existence

of that chemical in the environment.

There has been legislative activity in both the 107th and 108th Congress related

to the use of mercury in childhood vaccines, particularly the presence of the mercurycontaining preservative thimerosal. A provision added to the Homeland Security Act

(P.L. 107-296), which revised the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300), was

interpreted as protecting vaccine manufacturers from potential financial liability

related to the use of thimerosal. The preservative is added to formulations for

influenza, diphtheria-tetanus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and rabies.13 Opponents of the

provision argued that it would effectively end lawsuits for injuries caused to children

after multiple mercury exposures from thimerosal in infant vaccines. On January 10,

2003, Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Lincoln Chafee announced an

agreement with Senate leadership to address concerns that arose from the addition

of the vaccine-related language. The language in P.L. 107-296 was subsequently

removed in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for 2003 (P.L. 108-7).

On March 19, 2003, Representative Dan Burton introduced the National Vaccine

Injury Compensation Program Improvement Act of 2003 (H.R. 1349). The bill would

amend the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300) with respect to the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), by extending the statute of

11

Legislative activity regarding air emissions is discussed in CRS Report RL31881.

12

Several bills introduced in the 107th Congress have not been reintroduced in the 108th.

The bills dealt with mercury storage and disposal, and the reevaluation of safe levels of

mercury in seafood. Those bills were the Mercury Storage and Safe Disposal Act of 2001

(H.R. 2266), The Seafood Safety and Mercury Screening Act of 2002 (H.R. 3885) and the

Mercury-Safe Seafood Act of 2001 (S. 555).

13

The amount of mercury in an individual vaccine is small. However, the FDA announced

in June 1999 that infants given multiple thimerosal-preserved vaccines were exposed to

mercury levels that exceeded EPA safety guidelines. The FDA, National Institutes of Health

(NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Academy of

Pediatrics have urged vaccine manufacturers to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in vaccines

as soon as possible (no deadline has been specified). For more information, see the FDA’s,

report “Thimerosal in Vaccines,” at [http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm].

CRS-10

limitations on filing claims for vaccine-related injuries, and increasing the base

amount of funding available to those injured. While the bill does not refer to

concerns about thimerosal specifically, Representative Burton has discussed, in

hearings and publications, the connection between the exposure to the mercurycontaining preservative and neurological developmental disorders of autism, and

speech and language delays.14

Legislation Aimed at Reducing Mercury in Products or Waste. The

Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act (S. 484), introduced on February 27,

2003 by Senators Patrick Leahy and Olympia Snowe, proposes to amend Section

3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6922). The bill intends to reduce

releases of mercury from all major sources of air emissions, including solid waste

incinerators. To does so, the bill requires the EPA Administrator to identify mercurycontaining materials that must be separated from the waste stream before

incineration. The list must include mercury-containing items such as fluorescent

light bulbs and tubes, batteries, pharmaceuticals, laboratory chemicals and reagents,

electrical devices such as thermostats, relays and switches, and medical and scientific

instruments. To facilitate separation, the bill requires mercury-containing materials

to be labeled to indicate mercury content. Further, the bill requires the phase-out of

mercury in consumer products within three years, allowing for the possibility of

exceptions for essential uses. The legislation also includes a provision prohibiting

the Defense Department from selling mercury currently in the National Defense

Stockpile.

The Mercury Reduction Act of 2003 (S. 616), introduced on March 13, 2003 by

Senator Susan Collins, proposes to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act. The bill

calls for a nationwide ban on the sale of mercury fever thermometers. It would also

provide grants for exchange programs to help consumers exchange mercury

thermometers for digital thermometers. The bill directs EPA to ensure that the

mercury is properly collected and stored, as opposed to recycled and reintroduced in

commerce, in order to keep it out of the environment. The bill would also create a

multi-agency “Task Force on Mercury” to address the issue of long-term

management of surplus mercury from such sources as thermometers, stores held by

the Departments of Defense and Energy, and other medical, commercial or industrial

sources. The bill was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works

Committee by voice vote on April 9, 2003. Similar legislation (S. 351) was passed

by the Senate in the 107th Congress, but was not considered by the House.

The Next Generation Lighting Initiative (S. 167), introduced on January 15,

2003 by Senator Jeff Bingaman, has the objective of developing, by 2012, “advanced

solid-state lighting technologies” based on white-light-emitting diodes. Such lighting

would be required to meet certain illumination criteria and not contain harmful

pollutants, such as mercury, found in current lighting products (e.g., fluorescent

lamps). Research to develop lighting that meets the bill’s objectives would be carried

out by a consortium of private firms, trade associations and institutions of higher

education chosen by the Secretary of Energy. A similar component is in the Energy

14

See Representative Burton’s “Dear Colleague” letter regarding “facts and fiction about

thimerosal in vaccines,” printed on the Autism Society of Washington web page at

[http://www.autismsocietyofwa.org/News/Congress.htm].

CRS-11

Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6), as passed by the House on April 11, 2003. While the

bill deals with a broad range of energy-related issues, Part 2, Section 21111 proposes

the same “next generation lighting” requirements as those delineated in S. 167.

The Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act (H.R.1680),

introduced on April 8, 2003, by Representative Diane Watson, would amend Section

501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351). The bill proposes

to prohibit the introduction into interstate commerce of mercury intended for use in

dental fillings after January 1, 2008. Effective December 31, 2004, the bill also

would require mercury-containing dental amalgams to be labeled with information

regarding the health effects related to mercury.

Conclusion

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can be harmful both to humans and the

environment. The primary route by which humans are exposed to mercury is from

eating fish contaminated with methylmercury. Humans may also be exposed to

elemental mercury vapor in either the workplace or through the use of mercurycontaining consumer products (e.g. in dental amalgams or broken flourescent bulbs

or fever thermometers). Once mercury is introduced into the environment, it cannot

be removed. However, it can transform into more toxic forms, such as

methylmercury, particularly when it is introduced into the environment through

anthropogenic means.

Both federal and state authorities have taken action to control the introduction

of mercury into the environment that originates from the use of mercury in products

and manufacturing processes. The current trend, in many federal and state legislative

actions, is to reduce mercury releases by eliminating it altogether, either from its use

in manufacturing processes or as an added component to products. Many states have

passed such legislation; few federal initiatives have been enacted into law.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.