Lawmakers Say Mercury is a Top Health Threat – Agency Says It’s Not Worth $2.7 Million

By Erik Smith

Staff writer/ Washington State Wire

OLYMPIA, Oct. 12.—When Washington lawmakers passed a bill six years ago to curtail mercury emissions to the environment, they hailed it as a major step toward protecting the state’s waterways, wildlife, and children.

            Even if it cut mercury just a little, they said it was worth the cost.

            But it seems they’ve been second-guessed by one of the state’s own agencies – at least where state government is concerned. Their bill directed the state Department of General Administration, one of the biggest purchasers of light bulbs in the state, to give preference to the lowest-mercury fluorescent bulbs available. Yet the agency rejected a brand of bulbs that would have reduced mercury usage by a third – because it would have cost more.

            “You know, it just brings to bear – you work on big bills like these, you work hard to reach a compromise – and then state agencies totally ignore what you’re doing,” said Rep. Bill Hinkle, R-Cle Elum, who helped negotiate the mercury deal back in 2003.

            For its part, the state Department of General Administration says its decision was within legal bounds. But it wouldn’t be the first time a state agency has rejected direction from the Legislature. Over the last three years, state agencies have just said no to bills that created a health savings account program for state employees, and required the use of environmentally friendly – but costlier – biofuels in state vehicles and ferries.

            The light-bulb story might be a bit more obscure than those two, which generated wide public attention at the time – but it demonstrates again that the best of intentions sometimes never are implemented by state agencies, no matter what the Legislature tells them. And it raises a question – with the state light bulb contract coming up in 2011, will the Department of General Administration decide the issue the same way? And how much is mercury reduction worth, anyway?

            The Mercury Menace

            As far as the Legislature of 2003 was concerned, no cost was too great. The cause was one of the most popular of the session, a rare environmental bill that enjoyed broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. Over the course of three years lawmakers hammered out a measure that imposed new requirements on businesses, schools, hospitals and state government itself. Among other things, the mercury bill banned the sale and distribution of products containing mercury, like thermometers, thermostats, and new cars with mercury switches. It also forbade schools from using mercury in science classes.

            But fluorescent bulbs were a little trickier – to this date, no one has found a way to make fluorescent bulbs without mercury. So the bill required warning labels. And for products where no non-mercury products were available – like light bulbs – it directed General Administration to give preference to products with the lowest mercury content.

            At the time, lawmakers said they were responding to one of the most urgent public health threats facing the state. “Even small exposures of mercury can result in devastating neurological damage,” declared the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, the day it passed the House. “One-seventieth of a teaspoon can harm a 25-acre lake. And tragically, with all we talk about in mercury, the worst damage is done to babies and the developing brains and nervous systems of small children. Even at very low levels, [it affects] the I.Q.s of children – it causes learning disabilities, motor skill dysfunctions, and damage to the central nervous system. It is vital to understand that mercury threats to the environment and health are not looming on the horizon – they are with us now.”

            Even a Little Bit Helps

Legislators that day took turns denouncing the mercury menace, and they all but declared a zero-tolerance policy. In his address to the House, Hunt went on to cite federal studies showing increasing mercury concentrations in waterways, state warnings about mercury in food, and a rising level of scientific concern about mercury releases in the environment.

“Now here’s the good news,” he said. “Just as tiny amounts of mercury can cause damage to the health and the environment, even modest progress against mercury can make a big difference, in helping people and the environment and saving our health. Today, with what we are adopting here we are making more than small progress. Today we are making Washington a leader in addressing the mercury issue and making sure our state does not become a dumping ground for products banned in other states.”

Proud House lawmakers congratulated themselves on a job well done. Said Rep. Richard deBoldt, R-Chehalis, “This is one of those opportunities that gives us a chance to do something meaningful.”

Said Rep. Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham, “I think it’s a wonderful opportunity to show that when we all focus on the goals, we can get something done, so congratulations to both sides of the aisle for passing a policy that is extremely important to Washington state.”

And Rep. Mike Cooper, D-Edmonds, said, “I just want to thank everybody who has thanked everybody.”

The bill sailed through the Senate, too, and there was only one hiccup on the way to the lawbooks. Then-Gov. Gary Locke signed the bill, but he vetoed a section that said all Washington fish were safe to eat. Not true, he said – the Department of Health had already issued 13 health warnings. “These advisories demonstrate that contamination of our waters is still a serious issue,” he said. “We need to address these sources of contamination and prevent them, rather than assert they do not exist.”

