<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:43289.wais]
THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 1534
__________
JUNE 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-59
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-289 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free(866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Vice Chairman Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
______
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
Bud Albright, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland, Chairman
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois,
BART STUPAK, Michigan Ranking Member
LOIS CAPPS, California CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
TOM ALLEN, Maine NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
HILDA L. SOLIS, California HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
Vice Chairman JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin VITO FOSELLA, New York
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOHN BARROW, Georgia JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
BARON P. HILL, Indiana LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
------
Professional Staff
Richard Frandsen, Chief Counsel
Caroline Ahearn, Counsel
Ann Strickland, Brookings Fellow
Rachel Bleshman, Clerk
Gerald Couri, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
H.R. 1534, to prohibit the sale, distribution, or transfer of
mercury, to prohibit the export of mercury, and for other
purposes....................................................... 8
Hon. Albert R. Wynn, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Maryland, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 3
Hon. Tom Allen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Maine, opening statement....................................... 5
Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Texas, prepared statement...................................... 6
Witnesses
Alice C. Williams, Deputy Associate Administrator, Infrastructure
and Environment, Office of Environmental Projects and
Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Answers to submitted questions............................... 198
Cornel A. Holder, Administrator, Defense National Stockpile
Center, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Department of Defense... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 217
James B. Gulliford, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 241
Linda E. Greer, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 43
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Answers to submitted questions............................... 232
Michael Shannon, M.D., chair, the Committee on Environmental
Health, American Association of Pediatrics; professor and
chair, Division of Emergency Medicine, Children's Hospital
Boston, Harvard Medical School................................. 92
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Answers to submitted questions............................... 191
C. Mark Smith, deputy director, Office of Research and Standards,
director, Massachusetts Mercury Program; co-chair, New England
Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force;
Quicksilver Caucus, Massachusetts Representative............... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Answers to submitted questions............................... 205
Arthur E. Dungan, president, the Chlorine Institute, Incorporated 99
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Answers to submitted questions............................... 223
Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company,
Incorporated................................................... 128
Prepared statement........................................... 129
Answers to submitted questions............................... 210
Submitted Material
Thaomas P. D'Agostino, Deputy Director, Defense Programs,
Department of Energy, memorandum of December 13, 2006,
submitted by Mr. Wynn.......................................... 141
David P. Littell, commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, letter of June 20, 2007, to Mr. Wynn............... 142
Michael Parkinson, M.D., American College of Preventive Medicine,
letter of June 20, 2007 to Mr. Wynn............................ 144
Christopher Bowlin, vice president, government affairs, American
Medical Association, letter of June 21, 2007 to Mr. Wynn....... 145
AMA Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs.............. 151
AMA Report of the Council on Science and Public Health....... 167
Rich Nolan, vice president, government affairs, National Mining
Association, letter of July 6, 2007 to Mr. Wynn................ 179
Michael Tetreault, executive director, the Nature Conservancy,
letter of June 20, 2007 to Mr. Allen........................... 183
Michael McCally, M.D., executive director, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, letter of June 15, 2007 to Mr. Allen........... 184
Michael F. Hirshfield, senior vice president for North America
and chief scientist, Oceana, letter of June 21, 2007 to Messrs.
Wynn and Shimkus............................................... 186
Mark A. Kohorst, senior manager, Environment, Health & Safety,
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, letter of June
29, 2007, to Mr. Wynn.......................................... 188
H.R. 1534, THE MERCURY EXPORT BAN ACT OF 2007
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Albert R.
Wynn (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Capps, Allen, Barrow,
Green, Schakowsky, Shimkus, and Pitts.
Also present: Representative Gillmor.
Staff present: Karen Torrent, Dick Frandsen, Caroline
Ahearn, Ann Strickland, Rachel Bleshman, Jerry Couri, Garrett
Golding, Tom Hassenboehler, and Mo Zilly.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Wynn. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting
to order. Today, we have a hearing on H.R. 1534, the Mercury
Export Ban Act of 2007, introduced by one of our distinguished
members, Mr. Allen.
For the purposes of making opening statements, the Chair
and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the full
committee chair will each be recognized for 5 minutes. All
other members of the subcommittee will be recognized for 3
minutes, though members may waive the right to make an opening
statement and when first recognized to question witnesses,
those members would then add 3 minutes to their time for
questions. Without objection, all members have 5 legislative
days to submit opening statements for the record.
We are here today to hold a hearing on H.R. 1534, the
Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, which, as I indicated, was
introduced and sponsored by my esteemed subcommittee colleague,
Mr. Tom Allen from Maine. This very important legislation will
place an export ban on elemental mercury beginning in year 2010
and prevents Federal agencies from selling, transferring, or
distributing elemental mercury.
The availability of surplus elemental mercury on the world
market presents a grave risk for our health and environment, as
well as the global population and environment. Mercury is a
potent neurotoxin that can cause brain, lung, and kidney
damage. Mercury poses the greatest risk to our most vulnerable
population, the fetuses, infants, children, and women of
childbearing age. Mercury can be transmitted unknowingly by a
mother to a fetus in utero and to a nursing infant through
breast milk. In developing fetuses and young children, mercury
disrupts biological processes critical to brain development.
Mercury is released into the environment through mining and
manufacturing processes and leaks or spills of mercury-
containing products. Mercury emissions can be transported over
long distances and remain airborne for as long as a year. These
emissions, through precipitation, deposit into water bodies
where they are transformed by bacteria into highly toxic methyl
mercury that accumulates in fish and subsequently in humans who
eat mercury-contaminated fish. As many as 44 States have issued
fish advisories warning residents to limit consumption of
mercury-contaminated fish.
Annual mercury use in the United States in the last 20
years has actually decreased from 2,225 to 271 metric tons. The
United States has an excess supply of elemental mercury from
both private and Federal sources. This excess supply will only
increase in future years as the demand for mercury-containing
products continues to decline and the eight chloralkali plants
that use elemental mercury close or switch to another
manufacturing processes.
As of 2010, there are expected to be five remaining mercury
chloralkali plants. An estimated surplus of 1,400 to 1,500
metric tons of elemental mercury would be generated if these
five plants closed or switched to a non-mercury manufacturing
process.
EPA estimates that other mercury-generating sources: gold
mining, consumer product recycling, and site remediation
programs combine to generate up to 200 metric tons per year.
Today, elemental mercury offered for sale from
decommissioned chloralkali plants and the lesser producing
sources travels through an unregulated and mysterious chain of
brokers and processors. Much of this mercury ends up being used
in artisanal or small scale gold mining by people in developing
countries, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These
miners use mercury and heat to separate grains of gold from
small bits of sand and rock in pans. This process releases most
of the mercury into the environment, exposing people nearby to
toxic fumes that can cause tremors, memory loss, and other
symptoms of neurological damage. Between 10 and 15 million
people, including 4.5 million women and 1 million children, are
working at small scale mines. According to the United Nations
Environment Program, artisanal mining results in the release of
as much as 1,000 tons of mercury per year, accounting for about
one-third of all global manmade mercury releases into the
environment.
Recall the principle that pollution knows no geographical
boundaries, elemental mercury that we export overseas returns
back to the United States as toxic pollution contaminating our
country's air, soil, water and fish. Congress must take action
now to prohibit the export of mercury to reduce this global
pollution that imperils the health of our citizens, and also
contributes to the ongoing degradation of the environment, both
home and abroad.
H.R. 1534 addresses the problem of global mercury pollution
by banning the export of elemental mercury and setting up an
advisory committee to advise Congress on how this excess
mercury should be stored and handled for the long term. The
legislation will also prevent Federal agencies from selling,
transferring, or distributing elemental mercury. DOD and DOE
combined store close to 6,000 metric tons of mercury. In fact,
DOD and DOE's decision to stockpile their mercury grew out of
their concerns about the impact that mercury releases may have
on human health and the environment.
I applaud Congressman Allen for his dedication and
leadership on this issue, and I look forward to the testimony
from the panels on this issue.
At this time, I recognize our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus,
for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it has been a
long week, so if we struggle for words, we have actually been
working here. It is good to have everybody here on time and
moving punctually.
Like you, I am interested in learning more on this subject
and exploring the views from our witnesses. I appreciate our
witnesses for coming here. In the last week, I think most of
our members have learned more about mercury than in the past
years that I have been here, because as a lot of us know,
mercury is all around us. It is a natural element that appears
in every high school classroom's periodic table. However, we
know that human exposure to mercury can result in very serious
health issues. When these products are mishandled, damaged or
broken, we are exposed to vaporized elemental mercury. I even
played with mercury in this form as a child, which some may
explain why I am the way I am, and we won't go into that
detail. Many folks in my era did, and I remember the neighbor
down the street who had it. We pulled it out, we smashed it, we
wove it together--scary times.
Last night, the Senate passed their energy bill. In both
their bill and the bill we marked up on committee on Wednesday,
we have encouraged the use of these, compact fluorescent light
bulbs. This could place mercury in people's homes, schools,
daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. We had this
great debate Wednesday night about labeling, which I think we
should both be embarrassed about. That is why I said it was
kind of stupid, because it mentions mercury on this package.
One side didn't want to put it on the package, we said put it
on the package, and it is on the package anyway. Versus these
types of light bulbs.
Now, the Senate and us are going to expansively move to
expand the use of these bulbs throughout not only our country,
but we hope the world, which brings out the schizophrenic
nature of our public policy debate, and I will highlight some
of those when I get a chance.
In our quest to be energy efficient, we must be careful to
ensure that people are aware of the risk associated with
mercury. My own State of Illinois, like eight other States, has
passed a law to take mercury containing products out of
schools. We do not know what the safe level of elemental
mercury exposure is for our children.
For the record, there are 144 lights in this hearing room
filled with at least 8 milligrams, based on the 2002 industry
standard. That is at least 1,152 milligrams of mercury, and we
were talking about the baseball game, and I was envisioning
this in the Wednesday night debate, what if a terrorist came
into the room armed with 36 baseballs and started throwing them
at the ceiling, busting the lights and spreading vaporized
mercury all over the hearing room? Well, when a glass
thermometer was dropped outside the attending physician's
office, as was stated in the hearing on Wednesday night, they
shut down the hallway for 4 hours. And that is less than the
mercury involved in these light bulbs up here.
