Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Wirth

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

1-19-07

HB 16

SHORT TITLE MERCURY EXPOSURE REDUCTION PLAN

SB

ANALYST Aubel

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

200.0

Recurring

GF

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Department of Health (DOH)

New Mexico Department of Environment (NMED)

Energy, Minerals, Natural Resources Department (EMNRD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 16 (HB16) appropriates $200 thousand from the general fund to the New Mexico

Environment Department (NMED) to initiate, with the assistance of Department of Health

(DOH), a comprehensive plan to reduce human and wildlife exposure to mercury. Any

unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of 2008 shall revert to the general

fund.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

The appropriation of $200 thousand contained in this bill is a recurring expense to the general

fund. Any unexpended or unencumbered balance remaining at the end of FY08 shall revert to the

general fund. Development of the mercury reduction plan is likely to lead to a program being

established for its implementation, either within DOH or NMED or both. In this regard it is

similar to a pilot project.

DOH estimates their portion of associated costs at $100 thousand to assist NMED in producing

the plan. NMED, in its FY08 budget request, itemized an expansion for fish advisories for $85

House Bill 16 – Page

2

thousand to cover contractual costs to test fish for toxicity and 0.5 FTE personal salary and

benefits. While up-front costs for the initial project, such as developing brochures for public

education, will be non-recurring, continued funding of mercury reduction efforts can be expected

to continue as a new program and are reasonably anticipated at similar levels, if not higher.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

Mercury is a bio-accumulative (which means it undergoes chemical magnification up the food

chain) neurotoxin that can remain active in the environment for more than 10,000 years. DOH

notes that mercury exposure is a potential health issue for New Mexicans and that even very low

levels can pose a concern, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. The toxicity

manifests in a variety of conditions including learning disabilities, tremors, muscle in-

coordination, loss of memory, personality changes, deafness, and loss of vision and is also toxic

to the kidneys. Many of the adverse effects of mercury are reversible, therefore minimizing or

eliminating certain exposures can have a beneficial effect on the exposed individual.

NMED notes that

sources of mercury pollution include industrial facilities, consumer products,

waste streams and natural events. In New Mexico mercury enters the environment primary

through the air emissions, through storm run-off, and from improper disposal of items containing

mercury. EMNRD reports that current mining practices do not contribute any significant amount

of mercury contamination.

The proposed funding is to implement the findings of the Mercury Exposure Reduction Task

Force, which was established by the 2006 Legislature through House Memorial 5. The task force

report, New Mexico Mercury Reduction Action Plan (NMMRA), includes an Executive

Summary and recommendations, which are included as Attachment 1.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

HB16 will fund programs to reduce mercury emissions to the environment. There are no

existing performance measures regarding mercury, but potential new performance measures

could track the reduction in mercury emissions and concentrations in water bodies statewide.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

DOH indicates it will assign 1 FTE to this project. The appropriation would also provide

funding for public education and outreach programs emphasizing the hazards of mercury

exposure and the safe disposal of products containing mercury. The funds would be used

immediately to implement programs developed within the New Mexico Mercury Reduction

Action Plan and would require ongoing administrative support.

A Joint Power Agreement or other type of contract would be required between NMED and DOH.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Air mercury Rule

(CAMR) in March 2005. In combination with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), it phases in

caps for mercury emission from coal-fired plants, presently one of the largest sources of mercury

emissions. According to the NMMRAP, New Mexico will submit a state plan to meet its budget

House Bill 16 – Page

3

for reducing mercury from coal-fired plants by April 2007 and lists two contributor plants. One

of these plants, the San Juan Generating Station, is currently under a consent decree to reduce

emissions and is testing technology. How successful this technology will be in achieving its

required goals has yet to be determined. Of equal concern, the report notes that much of the

mercury found in New Mexico air originates elsewhere.

Mercury contributors range from large generators, such as coal-fired power plants, to numerous

smaller generators ranging from dental amalgams to broken fluorescent light bulbs. Therefore,

controlling mercury releases would require working with large companies to educating the

public. Continued efforts would most likely be required for new companies entering New

Mexico and in the case of public education. A permanent fish advisory program, if enabled,

would also require continued funding. NMED reported during the budget process that federal

funding will no longer be provided for that program.

The NMMARP notes there are 22 facilities in New Mexico with over 200 hazardous waste

“operating units" cleaning up over 3000 contaminated sites. Half of these facilities are owned by

the federal government, with over 250 former Department of Defense sites with environmental

contamination. Complete databases of all sites are lacking, which would require cooperation

with the related federal agencies to develop to determine mercury contamination.

