space Press Releases, News Stories

PENTAGON SAYS NO TO MAINE MERCURY

by Bart Jansen, Portland Press Herald


WASHINGTON, U.S.A, 7 September  2001  -- Maine's congressional delegation is trying to force the Defense Department to store tons of mercury from the shuttered HoltraChem company, but the military is fighting the proposal.

The dispute focuses on 80 tons of mercury -- a toxin harmful by the gram -- at the former manufacturing plant in Orrington.

HoltraChem shut down a year ago and dissolved in April, so state leaders and environmentalists have scrambled to find a way to clean up the site.

At issue is liquid mercury being stored in a large metal tank at the site. A small portion of the mercury also is in shipping containers, ready for transport. Although the company tried to export the mercury for commercial use, there has been considerable political protest.

The Senate Armed Services Committee began voting behind closed doors Thursday on overall defense legislation. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a committee member, is working to include a provision requiring the Defense Department to accept the mercury from HoltraChem at one of four U.S. storage sites.

The proposal is controversial because it would mark the first time that the U.S. military has accepted mercury from non-defense-related companies. The Defense Department is arguing that Congress should consider options in the private sector for storing the material.

Similar concerns are being raised in the House. Democratic Rep. Tom Allen of Maine won Armed Services Committee approval for an amendment to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to handle the mercury from HoltraChem and the Defense Department to store it.

But the amendment was removed from a larger defense bill for technical reasons. The Commerce Committee handles all legislation dealing with the EPA, so it must also review the proposal.

Allen isn't optimistic about the proposal's chances in the Commerce Committee. He will try next week to insert the HoltraChem measure into the defense bill on the House floor by focusing narrowly on removing mercury from HoltraChem alone.

"We're trying to narrow the amendment to a point where it doesn't involve broad policies on the treatment of mercury," Allen said.

Mindy Lubber, the EPA's Northeast regional administrator under the Clinton administration, had proposed after months of study that the Defense Department store the mercury because the agency already stockpiles mercury from military bases.

Bob Varney, the regional EPA administrator for the Bush administration, strongly supports Allen's legislation despite minor concerns about some of the language, said spokesman Mark Merchant. Varney met Thursday with Maine Gov. Angus King and Commissioner Martha Kirkpatrick of the state Department of Environmental Protection to discuss a variety of issues, including Allen's proposal.

"Our region strongly supports the overall concept of long-term storage and permanent retirement of mercury stockpiles," said a regional EPA memo sent Thursday to EPA officials in Washington. "However, we also have concerns about certain language in the act."

But the military continues to fight the proposal, after the defense secretary twice rejected requests from the delegation to accept the mercury.

The Defense Department's National Stockpile Center stores about 4,400 tons of mercury at four locations, in New Jersey, Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee. Three of the sites have opposed accepting more mercury, and in the case of the fourth the community has been neutral, the military said.

The cost of storing the stockpile is about $180,000 per year, and is expected to increase.

In a two-page memo to lawmakers, the Defense Department raised technical concerns about permits required for transferring the mercury. More generally, the military argued that it already has more mercury than it needs, that the EPA has no approved disposal method, and that the military isn't "uniquely suited to bear the responsibility for storing mercury" from private companies.

A military spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Typically, companies recycle mercury by refining it after it's been used and then putting it in other products. But mercury is so abundant and the demand so low that it isn't worth much.

Mercury is a potent toxin that harms the nervous system. It works its way up through the food chain after turning up in lakes and rivers. Pregnant women are especially warned to limit their fish consumption because mercury can harm their fetuses.

Coal-burning power plants emit mercury that floats into Maine before raining into rivers and lakes. Also, thermometers, themostats, button-cell batteries and fluorescent lamps commonly contain mercury and are often thrown into trash that is later burned, sending mercury into the air. As little as 3 grams is enough to taint fish in a 20-acre pond.

"It really needs to be locked up safely and permanently," said Mike Belliveau, toxics director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. "We see the Defense Department being environmental obstructionists."

HoltraChem was the latest company to take over the Orrington site, in 1993. The company used mercury in troughs of salty water to manufacture chlorine, bleach, hydrochloric acid and pesticide.

Mercury is about 13 times more dense than water, meaning there is about 2,000 gallons of the silvery-white liquid at the HoltraChem site. About 1 ton has already been placed in shipping containers and the rest is in an above-ground storage tank fashioned at the site, all awaiting a destination, according to an official overseeing the cleanup.

A previous owner, Mallinckrodt Inc., a pharmaceutical and chemical company based in St. Louis, has agreed to help clean up the site since HoltraChem dissolved. State and federal officials plan to destroy the building where the mercury is now stored and to dredge the Penobscot River, but there is still no place to ship the liquid mercury before the rest of the cleanup begins.


FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The Basel Action Network is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 
More News