Currently compact fluorescent bulbs are 5 to 6 percent of
domestic lighting sales, and bulbs in the United States are
made largely in Asia, specifically in China. As we know, the
region has lower environmental standards than those in the
United States. A lot of people would be surprised to find out
that the United States is the only industrialized country that
now has standards for mercury emissions. We talk about Europe
and we talk about everybody else moving on environmental
standards. United States is the only country that has mercury
standards, and we will be able to address this in the second
panel.
Since mercury is an essential ingredient of bulbs, if the
United States and the European Union cut off exports to China,
what will that do for the global mercury stocks? Will the price
become such that regular Americans who want this technology
can't afford it? We are encouraging to buy it, but the light
bulbs are exponentially more costly than regular old
inefficient light bulbs.
In addition, if we ban mercury exports, we need to figure
out what we are going to do with all the mercury we have here.
I know that some want essential storage facilities. Given the
last three decades of controversy concerning Yucca Mountain, I
would urge my colleagues to use caution when pursuing a similar
solution to mercury. I have actually joked about let us just
add an additional wing to Yucca Mountain. We can have the
mercury wing and we can store it there.
Finally, I want to know what the United States is doing
from a regulatory and diplomatic perspective to reduce
dangerous mercury exposures. Before we legislate, we need to
know if there are gaps in existing law and how any of our
efforts mesh with existing ones.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we are just starting this
whole process of informing members. It is a great hearing. I
appreciate your time, and I yield back.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement.
I, too, played with mercury, so I know. I thought it was pretty
cool, too.
Mr. Shimkus. That explains you and me.
Mr. Wynn. Hopefully we have come a long way since then.
At this time, I would like to recognize the sponsor of the
legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Maine, Mr. Tom
Allen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM ALLEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for
your concern for this particular area, and for holding this
hearing on my bill, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of
2007. I am pretty sure I played with mercury, too, so that
makes three of us, but it was elemental mercury and you know,
the waste issue that my friend Mr. Shimkus raised about any
products containing mercury is something that needs to be
addressed, because fundamentally, once elemental mercury gets
into the waste stream and gets up in the atmosphere and comes
down, it becomes methyl mercury in bodies of water, and that
methyl mercury is the major challenge we have in terms of the
effects on wildlife and the threat to human beings.
It is a well-established fact that mercury is a powerful
neurotoxin, harmful at even low exposure levels. It is harmful
whether it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin.
Once exposed to water, elemental mercury is transformed to
methyl mercury, which is highly toxic and which has a tendency
to bioaccumulate in both fish and the humans who eat the fish,
and I would add, songbirds and other things as well. Very young
children with developing nervous systems are particularly at
risk. In addition, pregnant mothers who are exposed to mercury
pollution can transmit mercury to their unborn children,
increasing the chances of miscarriage and birth defects.
My home State of Maine has been a national leader in
educating people about the dangers of mercury and in reducing
exposure to mercury through State sources. Maine's 5,800 lakes
and ponds and our 32,000 miles of rivers, streams, and brooks
have been under a fish consumption advisory since 1994 because
of mercury pollution. According to Commissioner David Latell of
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, ``In-state
controls have reduced mercury emissions over 75 percent since
1990. Seventy-five percent of our State's historic use of
mercury in products will be eliminated through a series of
sales and disposal bins; yet because mercury remains in
widespread use elsewhere in the world, atmospheric transport
continues to bring mercury into our States. Maine's actions
alone cannot stop ongoing contamination of our environment.''
My bill seeks to combat a large source of mercury pollution
worldwide, namely the export of elemental mercury from the
United States to developing countries. This mercury is used
largely for artisanal mining. Exposure occurs when miners
handle the mercury. It enters the water when miners pan for
gold, and enters the air through the smelting process, which
emits mercury vapor.
According to the United Nations Environment Program,
approximately 15 million people worldwide, including 4.5
million women and 1 million children, engage in artisanal
mining with mercury, exposing them to the poisons that mercury
produces. Some of this mercury is exported from the United
States, and that should be unacceptable to us as a Nation.
Further, this practice harms Americans exposed through the
global air transport of mercury pollution or through the
consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.
The Departments of Defense and Energy are the two largest
holders of mercury in the United States. The EPA has urged DOD
and DOE not to sell its mercury stockpiles, due to the serious
human health and environmental risks associated with mercury.
DOD and DOE have agreed; however, that ban is not in law, which
is why my bill prohibits the Federal Government from exporting
mercury. Further, private companies may still export this
poisonous and hazardous material, which is why my legislation
is necessary.
Finally, I believe we need to develop a long-term solution
to the problem of mercury storage and disposal, especially if
we are going to ban the international trade in mercury. My bill
establishes an advisory committee made up of a wide range of
stakeholders that is tasked with reporting back to Congress no
later than 1 year after enactment with recommendations for
long-term storage options. Long-term storage of mercury is
relatively easy and cheap, compared to storage and disposal of
other hazardous materials.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you for your opening statement, and again,
for your leadership on this issue.
We have actually got a vote on. I would like to see if we
can get opening statements in. I would like to recognize the
gentleman, Mr. Pitts, for an opening statement.
Mr. Pitts. I will waive.
Mr. Wynn. I would like to recognize the gentleman, Mr.
Green of Texas, for an opening statement.
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I will waive, but I support my
colleague from Maine's bill. I have no problem at all with
being able to develop a site to hold mercury. We do that with
asbestos and other contaminated items.
Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. At this point, the
subcommittee will recess until the conclusion of votes, and
other statements will be accepted for the record.. We will
reconvene immediately after the last vote in this series.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green and H.R. 1534
follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on
H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban of 2007. As a member of the
Health Subcommittee and the Foreign Affairs Committee I
recognize the global and health related benefits of this bill.
Mercury is a neurotoxin that is very harmful to children,
fetuses, and pregnant women. Once the true health effects of
mercury were realized in the United States its use for
manufacturing and products was decreased.
However, we are now burdened with reserves of commercial
mercury that is being sold to recyclers who have no mean of
disposing of the mercury. The recyclers sell this mercury to
brokers who distribute this mercury on the global market.
Once on the global market this mercury is used by small
scale gold miners who unknowingly allow their miners to
unsafely expose themselves to mercury.
Once this mercury is released into the atmosphere or water
we are allowing other countries to contribute to a global
mercury contamination problem.
We essentially are selling mercury to other countries in an
attempt to get rid of it only to have the mercury come back to
us in the form of contamination.
It is time we prohibit the sale of mercury overseas and
begin safely stockpiling the mercury we have in this country.
The Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have
maintained Government mercury stockpiles for years and we
should do the same with commercial mercury.
The EPA has been investigating the issue of mercury in the
United States for quite some time, but with no deadline issued
by Congress progress on this issue has been slow.
This bill would ban exporting elemental mercury by 2010 and
the sale, distribution, or transfer of elemental mercury
between State and local government, Federal agency, or private
entity except for storage purposes.
It would also require the EPA issue a report to Congress 1
year after the ban to address the issue of mercury in the
United States and create an Excess Mercury Storage Committee so
that we can address the storage and health issues related to
elemental mercury in the United States.
Some of my colleagues on this committee may say that this
bill is putting the cart before the horse. To that I say,
sometimes we need to set deadlines in order to deal with the
issues at hand.
I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the
same. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.210
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.211
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.212
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.213
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.214
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.215
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.216
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.217
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.218
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.219
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.220
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.221
[Recess.]
Mr. Wynn. The subcommittee will now come to order.
I believe I saw Mr. Barrow here. I was going to inquire if
he wanted to make an opening statement, but he apparently
stepped out.
That being the case, I believe all opening statements are
concluded and we will move to hearing from our distinguished
panel. I would like to introduce Ms. Alice Williams, who is
Deputy Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and
Environment for the National Nuclear Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Energy. We also have with us Mr. Cornel
Holder, Administrator, National Defense Stockpile Center, U.S.
Department of Defense, and also Mr. James Gulliford, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Welcome. Thank you for coming, and we would like to hear
opening statements for about 5 minutes. Your entire statements,
of course, will be included in the record.
Ms. Williams, if you would like to proceed.
STATEMENT OF ALICE C. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Williams. Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Department of Energy's management of its stockpile
of mercury located at the National Nuclear Security
Administration, NNSA, and I will refer to it as NNSA throughout
the testimony, at the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak
Ridge, Tennessee.
NNSA was established in 2000 as a separate organized agency
within the Department of Energy, responsible for enhancing
national security through the military application of nuclear
energy. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security,
reliability, and performance of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile,
works to continue to reduce global danger from weapons of mass
destruction, provides the United States Navy with safe and
effective nuclear propulsion, and responds to nuclear and
radiological emergencies in the United States and abroad.
Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA
is in safe, secure storage at the Y-12 National Security
Complex and the Department has no plans to sell it. The mercury
in storage was originally acquired by the Atomic Energy
Commission in the 1950s and 1960s for the separation of lithium
isotopes. The Cold War production of enriched lithium required
millions of pounds of mercury. In 1963, the Y-12 lithium
separation and enrichment program was shut down, and over the
next several years the production process was dismantled and
the mercury was recovered. The mercury, some owned by the
Department of Defense and some by the Department of Energy, was
placed in storage at Y-12. Over time, a significant quantity of
the mercury was sold, leaving 1,206 metric tons of the NNSA-
owned mercury still in storage. The last time the Department of
Energy sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single-largest
inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD owned mercury
stored at Y-12 was transferred to the DOD storage facility in
2005.
In the 1970s, the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred
from existing seamed flasks into new seamless flasks, each of
which can hold 76 pounds of mercury. Approximately 35,000 of
these flasks, which are made of 3L carbon steel and sealed with
a threaded pipe plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden
pallets. The pallets are stored up to three high in a single
story solid brick wall constructed building that is used only
for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by
90 feet, and has a concrete floor that is sealed with a leak-
proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike exists around the outer edge
of the building to contain any material that would be released
in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is
constructed to be environmentally protective. In addition, the
building is equipped with an automatic dry pipe fire
suppression system and portable fire extinguishers. The
building is further located within security fences and
boundaries, as well as within the perimeter intrusion detection
and assessment system at the Y-12 facility.
Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections
of the building are performed on a routine basis. The air
monitoring is conducted at two locations near the storage
building, and includes monitoring airborne mercury vapor.
Measured concentrations are well below the current
environmental and occupational health standards for inhalation
exposure of the mercury vapor.