NMED notes that reductions in mercury exposure will reduce state health care costs.

Substantiation for this claim is found in a study peer-reviewed study by the Mt. Sinai School of

Medicine's Center for Children's Health and the Environment which calculated that the U.S.

loses $8.7 billion annually due to the impact of mercury on children's brain development.

ALTERNATIVES

NMED reports that there is no alternative existing state or federal funds that would support this

work.

Several states have enacted state-specific mercury source reduction legislation based on the

Mercury Education and Reduction Model Legislation that includes specific objectives in the

legislation. While prepared by

the

Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association, it could

be modified for New Mexico.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

New Mexico would have limited means to evaluate and reduce the risks of mercury exposure to

its citizens and wildlife until legislation provides for a specific plan and funding for mercury

reduction.

POSSIBLE QUESTIONS

1.

The task force report pursuant to HM05 (2006) recommended an “allocation of $200,000

to NMED and DOH (through an appropriation to NMED)…"

What assurances are in place for a contract between NMED and DOH to transfer this

$100 thousand to DOH to cover its costs.

House Bill 16 – Page

4

2.

How does the legislation ensure that the intention and recommendations of the Mercury

Exposure Reduction Task Force are implemented.

3.

What are the continued roles for the two agencies once the plan is prepared.

4.

Who will implement the plan and at what continued cost.

5.

Is the initial $200 thousand sufficient to carry out the objectives of the plan.

MA/csd

Attachment

House Bill 16 – Page

5

Attachment 1

Executive Summary: New Mexico Mercury Reduction Action Plan

Executive Summary

During the 2006 legislative session, Representative Peter Wirth introduced memorials

asking the New Mexico Environment Department and the Department of Health to look

at mercury issues facing the state. House Memorial 5 required the departments to

develop a Mercury Reduction Plan for New Mexico. A Mercury Reduction Plan Task

Force worked in collaboration with the Dental Mercury Workgroup, convened pursuant

to House Memorial 13, to develop a state Mercury Reduction Action Plan. The two

working groups

1

have completed a Mercury Reduction Action Plan that includes this

executive summary, the recommendations, and the supporting report.

The Task Force proposes the following state policy regarding mercury and asks that this

policy be adopted by the State of New Mexico:

It is the policy of the State to minimize harm from exposure to mercury in New Mexico

by reducing or eliminating emissions, discharges, and use of mercury and/or mercury-

containing products to the greatest extent possible, when such measures are

technically and economically feasible, taking into account the health and

environmental costs of exposure to mercury.

This report and its recommendations provide mechanisms for implementing this policy.

Legislative Recommendations for Mercury Reduction

The Task Force recommends that the State of New Mexico:

a. Adopt the mercury policy recommended above:

“It is the policy of the State to minimize harm from exposure to mercury

in New Mexico by reducing or eliminating emissions, discharges, and

use of mercury and/or mercury-containing products to the greatest

extent possible, when such measures are technically and economically

feasible, taking into account the health and environmental costs of

exposure to mercury."

b. Allocate $200,000 to NMED and DOH (through an appropriation to NMED) to

fund:

i. staffing and resources to implement the reduction strategies that can be

done immediately;

ii. a mercury study including

1. a comprehensive and quantitative inventory of mercury sources,

waste and emissions;

2. a comprehensive mercury exposure study on pathways for

mercury exposure; and

3. a monitoring program to assess air, water, soil and biota for

mercury contamination.

1

A list of the members of the Mercury Reduction Plan Task Force and Dental Mercury Workgroup is attached as

Attachment 1. In addition, the two memorials, House Memorial 5 and 13, which convened the two working groups

are attached as Attachment 2. Please note that there is a separate report for House Memorial 13.

House Bill 16 – Page

6

iii. to educate the public on the hazards of mercury exposure; and

iv. to develop a state fish consumption advisory program, including both

commercial and locally caught fish advisories, which will provide public

information and outreach.

c. Make a statutory change to require that all dental facilities in New Mexico be

equipped with amalgam separators to assure that little or no solid mercury

drains into municipal wastewater or septic systems and that the separators be

properly maintained by the dental facilities.

d. Fully support the Solid Waste Bureau legislative request to refund the grant and

loan fund to safely remove and recycle mercury from the waste stream, where

possible; to educate the public on mercury removal from the waste stream; and

to assist local governments in conducting household hazardous waste

collection programs.

e. Give preference to power generating plants that use renewable sources of

energy, and evaluate economic incentives to promote sources of energy that

emit minimal or no mercury emissions, such as renewable energy sources and

advanced coal emission reduction technologies.