Everyone in the statehouse seemed to agree: Mercury hazards needed to be prevented at all cost.

But then it was G.A.’s turn, and it had a different idea.

            Cost Too High for Agency

In fact, when the agency next considered the light bulb issue, it assigned mercury content no value at all. The state, it should be noted, is an enormous consumer of light bulbs – over a six-year period it consumes 34 billion bulb-hours of fluorescent tubes alone – and it encourages other public agencies to purchase from state suppliers as well. General Administration last went to bid for light bulbs in 2002, before the bill passed, and it awarded the contract to a Sylvania supplier. But that contract was up for renewal in 2005, and by that time the mercury law was on the books.

The agency took another look at the issue – and decided the extra cost of mercury reduction wasn’t worth it. An analysis it prepared in 2005 noted that of the three major manufacturers of fluorescent bulbs in the United States, Philips had 32 percent lower mercury than Sylvania, and 68 percent lower mercury than General Electric. But it renewed the contract with the Sylvania supplier for another six years.

The agency’s analysis shows that while the agency collected statistics about mercury content, mercury wasn’t a factor in the decision. Instead, it was all about cost.

The exact amount depends on the numbers you use.

Actual purchase costs over that six-year period would have been fairly close. Sylvania bulbs would cost $5.4 million, Philips $5.6 million, and General Electric $6 million.

But there’s a technical issue: Data supplied by the manufacturers indicated that the Philips bulbs didn’t last as long, and they required more electricity.

The agency conducted a total-cost-of-ownership analysis, and concluded that over the course of six years, Sylvania bulbs would cost $72 million, Philips $74.7 million and General Electric $73.4 million.

Between Philips and Sylvania there was a $2.7 million difference.

So the state stayed with Sylvania.

            Within Legal Bounds

An explanatory memo said it would make no sense to consider mercury content alone, “because lamping manufacturers perpetually introduce new lower-mercury products.”

But the analysis makes it appear that it wasn’t a matter of mercury content alone – mercury wasn’t a factor at all. The analysis was based entirely on cost, and environmental benefit was not part of the calculation. The explanatory memo argued that Sylvania offered the most “cost-effective” approach to mercury reduction – perhaps by comparison with General Electric – though cost-effectiveness wasn’t the yardstick the Legislature had in mind.

            Jim Erskine, public information officer for the Department of General Administration, said mercury entered the picture in other ways. A contract with Philips would mean more bulbs would have to be used and recycled – and that might provide more opportunity for mercury to escape into the environment. And if lower-mercury bulbs consume more electricity, and if coal is used to generate it – that releases mercury, too.

The analysis shows that neither factor was considered in the 2005 decision, however – and a coal-based argument in the hydropower-dependent Pacific Northwest might be stronger with a few numbers. Only one coal plant operates in the state of Washington.  

Erskine noted that state law gave the agency discretion to consider other factors as well as mercury content, and also allowed it to extend the contract without rebidding if it saw no advantage in doing so. He said the analysis was provided to manufacturers in 2005. None of them objected at the time.

Since then, he said Philips has contacted the agency several times, urging the agency to reconsider. But the agency believes it was within bounds.

“When a vendor loses out, often times it will be upset,” he said.

What Happens Next Time?

So what happens the next time the state buys light bulbs? That’s what Philips would like to know. Seems as though mercury was dismissed last time, it says, despite the state policy. Could the same thing happen again?

“You’ve got a green government with a green initiative, but we never seem to be able to get to the table,” said Steve Maguire, environmental marketing manager for Philips.

The decision-making process in Washington state is a bit puzzling, said Alicia Culver of the San Francisco-based Green Purchasing Institute. Washington was one of the first states to adopt a law establishing a preference for low-mercury bulbs – but the agency’s purchasing process the last time around didn’t seem to give mercury much weight.

“What needs to be done is to write solicitations for bids so the most environmentally preferable bids are rewarded,” she said.
            Meanwhile, Hinkle sighs. “It sounds like we’re being hypocritical,” he said. “We’re setting everyone down when it comes to mercury, and state government won’t do it. But we’re willing to punish every business in the state.”