The visual inspections are performed on a quarterly basis
for fire safety and to observe for leaks or abnormal
conditions. There is no history of a flask that has leaked and
the condition of the flasks appears to be very good at this
time.
Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y-12
complex will be costly. It has been estimated that storing the
mercury for the next 40 years at Y-12 could cost about $42
million. The costs are related to the maintenance of the
building, such as installing a new roof, reflasking, if it is
determined that the flasks storing the mercury have
deteriorated significantly, air monitoring, visual inspections,
and securing the building as well as the management.
Following the decision by Defense Nuclear Stockpile Center
in 1994 to halt the sale of mercury, NNSA began to explore its
options for the disposition of the surplus mercury at Y-12. One
of these options was to sell the surplus mercury, which
resulted in the preparation of a draft environmental
assessment. The EA, which tiered from the DOD's Final Mercury
Management Environmental Impact Statement, analyzed the
environmental impacts of several alternatives related to the
management of mercury. Before the EA was finalized, NNSA
decided in December 2006 to continue to store the surplus
stockpile of mercury at the Y-12 site. This decision was based
on several factors, but included mercury's known toxicity to
living organisms and its mobility in the biosphere, continued
global efforts to reduce the use of elemental mercury in the
developing countries, and policies of other countries, for
example, the countries that make up the European Union support
long-term storage of elemental mercury.
At this time, we believe that continuing to store NNSA's
stockpile of mercury at our Y-12 complex or identifying an
alternate storage location is the right thing to do. It ensures
that the mercury will not be released to the global
environment, thereby minimizing mercury emissions and reducing
contamination levels in the environment of this toxic chemical.
This concludes my statement, and I will be pleased to
respond to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
Statement of Alice C. Williams
Chairman Wynn, Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
Department of Energy's management of its stockpile of mercury
located at the National Nuclear Security Administration Y-12
National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. NNSA was
established in 2000 as a separate organized agency within the
U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national
security through the military application of nuclear energy.
NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability
and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; works to
reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides
the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and
responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United
States and abroad.
Presently, the stockpile of surplus mercury owned by NNSA
is in safe, secure storage at the Y-12 National Security
Complex and the Department has no plans to sell it. The mercury
in storage was originally acquired by the Atomic Energy
Commission in the 1950's and 1960's for the separation of
lithium isotopes. The Cold War production of enriched lithium
required millions of pounds of mercury. In 1963, the Y-12
lithium separation and enrichment program was shut down, and
over the next several years the production process was
dismantled and mercury was recovered. The mercury, some owned
by the Department of Defense (DOD) and some by the Department
of Energy, was placed in storage at Y-12. Over time, a
significant quantity of the mercury was sold leaving 1,206
metric tons of the NNSA-owned mercury still in storage; the
last time DOE sold mercury was in 1994. This is the single
largest inventory of mercury in the DOE complex. The DOD-owned
mercury stored at Y-12 was transferred to a DOD storage
facility in 2005.
In the 1970s the NNSA mercury inventory was transferred
from existing seamed flasks to new seamless flasks, each of
which can hold about 76 pounds of mercury. Approximately 35,000
flasks, which are made of 3-L carbon steel and sealed with a
threaded pipe plug, are stored in groups of 45 on wooden
pallets. The pallets are stored up to three high in a single-
story, solid block wall construction building that is used only
for mercury storage. The building is approximately 150 feet by
90 feet and has a concrete floor that is sealed with a leak-
proof coating. A 6- to 8-inch dike exists around the outer edge
of the building to contain any material that could be released
in the event of a spill. In other words, the building is
constructed to be environmentally protective. In addition, the
building is equipped with an automatic dry-pipe (water supply)
fire suppression system and portable fire extinguishers. The
building is located within security fences and boundaries as
well as within the Perimeter Intrusion, Detection, and
Assessment System at Y-12.
Continuous air monitoring and periodic visual inspections
of the storage building are performed on a routine basis. The
air monitoring is conducted at two locations near the storage
building and includes monitoring airborne mercury vapor--
measured concentrations are well below the current
environmental and occupational health standards for inhalation
exposure to mercury vapor. The visual inspections are performed
on a quarterly basis for fire safety and to observe for leaks
or abnormal conditions. There is no history of a flask that has
leaked and the condition of the flasks appears good at this
time.
Providing for long-term storage of mercury at the Y-12
National Security Complex will be costly. It has been estimated
that storing the mercury for the next 40 years at Y-12 could
cost about $42 million. The costs are related to maintenance of
the building such as installing a new roof; reflasking if it is
determined that the flasks storing the mercury have
deteriorated significantly; air monitoring; visual inspections;
security of the building; and facility management.
Following the decision by the Defense Nuclear Stockpile
Center in 1994 to halt the sale of mercury, NNSA began to
explore its options for the disposition of the surplus mercury
at Y-12. One of these options was to sell the surplus mercury
which resulted in the preparation of a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA). The EA, which tiered from DOD's Final Mercury
Management Environmental Impact Statement, analyzed the
environmental impacts of several alternatives related to the
management of mercury. Before the draft EA was finalized, NNSA
decided in December 2006, to continue to store the surplus
stockpile of mercury at the Y-12 site. This decision was based
on several factors which included:
<bullet> Mercury's known toxicity to living organisms and
its mobility in the biosphere.
<bullet> Continued global efforts to reduce the use of
elemental mercury in developing countries.
<bullet> The policies of other countries (e.g. the
countries that make up the European Union) support long-term
storage of elemental mercury.
At this time we believe that continuing to store NNSA's
stockpile of mercury at our Y-12 National Security Complex or
identifying an alternate storage location is the right thing to
do. It ensures that the mercury will not be released to the
global environment thereby minimizing mercury emissions and
reducing contamination levels in the environment of this toxic
chemical.
This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond
to your questions.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Thank you for your testimony.
We now would like to hear from Mr. Holder.
STATEMENT OF CORNEL A. HOLDER, ADMINISTRATOR, DEFENSE NATIONAL
STOCKPILE CENTER, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE, FT. BELVOIR, VA
Mr. Holder. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. I am Cornel Holder, Administrator
of Defense Stockpile Center, a field Activity of Defense
Logistics Agency.
The Defense Logistics Agency is the Department's only
Logistics Combat Support Agency. The Defense National Stockpile
Center is responsible for providing safe, secure, and
environmentally sound storage for strategic and critical
materials that make up the National Defense Stockpile.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to describe
the management of the stockpile and discuss the storage of
elemental mercury in the inventory.
The National Defense Stockpile was created shortly after
World War II to acquire and store critical ores and materials.
These supplies were intended to lessen the United States
dependency on foreign sources of supply in times of war or
national emergency. In 1988, the program was transferred by
Executive order to Department of Defense, who assigned the
management of the program to Defense Logistics Agency. A change
in direction of the stockpile occurred in 1994 when over 99
percent of the inventory was determined to be in excess of
Department of Defense needs, and over the next several years
Congress authorized its disposal.
Elemental mercury has been in the stockpile inventory since
the 1940s. The U.S. Government purchased the mercury inventory
from a number of countries, including Spain, India, China, and
Italy. Congress has authorized the sale of a small portion of
mercury inventory in 1981, and the Defense National Stockpile
Center sold mercury to foreign and domestic buyers into the
early 1990s. In 1994, the Defense National Stockpile Center
suspended the sales of mercury in response to congressional
concerns about the potential environmental impact of selling
mercury, and requested the Department to evaluate alternative
mercury disposal options or long-term storage.
Currently, there are 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at
depots located in Somerville, NJ; New Haven, IN; and Warren,
OH. The mercury inventory is stored in 76-pound steel flasks
and over-packed in 30-gallon carbon steel drums. Mercury has
been safely stored for over 50 years.
Annual reductions in the number of quantities of stockpile
inventory has been occurring since 1994, and has lead to
corresponding reductions in Defense National Stockpile Center
infrastructure. The reductions led to the need to develop a
long-term strategy for continued management of the mercury
inventory. An environmental impact statement was initiated in
2001 and completed in 2004. The statement analyzed three
alternatives for long-term management of the mercury. One,
leaving the mercury at existing storage locations; two,
consolidating the mercury storage at one location; and selling
the mercury inventory. In the record of decision, the Stockpile
chose the long-term storage alternative. The decision was based
on a combination of environmental and economic factors, policy
consideration, and stakeholder's comments. Consolidated storage
also facilitates the National Defense Stockpile long-term
closure strategy at the sites in which mercury is removed. The
chosen sites for consolidated storage is Hawthorne Army Depot
in Hawthorne, Nevada. The Hawthorne Army Depot, a Government-
owned contractor-operated facility, will provide storage
facilities as well as necessary service and support to maintain
the mercury inventory. The Defense National Stockpile Center is
working with the State of Nevada and Hawthorne to ensure the
mercury is properly prepared for transportation to Nevada and
that the facilities are upgraded to meet Stockpile's high
standards.
The Defense National Stockpile Center is fully committed to
safe, secure, environmentally sound management and storage of
the mercury. The decision to consolidate and store mercury is
consistent with the H.R. 1534 prohibition on the sale and
transfer of mercury by Federal agencies.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee on this important issue, and I welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holder follows:]
Statement of Cornel A. Holder
Good morning, Mr.Chairman, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Cornel Holder, administrator of the Defense
National Stockpile Center (DNSC), a field activity of the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DLA is the Department of
Defense's only Logistics Combat Support Agency. DNSC is
responsible for providing safe, secure and environmentally
sound stewardship for the strategic and critical materials that
make up the National Defense Stockpile. I to describe DNSC's
management of the National Defense Stockpile and to
specifically discuss the management of the elemental mercury
stored in the National Defense Stockpile inventory.
The purpose of the National Defense Stockpile is to ensure
that the United States has a sufficient supply of strategic and
critical materials to supply military, industrial, and
essential civilian needs for national defense. The National
Defense Stockpile was created shortly after World War II to
acquire and store critical ores and materials to lessen United
States dependence on foreign sources of supply in times of war
or national emergency. Between 1949 and 1988, the General
Services Administration and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency were responsible for the program. In 1988, Executive
Order 12626 transferred the responsibility for the National
Defense Stockpile to the Department of Defense who subsequently
assigned the management of the program to the Defense Logistics
Agency. DNSC was established within DLA to manage the strategic
and critical materials held in the National Defense Stockpile.