Recommendations to NMED

The Task Force recommends that the New Mexico Environment Department:

a. Conduct a comprehensive and quantitative inventory of mercury sources, waste

and emissions, initiate action steps identified and report back to the Legislature

with recommendations, if necessary, regarding statutory changes suggested by

NMED.

b. Create initiatives to recover and recycle mercury-containing equipment and

products, including but not limited to, automotive switches, fluorescent lights,

relay switches and measuring devices. These initiatives should include

increasing public awareness of the hazards of mercury, encouraging the public

to buy non-mercury-containing products, and informing the public of the proper

disposal of mercury-containing products.

c. Increase business and governmental awareness regarding the hazards of

mercury, mercury-containing equipment, alternatives to this equipment and

proper disposal of mercury-containing materials.

d. Work with states, tribes and at a national and international level to reduce

airborne mercury emissions.

e. Provide adequate staffing and resources for enforcement of mercury-related

regulations, including NM wildlife habitat standards, and promotion of storm-

water best management practices.

f. Consider crematoria initiatives, including adoption or adaptation of the best

management practices being developed by Colorado for crematoria.

Recommendations to DOH

The Task Force recommends that the New Mexico Department of Health:

a.

Conduct a comprehensive mercury exposure study on pathways for mercury

exposure and report back to the legislature with recommendations, if necessary,

regarding statutory changes suggested by DOH after input from stakeholders;

House Bill 16 – Page

7

b.

Identify and publish a list of all products containing mercury that are ingested or

applied to the body, provide education to the public and medical community, and

consider a ban on mercury-containing products, where appropriate. The list shall

include:

•

Dietary supplements, herbs, homeopathic and Ayurvedic medications that

contain mercury

•

Medications marketed in New Mexico that contain mercury

•

Any cosmetics sold in New Mexico that contains mercury

c. Avoid use of dental mercury amalgam in vulnerable patients in the following

ways:

1. Avoid placing, removing or polishing amalgam in the teeth of pregnant

women, or women who may become pregnant, as the developing brain of the

fetus is the most sensitive receptor to mercury toxicity;

2. Avoid using mercury to restore children’s teeth as their developing central

nervous systems are particularly susceptible to mercury impairment;

3. Avoid using mercury in other vulnerable patients including those with kidney

disease, central nervous system disorders, autoimmune disorders, and

allergic/chemical hypersensitivity, and breastfeeding women; and

4. Avoid placing amalgam in patients with other kinds of metal surfaces in their

mouths.

d. Minimize exposures to airborne mercury in dental offices.

1. Promote the use of methods and equipment to reduce the exposure to

mercury vapor in dental patients and staff; and

2. Inform dental practitioners of the health and environmental risks of mercury

exposures.

e. Reduce exposures to mercury from vaccines containing mercury preservative by:

1.

Implementing a plan to make influenza vaccine that contains no mercury

preservative available for pregnant women, with support from health care

providers;

2.

Educating providers who care for pregnant women on the availability and

benefits to their patients of influenza vaccine that contains no mercury

preservative;

3.

Continuing to promote the production and use of vaccines that contain no

mercury preservative; and

4.

Introducing a resolution at the Association of State and Territorial Health

Officers meeting calling on vaccine manufacturers to move toward all

vaccines that contain no mercury preservative.

f. Educate the public on the risks and benefits of dental mercury amalgam and

vaccine containing mercury preservatives.

Recommendations to NMED and DOH

The Task Force recommends that the both departments:

a. Reduce exposures from food containing mercury, including fish, by

developing a state fish consumption advisory program for both commercial

and locally caught fish, providing public information and outreach, and

studying the feasibility of requiring mercury labeling of food products and

House Bill 16 – Page

8

posting warnings at all commercial establishments and restaurants that sell

fresh, frozen, packaged or cooked fish.

b. Create an ongoing Mercury Reduction Advisory Committee that is similar in

structure and function to the Task Force established by House Memorial 5.

c. Create a comprehensive fact sheet on mercury that includes exposures

from fish, dental amalgam, vaccines, and other common sources.