Since 1994, over 99 percent of the NDS has been determined to
be excess to department needs, and Congress has authorized its
disposal. The activities of DNSC are governed by the Strategic
and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 98 et
seq.
Elemental mercury has been in the National Defense
Stockpile inventory since the 1940s. The United States
government purchased the mercury inventory from a number of
countries including Spain, India, China, and Italy. Congress
had authorized the sale of a small portion of the mercury
inventory in 1981, and DNSC sold mercury to foreign and
domestic buyers into the early 1990s. In 1994, DNSC suspended
the sale of mercury in response to congressional concerns
regarding the potential environmental impact of selling mercury
and the request that the Department evaluate alternative
mercury disposal options or long-term storage. The
Environmental Protection Agency supported our decision to
suspend mercury sales and to develop environmentally sound
management options for mercury.
Currently, DNSC has 4,436 metric tons of mercury stored at
depots located in Somerville, New Jersey; New Haven, Indiana;
and Warren, Ohio. The DNSC inventory of mercury is stored in 76
pound flasks. The mercury in the National Defense Stockpile has
been safely stored for over 50 years and DNSC is fully
committed to the safe, secure and environmentally sound
management and storage of mercury. In 2001, to provide
additional levels of protection, DNSC overpacked the mercury
flasks into 30 gallon drums. There are six flasks per drum,
with the flasks sealed in plastic bags with cardboard inserts
to keep the flasks apart, and a mercury-absorbent cushion in
the bottom of the drum. Each drum has a one inch rubber gasket
in the drum ring that, when tightened, provides a water and
air-tight seal. The drums are on pallets (five drums to a
pallet) with drip pans underneath the drums for additional
protection. Additionally, the warehouse floors where the
mercury is stored have been sealed, and entry into each mercury
storage access is controlled. Mercury vapor sampling is
conducted during routine inspections and every three years
private auditing companies conduct an environmental review of
all DNSC storage locations.
Reductions in the number and quantity of National Defense
Stockpile inventory have led to a corresponding reduction in
the DNSC infrastructure. DNSC has reduced its number of
operating depots, closed out storage sites, and reduced its
workforce. This reduction in footprint necessitated the
development of a long-term strategy for the continued
management of the mercury inventory. This required the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DNSC analyzed
three alternatives in its Environmental Impact Statement: (1)
leaving the mercury at the existing storage locations; (2)
consolidating mercury storage at one location; and (3) selling
the mercury inventory. The EIS, completed in April 2004,
indicated all three alternatives would have negligible to minor
environmental impacts, and that the human health and ecological
risks from all three would be negligible. In the Record of
Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement, DNSC made the
decision that long-term consolidated storage at one location
was the preferable alternative. This decision was based on a
combination of environmental and economic factors, policy
considerations, and stakeholder comments. Consolidated storage
also facilitates DNSC's long-term closure strategy at the sites
from which the mercury is removed.
Site selection for the consolidated storage of the mercury
then needed to be determined. Hawthorne Army Depot (HWAD) in
Hawthorne, Nevada, was considered as a consolidated storage
location in the EIS. HWAD is a government-owned, contractor-
operated facility whose main mission is the maintenance and
storage of conventional ammunition. HWAD includes sufficient
warehouse space for the storage of the DNSC mercury inventory,
and the EIS concluded that storage there would have minimal
environmental impacts with negligible ecological and human
health risks. DNSC signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Army Joint Munitions Command on May 31, 2006, wherein HWAD will
provide storage facilities and related support to maintain the
DNSC mercury inventory on a reimbursable basis on behalf of
DNSC. DNSC is currently working with HWAD and the Nevada
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to facilitate
the transfer of mercury to Hawthorne and ensure the facilities
are upgraded and safety protocols are in place for the
continued safe and secure long-term storage of mercury. The
projected transportation costs to move mercury to HWAD is $1.4
million and the estimated annual storage cost at HWAD is $505
thousand. If the Department were authorized to sell its
existing stockpile of mercury--the estimated sales receipts
would be $83.6 million.
DNSC's decision to consolidate and store mercury allows us
to continue to manage the National Defense Stockpile mercury
inventory in an environmentally responsible, safe, and secure
manner. This decision is consistent with the H.R. 1534,
``Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007,'' prohibition on sale,
distribution, or transfer of mercury by Federal Agencies. I
thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee on this important issue.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Holder.
We will now hear from Mr. Gulliford.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. GULLIFORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gulliford. Good morning, Chairman Wynn, Congressman
Shimkus, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting
me to testify today regarding the export and storage of
commodity grade mercury, and H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban
Act of 2007.
I have a few opening remarks, but also ask that my written
testimony be included for the hearing record.
Mr. Wynn. Without objection.
Mr. Gulliford. Thank you.
Let me begin by emphasizing that I share your interest in
continuing to advance efforts to reduce global and domestic use
of mercury. I am proud of the work that we have done to date to
address domestic mercury emissions and use, and to launch a
number of international mercury partnerships. We are committed
to working domestically and internationally to reduce mercury
risk to human health and the environment.
In July 2006, EPA published the Roadmap for Mercury. This
document provides the public and all of our stakeholders with a
clear statement of EPA's commitment to address mercury in the
environment, and continued collaboration with our Federal and
State partners is key to addressing the priorities and
completing the projects that are outlined in the Roadmap.
With respect to H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of
2007, I think we all agree that the challenge of global mercury
is multi-faceted and therefore, there are no simple solutions
to this complex global problem. However, I believe that efforts
to reduce mercury use and demand are the most important next
steps.
Programs to address mercury demand, both domestically and
globally, and to eliminate the primary mining of mercury are
critical. H.R. 1534 would impose a ban on exports of mercury
from the United States. The prospect of an export ban raises a
number of important questions that would need to be carefully
considered. For example, would a ban on U.S. exports lead to
new efforts of primary mining of mercury elsewhere in the world
to meet global mercury demand? What effect might a U.S. export
ban have on efforts to encourage the use of mercury from
environmentally preferable sources, such as recycled mercury?
Could an export ban be made consistent with U.S. trade
obligations, and if such a ban were implemented, what would
happen to excess stocks of mercury now in private hands in the
United States? As an alternative to an export ban, the
administration believes that the first priority should be given
to pursuing demand management strategies.
The proposed legislation also includes the establishment of
an expert panel, and we agree that a stakeholder approach is
valuable in developing solutions to storage of excess mercury.
Earlier this year, EPA, in conjunction with a Federal
interagency workgroup, established a stakeholder group to
provide the Government with an assessment of options for
managing non-Federal supplies of mercury. The stakeholder
participants have been selected to represent a balanced mix of
academia, industry, States, and nongovernmental organizations,
and we have asked them to address how domestic, non-Federal
stocks of mercury could be managed in the short and long term.
Finally, we agree that the U.S. Government must exercise
its stewardship responsibilities for the mercury stocks under
its control, and I applaud both Departments of Defense and
Energy, with whom EPA works closely, for their decisions to
ensure that their stockpiles will remain safely in storage.
Again, our domestic track record is solid. Demand for
elemental mercury in the United States has declined
significantly over the past decade, and I expect that trend to
continue. However, there is still work to be done domestically
and there are significant international needs as well.
At the 2005 UNEP governing council, the United States led
efforts to develop global partnerships to reduce risk for
mercury internationally. EPA has been instrumental in leading
the development and implementation of these partnerships which
aim for tangible mercury reductions by leveraging resources,
providing technical expertise, technology transfer, and
information exchanges in various sectors, and we are committed
to ensuring that these partnerships are both productive and
effective.
In closing, the administration places great importance on
addressing both domestic and international mercury issues. EPA
is committed to finding protective and comprehensive solutions,
and I look forward to working with the subcommittee and others
to achieve this shared goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gulliford follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.006
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, and I would like to thank all of the
witnesses for their testimony.
This concludes the opening statement of our panel of
witnesses, and the Chair would like to recognize himself for 5
minutes.
Ms. Williams, the first question I have is: isn't it true
that when DOE was deciding what to do with its 1,200 ton
stockpile of mercury, that EPA urged NNSA to store the mercury
and not to place it on the world market because of the harm
that could result?
Ms. Williams. EPA provided counsel to us, as did DOD, as
did other Government agencies, and so we took all of those
opinions and positions into account.
Mr. Wynn. Could you describe the environmental and public
health consequences that EPA shared with you?
Ms. Williams. There were many of these that have already
been shared in your opening comments. The fact that it is a
bioaccumulating element; the fact that it gets into the water
system and can microbially be changed into methyl mercury; the
fact that it is very dangerous to women and unborn children.
All of those were the things that we considered and we also had
long discussions about artisanal mining and how artisanal
mining is conducted and perhaps some of the impacts of that.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you. Mr. Holder, DOD has also decided to
stockpile its mercury and not sell it on the global market. Is
it correct that DNSC voluntarily halted mercury sales in 1994
because of the concerns raised by the EPA and others about the
effect of mercury on the global environment?
Mr. Holder. There were concerns also by Congress and EPA,
and yes, we did suspend sales in 1994, based on those concerns
about mercury getting into the environment.
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Gulliford, the question I have is if EPA has
now advised both DOE and DOD to store rather than sell its
elemental mercury, when we talk about the private sector, are
we essentially talking about the same kind of mercury?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes, we are, same type of mercury.
Mr. Wynn. Would you have similar environmental concerns
with respect to this mercury being sold to foreign buyers as
you expressed to DOE?
Mr. Gulliford. Absolutely, and those concerns are stressed
very clearly in both the Mercury Roadmap and in my testimony as
well.
Mr. Wynn. Now, you made reference to the possibility that
there might be some new primary mining of mercury. Do you have
any evidence of that?
Mr. Gulliford. The ability to mine mercury exists,
obviously, in various places in the world. It is currently very
active right now in Kyrgyzstan and also in China, and clearly,
the world market responds to the availability and the demand
for mercury supplies. And while I don't necessarily have
reasons to believe that mercury mining would or wouldn't
increase, but I think it is likely, again, given the demand for
mercury internationally----
Mr. Wynn. Well, you are saying two things. One you are
saying you don't know whether it would or it would not, then
you are now saying it is likely.
Can I say that you really don't have any evidence that it
would increase, given that there are existing sources?
Mr. Gulliford. As I stated in my testimony, I think that
that's a very important question that would need to be explored
in considerable detail.
Mr. Wynn. What is the cost of these mining operations, if
you were to start a primary mine?
Mr. Gulliford. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Wynn. Do you know who finances these mining operations?
Mr. Gulliford. I don't know the answer to that, but it
would either be done through government----
Mr. Wynn. Would someone financing a new mining operation be
concerned about liability questions?
Mr. Gulliford. I don't know whether they would or they
wouldn't. I don't know the condition of actual mining that
exists in the places that I have described, either Kyrgyzstan
or China.
Mr. Wynn. All right. I don't believe I have any further
questions.
I would like to turn to our ranking member, Mr. Shimkus,
for questions.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are really good
questions, Kyrgyzstan and China, but we don't have a mining
association here. They could probably answer the cost of what a
mine costs, what is the commodity return, and the risk assumed
and stuff. Maybe we can get them on record. Just a point.
Mr. Gulliford, do you know that an export ban would reduce
mercury contamination of air, water, or fish either in the U.S.
or abroad?
Mr. Gulliford. It would only reduce any types of emissions
from mercury sources if it were to result in less actual use of
mercury worldwide, and we can't be certain of that unless we
know whether or not there are adequate supplies of mercury in
the marketplace and other locations, and whether or not there
would be additional mining initiated as a result of a ban on
domestic export of mercury from the United States.
The reality is the amount of mercury that is exported from
the United States is not a great percentage of the world market
share.
Mr. Shimkus. There has to be a comprehensive approach. I
mean, we are talking about China's mining operations. I think
the vast majority involved, 99 percent of these are produced in
China. Obviously--and I like these bulbs. I like energy
efficiency. I think they are great things, but as we expand
that, we are sending conflicting signals. We are sending a
signal, more mercury, until technology--which I think in the
light bulb industry, is 5 to 10 years away, depending upon what
type of light bulb it is. I am not picking on it because I have
got these in my home now. I am replacing them, and as such, we
are purchasing them in the Federal buildings, but we are
sending contrary signals if there needs to be a comprehensive
approach, we are encouraging more mercury in the worldwide
economy by pushing these bulbs, is that correct?
Mr. Gulliford. The mercury for those bulbs pretty much is
supplied by mining that actually occurs in China. China has the
ability to produce mercury that it needs for its domestic
purposes and for the development of products that it exports.
It also exports traditional mercury containing products, such
as thermometers, other measuring tools, and the like. So the
Chinese are certainly willing to export mercury and put mercury
in the various products.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Is there a release in just the operation
itself of a mine that either is a primary product or a
secondary product? Is there a natural emission through the
mining of mercury into the atmosphere?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes. The mining activities do result in
releases of mercury.
Mr. Shimkus. Great. Thank you very much.
Ms. Williams, according to your testimony, the DOE was left
with 1,200 metric tons of recovered mercury in storage after it
decided--Mr. Holder, in storage after it decided to stop its
sales. How much was actually sold and what led to the decision
to stop selling?
Mr. Holder. Between 1980 and 1990s, we sold approximately
50,000 flasks, which equates to about 3.8 million pounds of
mercury. We currently have 4,436 metric tons remaining within
the inventory.
Mr. Shimkus. Who were the main buyers, do you know?
Mr. Holder. Main buyers were domestic and international
companies. Domestic, B.F. Goldsmith, Bethlehem Apparatus,
Asian, Atlantis and international was Beni Mercurio.
Mr. Shimkus. Is there any data about what happened to the
price of mercury domestically and abroad after NNSA halted
sales?
Mr. Holder. No, after we basically left the marketplace, we
did not continue gathering market intelligence of sales of
mercury.
Mr. Shimkus. In your verbal statement starting, you
mentioned that there was also an economic factor in your
decision.
Mr. Holder. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. So you are saying that economically, your
department decided--that was part of the variable deciding not
to sell. Can you tell me about that economic balance----
Mr. Holder. When we talk about that, we looked at the
economic scale. Since we are basically selling off the entire
stockpile inventory, one of the things we had to look at was
reduction in sites, and so the consolidation of the mercury
fits right in to our economy of scale of trying to find one
site in order to move the mercury to one site, which would
reduce oversight, and right now, it would cost us about $1
million to store mercury at the three sites. Going to one site,
the estimated cost is $500,000 per year.
Mr. Shimkus. Ms. Williams, with the chairman's indulgence,
any of the questions that I asked Mr. Holder, is there a
response you have to some of those?
Ms. Williams. We have not tracked the economics, and also I
cannot tell you who the mercury was purchased by when we last
sold it, and if you wish, I could take that for the record.
Mr. Wynn. Gentleman's time is expired.
At this time, I would like to turn to the bill's sponsor,
Mr. Allen, for questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gulliford, from reading the testimony of those on the
second panel, it seems clear we have got a rare consensus among
the chloralkali industry, the environmental community, the
States, and the medical community that we should stockpile our
elemental mercury to prevent the environmental harm and the
public health harm that comes from selling large amounts into
the global economy. Do you disagree with that consensus?
Mr. Gulliford. I believe that the best way to deal with
mercury use, as we did domestically and internationally is to
work on the demand side of the equation, that way we can
provide technical information to developing countries that use
mercury, it gives them a reason and it gives them an ability to
stop using mercury. And the best way to end the use of mercury
is to work again at the demand side, rather than through some
type of an action that, again, we can't be certain will lead to
the result that we are interested in.
Mr. Allen. But if your reservations about a ban could be
resolved, and I will come to some of those questions later, but
if your reservations about a ban could be resolved, would you
have any problem with stockpiling elemental mercury?
Mr. Gulliford. I think that it is in our interest to find
ways to store mercury that isn't needed, and I certainly agree
with that premise. In fact, working with UNEP over the next
couple of years, we will be working on examining this overall
global situation of what mercury is used, where it is produced,
where it is needed, what products still have value of using
mercury, as we have discussed. And then ultimately they will
look at some type of option.
Mr. Allen. OK, thank you.
You have indicated that EPA leads the UNEP partnership
dealing with mercury management in artisanal and small scale
gold mining, and has participated in the global mercury
project. In February 2007, the Global Mercury Project reported
its findings, and one of them was ``Various locations, specific
Global Mercury Project training programs and assessments have
demonstrated that when mercury is less available and/or more
expensive, less mercury is consumed as miners switch to more
efficient practices, sometimes eliminating mercury use
entirely.'' What they are saying in that report is that make it
more expensive, make it less available, and you create an
incentive to switch to other substances. Do you disagree with
that, or do you agree with it?
Mr. Gulliford. I would say that we have not seen evidence
of mercury use in our gold mining decreasing. In fact, our
concern is that more artisanal mining is occurring around the
world as people who have the need to generate income for
themselves or their families look to mining as a way to
generate income that they need to survive. And so we have not
seen evidence of reduction in artisanal mining.
Mr. Allen. Let me pursue that further. Based on what I
understand, artisanal mining is occurring in only two places,
the Kyrgyz Republic and China. At the Brussels Conference in
October 2006, Kyrgyzstan announced a plan to close its mercury
mine and would seek financial assistance to switch to mining of
other metals. China, to my understanding, only mines for
domestic consumption. I mean, it does make products, but it
restricts imports of mercury. So I think you said earlier you
are not aware of any new mining operations or any plans for new
mining operations. I mean, aren't there things the United
States could do to prevent or stop or discourage efforts to
expand this kind of mining?
Mr. Gulliford. Well, I am not aware that Kyrgyzstan has
announced any plans to reduce their mining activities. I am
also confident that China is more than willing to mine to
produce all of the mercury that they need for any market,
either domestic or international, on their part.
Mr. Allen. I just have a few seconds left.
You had a series of reservations, and I just wanted to deal
with a couple of them. You asked could an export ban be made
consistent with U.S. trade obligations, and we are only talking
about $8 million a year here in terms of our exports. I would
doubt that that would give rise to a real trade issue. You do
properly raise the question if a ban were implemented, what
would happen to excess stocks of mercury now in private hands.
That is why we have provided for a committee to figure out how
to store it. We think that issue is relatively easily resolved.
I see my time is expired. Mr. Chairman, and I thank you.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman for his line of
questioning.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman Mr.
Pitts for questioning.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For EPA, some countries like China are not committed to
banning exports of mercury. What environmental good is being
achieved if the United States bans its exports and other
countries for financial reasons fill in the gap of the
displaced commodity? Will banning exports have any positive
environmental impact on countries that still mine for mercury?
Mr. Gulliford. No. In fact, our concern is what will happen
from a mining standpoint were there to be a domestic ban on
mercury exports from the United States.
Again, we have worked to actually encourage the use of
preferable sources of mercury, which is recycled mercury
products. Again, mercury is necessary. At the same time, we are
very committed--and you can see that in the actions that have
occurred domestically, as well as the leadership that we have
provided to international efforts, through our partnership
projects, to reduce this demand. We believe that ultimately,
just as it has occurred in this country, we have reduced our
use of elemental mercury by 87 percent in this country since
1980, through education, through technology transfer, and
providing alternatives to mercury use, that that is the most
appropriate way to address mercury use internationally as well.
We have had some success with the initial work of those
partnership projects internationally.
Mr. Pitts. Could increasing Federal mandates for energy
efficient lighting together with an export ban for mercury
contribute to increased mining of mercury in China or
elsewhere?
Mr. Gulliford. I believe that China has the ability and
will mine as much mercury as they need to meet any opportunity
that they have to develop industry and to market the products
of that industry, including the use of mercury. Because they
don't limit their mercury exports only to the compact
fluorescent lighting products, they also export other mercury
products, even such as the traditional thermometers that are
used in hospitals throughout Asia.
Mr. Pitts. Is it cheaper to mine virgin mercury in China or
to buy it from the market? What is the mercury that is produced
in China being used for?
Mr. Gulliford. I think in China there are a lot of uses of
mercury in different products. We talk a lot about the uses for
artisanal mining, the lighting, and thermometers still being
produced. Other devices are being produced such as thermostats
and other types of products. So there are still a lot of uses,
and all of them I think would need to be factored into a
decision as to what the effect of a mercury export ban might
be.
Mr. Pitts. And again, what are you doing to address
production and use of mercury by China?
Mr. Gulliford. We have bilateral negotiations with China on
a lot of issues. In fact, I have visited China in Shanghai and
we have two projects with hospitals in Shanghai encouraging
them to move away from some of the very products that they
produce. Again, the use of mercury in hospitals, both in
thermometers and in blood pressure cuffs, which are very
common, result in spills which are hazardous particularly to
the people that work there. They require maintenance because
they leak over time, and there is a lot of mercury use and a
lot of mercury leakage and problems with mercury exposure in
hospitals.
So we are working on issues like that. We are also working
through the Asia Pacific Partnership on the challenge of
mercury emissions from power plant generation and we are
encouraging a responsible action on the part of China. China
also is a large economic force that is very willing to market
the types of products that are needed or used around the globe,
and if they contain mercury, they are willing to export those
products.
Mr. Pitts. Now, you said Kyrgyzstan or Kyrgyz Republic is
also producing. They don't have a lot of resources. What are
you doing as far as their production?
Mr. Gulliford. I am not aware that we have any direct
partnerships with Kyrgyzstan on mining and use of mercury.
Mr. Pitts. And EPA has a variety of activities underway to
reduce mercury demand. Just, again, highlight some of the
projects, both domestically and internationally, that explain
why it is so important to manage demand as part of an effective
solution here.
Mr. Gulliford. Yes, consistent with the five UNEP
partnership goals that they have set forth, we have
demonstrations--and the United States has taken the lead on
artisanal mining, and in the case of artisanal mining efforts,
we have a project in Senegal where the mining operation there
has incorporated the uses of hoods in the smelting process to
capture mercury fumes and vapors as they are released, which
results in less exposure to workers. It also results in less
emissions into the atmosphere. I think the number is roughly 60
of those mines are using that type of an activity to reduce
emissions and local exposures.
Another one of the areas of the UNEP partnerships is the
chloralkali sector. We have a strong partnership in Russia
where they have already transferred to non-mercury processes in
a couple of their operations, and they are very substantial.
Again, the use of mercury in Russia, is a very positive
demonstration partnership project, and one that is repeatable,
and Russia tends to continue to move through their domestic
chloralkali facilities to transfer out of the mercury
technology, as much as we see here in this country.
We also have interests and we are working in the private
sector, including our products and processes in our partnership
projects. I mentioned the efforts that are in a number of
countries to look at the use of mercury products in hospitals
where exposure can be very high, particularly to the working
staff of those hospitals, doctors and healthcare providers. The
actual patients can move through hospitals fairly quickly and
not be exposed for a long period of time, but the actual
workers are under considerable exposure.
The other two areas where we don't necessarily have the
lead, but where we are also providing support internationally
is to the issue of mercury emissions from coal-fired power
plants and also then to look at the research components
appropriate to mercury emissions, international transport of
mercury.
Mr. Pitts. And finally, can you speak to any of the recent
consumer and retail concerns pertaining to the cleanup and
disposal of CFLs?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes. On the EPA Web site, we have some very
specific instructions for consumers who use these bulbs.
Concern is if they are broken, what should you do. If you look
at that Web site, it would instruct any homeowner who has, for
example, dropped one of these lights that resulted in a spill,
first of all, to aerate the area, to vacate it, open all the
windows, provide an opportunity to dissipate any emissions that
might be from that bulb. Next, it instructs homeowners to clean
up carefully, never vacuum because vacuuming only disperses it,
but to use some type of a towel or something that will actually
absorb the mercury, and put it into plastic containers, plastic
bags, double bag it, that type of thing. Obviously, to be
careful not to cut yourself when doing that, and then to
dispose of it properly. There are disposal sites in many of our
communities, or also it can be put into something that would go
into a landfill. We would discourage it from going into a
process that would ultimately result in incineration.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. The gentleman's time is expired.
At this time, the Chair would recognize the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take this issue
of mercury very seriously. Some years ago I actually wrote a
chapter in a book called ``50 Ways to Improve Women's Lives''
about the danger of mercury. My district sits on Lake Michigan
and we are concerned about the contamination of fish. I have
also been concerned, now that you have mentioned power plants,
the decision on the Bush administration to roll back in 2005
Clinton administration decisions requiring that all power
plants reduce mercury emissions to the maximum extent possible
by 2008.
I wanted to call your attention, Mr. Gulliford, to the
Global Mercury Project, the United Nations Global Mercury
Project, and it delivered its report in February of this year.
It says that it calls on nations around the world to achieve
the goal of reducing mercury consumption by reducing mercury
supply through export controls and other mechanisms that will
encourage the transition to alternative technologies. Do you
support the United Nations Global Mercury Project call for a
mercury export ban?
Mr. Gulliford. We are working very closely with the UNEP
Council on their programs for mercury reduction, that is why we
have made the effort to sponsor and support the five
partnership projects. We are also working with them to support
the gathering of the data to look at issues related to the
mercury use, mercury demand, mercury supply, and the potential
for any type of policy for the future----
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, it sounds like you think that there
are appropriate uses for mercury, and so Mr. Holder, the sites
that contain mercury right now, we are not releasing anything
from storage since 1996, right?
Mr. Holder. Since 1994 we have suspended sales and we have
not released any mercury from our warehouses.
Ms. Schakowsky. So if you think, Mr. Gulliford, that there
are legitimate uses, why would the EPA then say none of it
could be released from storage?
Mr. Gulliford. Clearly, the use of mercury in this country
and our goal for the use of mercury internationally is to
reduce the use of mercury. That has happened in this country.
As I indicated, we have reduced mercury use domestically by 87
percent since 1980, and that is a trend we believe will
continue to occur. We don't believe there is need for all of
the mercury and we think that it is very good that we have made
a decision what to do with Federal sources, and we have
convened a stakeholder panel to look at options for, again,
what can we do to store properly domestic supplies.
Ms. Schakowsky. And that is being all consolidated, the
storage? Is that part of the plan?
Mr. Holder. Part of the plan is to consolidate all the
mercury into one storage site.
Ms. Schakowsky. And also, Mr. Gulliford, you have been
talking about efforts to encourage the--wait.
In your testimony, you say the ban on U.S. exports of
mercury raises questions such as what effect there might be on
``efforts to encourage the use of mercury from environmentally
preferable sources, such as recycled mercury.'' So is the
United States engaged in efforts to encourage the use of
mercury in those ways in the global market?
Mr. Gulliford. I believe that the use of environmentally
preferable sources of mercury are preferable to new mining. I
don't think we should do anything to encourage the additional
mining of mercury anywhere in the world, and rather we ought to
use these existing sources of recycled mercury. They are very
preferable.
Ms. Schakowsky. Do we have metrics on this? Are there goals
that you want to achieve? I know you mentioned how much mercury
has been reduced, but are there specific goals to actually
reduce the use of mercury, goals that are achievable and that
we are aiming toward and measuring toward?
Mr. Gulliford. Yes, there are, in some cases. For example,
with respect to mercury switches in autos, when we worked with
the auto industry to stop using mercury switches in automobiles
and we backed that up and are just completing a rule that will
prevent those from coming back into use at any future time. We
also then went forward with the scrappers and the recycling
industry, trying to get those mercury switches out of
automobiles before they are shredded and then resmelted, and
then you would have an air emission associated with that. We
expect some very significant reductions in mercury, and so we
do have numbers on those which we can get for you. We are also
then looking for other products, such as similar devices that--
--
Ms. Schakowsky. My time is expired and the chairman is
gaveling.
Thank you very much. I thank your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Thank the gentlelady for her questions.
Are there other members seeking to ask questions at this
time? Seeing none, I would like to thank all the witnesses on
this panel for your outstanding testimony, and excuse you at
this time, and ask that the second panel would come forward.
Also at this time, the Chair is going to ask unanimous
consent that a memo from Thomas D'Agostino, the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs at DOE, the memo is dated
December 13, 2006. In the memo, he states that the decision to
store DOE's in NNSA's mercury inventory is based on several
factors, including EPA's urging that this mercury be stored and
not returned to the economy. I would, at this time, ask
unanimous consent that it be included in the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think I will but I think we would
like to see that.
Mr. Wynn. I thought you had seen it but I certainly am
happy to share it with you.
Mr. Shimkus. And also, Mr. Chairman, as part of this opens
up for a colloquy, whether there are insertions by the National
Electronic Manufacturers Association of Lighting Manufacturers
and the mining industry, if we would be allowed to submit a
statement from them into the record, and what time we would be
allowed to do that?
Mr. Wynn. I don't have a problem with the submission. I
would like, of course, to see them if the Democratic side has
not seen them, so if you would allow us to see them, then I
would----
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, if you would just give us a timeframe so
we make sure they get it here in an appropriate amount of time,
then----
Mr. Wynn. Would 5 days be a sufficient timeframe?
Mr. Shimkus. I think that would be fine. That would be very
generous, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Probably too generous, but having said that, we
will keep the record open for 5 days to receive the letter. I
will reserve the right to object, however, pending receipt of
that letter.
Mr. Shimkus. We are all getting so smart, aren't we?
Mr. Wynn. Give me time.
With respect to the unanimous consent request that I made--
--
Mr. Shimkus. I withdraw my objection, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman, and the memo will be
entered into the record.
I would also, at this time, seek unanimous consent to
enter letters of support for H.R. 1534 into the record. I
believe the minority does have these letters. They are from the
State of Maine, the American Medical Association, the Nature
Conservancy, and the American College of Preventative Medicine.
Mr. Shimkus. No objection.
Mr. Wynn. Hearing none, the letters are admitted into the
record.
At this time, I would like to welcome our second panel. I
would like to introduce them and thank them for appearing.
First, we have Dr. Linda Greer. She is a senior scientist,
National Resources Defense Council. We also have Dr. Michael
Shannon, chair of the Committee on Environmental Health and
American Academy of Pediatrics. We have Mr. Mark Smith, deputy
director, Office of Research and Standards, Director,
Massachusetts Mercury Program, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. We also have with us Mr. Arthur
Dungan, president of the Chlorine Institute, and finally, Mr.
Bruce Lawrence, president, Bethlehem Apparatus Company.
Again, welcome, and we will begin with 5-minute opening
statements from each of the panelists. The prepared testimony
that you submitted in advance will be made a part of the
hearing record. And with that, Dr. Greer.
STATEMENT OF LINDA E. GREER, SENIOR SCIENTIST, NATURAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Greer. Thank you. Well, good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I direct the Environmental Health
Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is an
environmental advocacy organization. In that capacity, I focus
on the most dangerous chemicals that are in the air, in the
water, in the food, or in our houses, and mercury has been on
our radar screen as our highest priority pollutant in the food
supply for the purposes of protecting health in the United
States.
For that reason, I have been working personally and with
some of my staff on both global mercury pollution issues and
domestic mercury issues here in the United States for about 5
years. In my oral testimony, let me try to simplify this issue
for the hearing today and provide my perspective on the need
for this legislation.
I think the basic question at hand is: ``Why should we care
about exporting mercury out of our borders? Why should we care
about where it goes?'' And there are really two big reasons why
we should care about this and why we need this bill. The first
reason, which has been covered in several opening statements,
is that mercury is a global pollutant, and so the unfortunate
fact of the matter is that if we ship mercury abroad and it
gets used in polluting ways, that mercury comes right back at
us. We don't have the luxury of not caring about mercury
outside of our borders. We need to worry about the management
of that mercury all along in order to protect our own health
and our own food supply.
The second reason is sort of a dollars and cents reason,
which is this: States and localities are expending much
welcomed effort in collecting and recycling mercury-containing
products because it is very dangerous for those products to
wind up in municipal trash stream and then get burned in a
municipal incinerator or break. It doesn't make any sense,
though, for them to collect all that mercury, to take all that
time and trouble, just to put it in a bucket, so to speak, and
send it abroad to highly polluting uses. Recycling for reuse in
highly polluting industries is not a step in the right
direction. Because mercury is a global pollutant, if we take
the time and trouble to collect these small sources, we should
then not be sending it off to countries in the developing world
who are then going to mismanage it. Unfortunately, unless we do
something like the export ban we are discussing today, we do
not have any control over where this mercury goes.
In its testimony today, EPA expresses concern about the
unattended consequences of a mercury export ban on promoting
environmentally preferable recycled sources of mercury. My
answer to that concern is this: there really is nothing
environmentally preferable about collecting mercury just to
send it abroad to recycling, and I think the problem would be
to the contrary. I think over a longer period of time, as
States and localities watch the money and effort they are
putting in to collect this mercury go for essentially no big
purpose--that is, just collect the mercury in order to send
over to Vietnam or India or someplace that will mismanage it--
that people will become disillusioned about the value of
recycling and they will feel like they should turn their
resources to something that makes a bigger contribution in the
big picture.
Now let me turn for a minute to an overview of the
situation of the global mercury trade, which is a very bleak
situation. It is important for people to take stock of this
situation, because the magnitude of the problem we have right
now is very large. It is important to compare this against the
speculative unintended consequences, such as those that have
been raised by EPA and others today in their testimony. So much
of the detail about this is in my written statement. I will
highlight for you only this. We use between 3,000 and 3,500
tons of mercury globally per year. That has gone down
enormously over the past 50 years, but it has been stable for
the last decade. Usage is not going down fast enough from
there. The problem is not just the standing amount of mercury
that we are using, but that in the last decade, there has been
an enormous shift in where and how that mercury is being used.
So that in the older days, we in the United States were still
using mercury, the Western European countries were still using
lots of mercury. That mercury was, for the most part, much more
carefully managed than the mercury being used in the developing
world today. In my testimony, I have a figure, figure 2, that
shows for one typical year the flow of mercury which is
basically from the industrialized world to the developing
world, as the industrialized world has gotten rid of its
dangerous mercury uses.
The largest percentage of this mercury goes into that
practice of artisanal mining that has already been the focus of
both opening statements, and also some of our witnesses today,
and I just want to emphasize for you how very dangerous that
practice is. It is more than roughly a third of the global
mercury use. It is being used by the poorest people of the
world, people who have no other means of support. They are
grossly intoxicating themselves with mercury, such that they
usually can't do this work for very many years of their life
because they have become intoxicated, and it is throwing 1,000
tons of mercury a year, almost all they use, into the air and
into the global food supply. As has already been mentioned by
several representatives, UNIDO, which has been in the lead on
this problem, has called for an export ban as the single-most
important thing that the world could do in order to reduce this
practice.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.051
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Greer.
Dr. Shannon.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHANNON, M.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEDIATRICS;
PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL, BOSTON, MA
Dr. Shannon. Thank you and good morning. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today before the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials at this
hearing, H.R. 1534, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name
is Dr. Michael Shannon, and I am proud to represent the
American Academy of Pediatrics, a nonprofit professional
organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric
medical subspecialists, and pediatric surgical subspecialists
dedicated to the health, safety, and well-being of infants,
children, adolescents, and young adults. I am chair of the
Academy's Committee on Environmental Health. I am Chief of
Emergency Medicine, and co-director of the Pediatric
Environmental Health Program at Children's Hospital, Boston. I
am a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My
Board certifications include pediatrics, emergency medicine,
and medical toxicology. I have been a pediatrician for 30
years.
Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable
of causing a wide range of adverse health effects in humans.
The AAP's Committee on Environmental Health describes the
dangers of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001
technical report of which I was the lead author.
Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this
substance, the other two being organic mercury and inorganic
mercury. The elemental form, as you know, is generally liquid
at room temperature. When heated, however, elemental mercury
becomes a vapor. This vapor has the ability to contaminate
large geographic areas, affecting all of those nearby. In the
United States, the largest source of atmospheric mercury vapor
is from burning fossil fuels, especially high sulfur coal.
Other major sources include chloralkali production, a process
that uses elemental mercury to produce chlorine, bleach, and
other products, mercury mining, and waste incinerators,
especially those that incinerate medical waste.
Elemental mercury in liquid form is found in thermometers,
barometers, and other medical instruments. Indiscriminate
disposal of medical devices is a major source of environmental
mercury contamination when they are buried in landfills or
burned in waste incinerators, rather than recycled.
Fortunately, our efforts to eliminate elemental mercury from
medical devices has been successful in reducing human exposure
from this source.
As I mentioned, when heated, elemental mercury rapidly
vaporizes. Once we inhale it, mercury vapor easily passes
through the membranes of our lungs, entering the bloodstream
where it is then primarily distributed into the central nervous
system and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also
crosses the placenta and concentrates in the fetus. In adults,
the half life of mercury, that is, the amount it takes for the
body to eliminate one-half of the metal, is as long as 90 days.
Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of
effects on the central nervous system, kidneys, skin, and
lungs. In children, elemental mercury is particularly
deleterious because of its effects on the rapidly developing
brain of the child. Children exposed to elemental mercury can
develop a range of neurocognitive and behavioral effects
ranging from learning disabilities to devastating neurologic
problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and
spasticity.
History has provided us several important lessons of the
consequences of severe mercury exposure to children. One
example is the Minamata Bay incident in the 1950s. At that
time, a coastal factory discharged large amounts of mercury
compound into the bay. That mercury was taken up by local fish,
which was routinely eaten by nearby villagers. An epidemic of
childhood disease manifested by blindness and spasticity
appeared among the offspring of women who ate the contaminated
fish while pregnant. Ultimately, there were 41 deaths and at
least 30 cases of severe brain damage in these infants.
There also continue to be case reports describing the
development of severe mercury poisoning in children and adults
as a result of mercury spills and even mercury thermometers
breaking with the mercury being vacuumed or spilling into a
heating duct. This is rare, but continues to show us how toxic
this element can be.
Because elemental mercury that enters the blood, central
nervous system, and kidneys is so slowly eliminated, toxicity
can be prolonged. Given that treatment options for mercury
intoxication are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the
cornerstone of avoiding long-term health consequences.
In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics commends
you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today and calling
attention to the hazards of elemental mercury. We look forward
to working with Congress to minimize the exposure of children
and all Americans to potentially toxic levels of mercury. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shannon follows:]
Testimony of Michael Shannon, MD, MPH, FAAP
Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity to testify
today before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials at this hearing, H.R. 1534,
the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007. My name is Michael Shannon,
MD, MPH, FAAP, and I am proud to represent the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of
60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-
specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to
the health, safety, and well-being of infants, children,
adolescents, and young adults. I am Chair of the AAP's
Committee on Environmental Health. I am Chief of the Division
of Emergency Medicine and Co-Director of the Pediatric
Environmental Health Center at Boston Children's Hospital. I am
also a Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. My
board certifications are in General Pediatrics, Emergency
Medicine, Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology.
Elemental Mercury Poses a Serious Health Hazard to Children
Mercury is a ubiquitous environmental toxin that is capable
of causing a wide range of adverse health effects in humans.
The AAP's Committee on Environmental Health described the
dangers of mercury in the environment to children in a 2001
technical report, of which I was a lead author.
Elemental mercury is one of the three forms of this
substance, the other two being organic mercury and inorganic
mercury. The elemental form is liquid at room temperature. When
heated, elemental mercury becomes a vapor; this vapor has the
ability to contaminate large geographic areas, affecting all of
those nearby. In the United States, the largest source of
atmospheric mercury vapor is from burning fossil fuels,
especially high-sulfur coal. Other major sources include
chloralkali production (a process that uses elemental mercury
to produce chlorine, bleach, and other products), mercury
mining, and waste incinerators (especially those that
incinerate medical wastes). Elemental mercury in liquid form is
found in thermometers, barometers, and other medical
instruments. Indiscriminate disposal of medical devices is a
major source of environmental mercury contamination when they
are buried in landfills or burned in waste incinerators rather
than recycled. Fortunately, recent efforts to eliminate
elemental mercury from medical devices have been successful in
reducing human exposure from this source. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Goldman LR, Shannon MW, and the AAP Committee on Environmental
Health. Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for
Pediatricians. Pediatrics, 2001 108: 197-205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elemental mercury readily vaporizes in the presence of
heat. When inhaled, mercury vapor easily passes through the
membranes of the lung, entering the bloodstream, where it is
then distributed primarily into the central nervous system
(CNS), and the kidneys. Circulating elemental mercury also
crosses the placenta and concentrates in the fetus. In adults,
the half-life of elemental mercury, that is, the amount of time
it takes for the body to eliminate one-half of the metal, is as
long as 90 days. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elemental mercury poisoning can produce a broad range of
effects on the central nervous system, kidneys, skin and lungs.
In children, elemental mercury is particularly deleterious
because of its affects on the rapidly developing brain of the
child. Children exposed to elemental mercury can develop a
range of neurocognitive and behavioral effects, ranging from
learning disabilities to devastating neurologic problems
including mental retardation, blindness and spasticity. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Speaking Points for Mercury in the Environment: Implications for
Pediatricians, http://www.aap.org/moc/pressroom/speaking--points/
mercury.htm?CFID=1395517&CFTOKEN=64233499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
History has provided us several important lessons of the
consequences of severe mercury exposure to children. One
example is the Minamata Bay incident which took place in Japan
in the 1950's. A coastal factory discharged large quantities of
mercury compounds into the bay. That mercury was taken up by
local fish which was routinely eaten by nearby villagers. An
epidemic of disease, manifested by blindness and spasticity
appeared among the offspring of the women who ate the
contaminated fish while pregnant. Ultimately, there were 41
deaths and at least 30 cases of severe brain damage in these
infants. There also continue to be case reports describing the
development of symptomatic mercury poisoning in children and
adults as a result of mercury spills and even mercury
thermometers breaking, with the mercury bead being vacuumed or
spilling into a heating duct. This is rare, but continues to
show us how toxic this element can be. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the elemental mercury that enters the blood, CNS,
and renal tissues and is so slowly eliminated, toxicity can be
prolonged. Given that treatment options for mercury
intoxication are inadequate, prevention of exposure is the
cornerstone of avoiding long-term health consequences.
Recommendations
The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that
elemental mercury is toxic to the fetus and to children, and
recommends that aggressive efforts should be made to reduce
exposure for pregnant women and children as well as the general
population.
<bullet> Efforts should be made to decrease the amount of
elemental mercury in the waste stream by continuing the phase-
out of mercury-containing devices. Families should be
encouraged to remove mercury thermometers from their homes.
<bullet> Elemental mercury should not be present in the
home or other environments of children. Public health agencies,
community organizations, pediatricians, and other child health
providers should work together to identify and address the
factors that may lead to elemental mercury exposure.
Conclusion
The American Academy of Pediatrics commends you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this hearing today to call attention to
the hazards of elemental mercury. We look forward to working
with Congress to minimize the exposure of children and all
Americans to potentially toxic levels of elemental mercury. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Shannon.
Dr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF C. MARK SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH
AND STANDARDS; DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS MERCURY PROGRAM; CO-
CHAIR, NEW ENGLAND GOVERNORS AND EASTERN CANADIAN PREMIERS
MERCURY TASK FORCE; QUICKSILVER CAUCUS, MASSACHUSETTS
REPRESENTATIVE, BOSTON, MA
Mr. Smith. Good afternoon Chairman Wynn and members of the
committee. I would like to thank you all for providing the
Environmental Council of States and the Quicksilver Caucus with
the opportunity to testify today on this important issue.
As you may be aware, the Environmental Council of States is
a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that is comprised of the
leaders of the State environmental agencies. It has been
involved in dealing with mercury issues for many years. The
Quicksilver Caucus is a coalition of interstate organizations
dealing specifically with mercury, and the interstate
organizations represent air, water, and solid waste pollution
prevention organizations from across the country.
My name is Mark Smith and I am testifying today for ECOS
and the Quicksilver Caucus on behalf of Arleen O'Donnell, who
is the acting commissioner for the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and is the Chair of the ECOS cross
media committee. Unfortunately, Arleen could not be here today.
My background, just for a quick review, is that I have a
Ph.D. in molecular toxicology and a master's degree in
environmental health management. I currently direct the
Massachusetts Mercury Reduction Program; was a founding member
and currently co-chair the New England Governors and Eastern
Canadian Premiers Mercury Task Force. I have also been the
Massachusetts representative to the Quicksilver Caucus since
its inception.
As you have heard, mercury is a very important issue for
the States. We have heard that there are 44 States that have
fish consumption advisories in effect. Just to put that in
perspective, that amounts to tens of thousands of water bodies
across the country, impacting close to 13 million lake acres
and 760,000 river miles. This is a really big problem for the
States. Monitoring by the Centers for Disease Control also
indicates that several hundred thousand newborns each year are
being exposed to excessive amounts of mercury, primarily
through their mothers' consumption of contaminated fish, fish
that have unacceptably high levels of mercury.
As the father of a son who loves to fish, and even likes to
eat them on occasion, this is personally an important issue as
well. It is really a sad state of affairs when we have to tell
our children that the fish they just caught is not safe to eat
because it is contaminated with mercury, which is something I
just had to do last week. We actually did catch a few fish on a
trip we were on. It doesn't happen frequently, but sometimes it
does.
Because of the extent and seriousness of the problem, over
22 States are developing or implementing State-specific action
plans to address mercury. Overall, these efforts have been very
successful. For example, in my State, and as we have heard, in
the State of Maine, mercury reductions in the order of 70 to 80
percent have occurred over the past decade or so, as we have
been implementing State and regional action plans to address
mercury. Similar reductions are happening in many other States
across the country.
Of significance to this hearing, mercury product
legislation is being adopted in many States, which is reducing
the demand for mercury, elemental mercury, by reducing
unnecessary uses and phasing them out. At the same time, State
recycling programs designed to reduce releases of mercury from
end-of-life products and to prevent costly spills of mercury
are also increasing, resulting in increasing supplies of
commodity mercury here in the United States.
Because global sources have been found to contribute
significantly to mercury deposition in our States and because
many States have these programs to recycle mercury, ECOS and
the Quicksilver Caucus have had a longstanding interest in the
management of commodity mercury. To minimize the potential for
mercury releases on the global scale, ECOS, beginning in 1996,
has consistently called for the cessation of sales of U.S.
mercury stockpiles and urged those to be permanently stored;
has urged nations to end subsidies to mercury mining; and urged
U.S. EPA to develop a retirement option for the long-term
sequestration of excess mercury. Most recently, the Quicksilver
Caucus developed 14 principles that articulate the views of
ECOS, the National Governors Association, and the Quicksilver
Caucus regarding the use and management of elemental mercury in
an environmentally sound manner. These principles include
provisions designed to reduce unnecessary uses of mercury,
restrict mercury exports, and safely store excess mercury.
Of most relevance to today's discussion, the principles
specifically call for a prohibition on the export of elemental
mercury to developing countries where the resulting uses can
result in unsafe exposures, and also call on the U.S. to cease
the export of elemental mercury except for a very limited
number of essential uses where it can be demonstrated that the
receiving country does not have sufficient domestic sources of
its own secondary mercury. The QSC principles would allow for
potential exemptions from the suggested export restrictions for
essential uses under a quite limited set of circumstances.
It is our position that decisions on these issues should be
made by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and
transparent Federal process. The creation of a national
committee as called for in the Quicksilver Caucus principles
is, I think, the ideal and logical place for decisions to be
made as to whether a particular use is essential and whether an
exemption should be allowed.
To conclude, I would again like to thank the committee for
this opportunity to speak on this issue, and I am available to
answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Testimony C. Mark Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for
providing the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) the
opportunity to present testimony on the States Perspectives on
Managing Commodity Grade Elemental Mercury. My name is C. Mark
Smith and I am testifying on behalf of Arleen O'Donnell, the
Acting Commissioner for Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and the Chair of the ECOS Cross-media
Committee. I have been involved in mercury policy and research
for over 15 years and have been the Massachusetts
representative to the Quicksilver Caucus since its inception.
Currently I direct my agency's multimedia mercury program and
Co-chair the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers Regional Mercury Task Force.
The Environmental Council of States is the national non-
partisan, non-profit association of the leaders of state
environmental agencies. Our members are the officials who
manage and direct the environmental agencies in the States and
territories. They are the state leaders responsible for making
certain our Nation's air, water and natural resources are
clean, safe and protected.
Today I am here representing not only my own state, but
also as a voice for all the environmental agencies in the
states belonging to our organization and to the Quicksilver
Caucus.
The Quicksilver Caucus, formed in May 2001 by a coalition
of State environmental association leaders to collaboratively
develop holistic approaches for reducing mercury in the
environment. Caucus members who share mercury-related technical
and policy information include the Environmental Council of the
States (ECOS), the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR). The
Quicksilver Caucus' long-term goal is that State, Federal, and
International actions effectively address mercury pollution.
Mercury is a public health and environmental health
problem across the country and the globe. Environmental
monitoring over the past two decades has demonstrated that
mercury levels in fish from states across the United States are
too high. As a result, as of 2004, 44 States had fish
consumption advisories in effect because of mercury, affecting
over 13 million lake acres and 767,000 river miles. National
advisories for saltwater fish, such as shark, tuna and
swordfish, are also in effect.
Mercury is such a concern because it is a potent brain
toxin that adversely affects children and wildlife. Once
released into the environment mercury persists and does not
break down into harmless components like many other pollutants.
It also bio-accumulates, or concentrates, into fish which, when
eaten, are the major pathway for human exposures to this toxin.
Although mercury is a natural element, due to human activities,
the level of this toxin in the environment is much higher today
than it was 150 years ago--for example mercury levels in
sediments from many New England and Minnesota lakes were found
to range from 150 percent - 800 percent higher now compared to
pre-industrial times.
The brain and developing neurological system of the fetus
and children are particularly sensitive to mercury and can be
damaged by fairly low levels of exposure. Of particular concern
is the fact that children can be exposed to toxic amounts of
this pollutant before birth because mercury in a mothers' diet
crosses the placenta and enters the fetus. Based on data from
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has measured
mercury levels in the blood of women across the country,
several hundred thousand newborns each year are at risk of
mercury toxicity in the U.S. because of their mother's exposure
to mercury. Based on this data over 8,000 newborns are at risk
each year in my state alone.
Because of its chemical properties mercury pollution knows
no borders as it can be transported long distances in the
atmosphere, creating trans-boundary issues that are regional,
national and global in scope. Mercury is also a multimedia
pollutant that can readily transfer between air, water and
soils. Effectively reducing mercury levels in our state
environments therefore requires effective multimedia programs
at the regional, national and international level.Because the
states are being impacted so significantly by mercury pollution
and deposition, reducing sources of mercury releases at the
national and international levels is a priority for us.
To minimize the potential for mercury releases, ECOS and
the Quicksilver Caucus have had a long-standing interest in the
management of commodity mercury. ECOS, beginning in September
1996, has consistently stated its opposition to future U.S.
mercury stockpile sales and called for a permanent halt to any
such sales; called on the United States Department of Defense,
the United States Department of Energy, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to research and evaluate long
term management, retirement and substitution options in
cooperation with interested parties; urged all nations to end
subsidies to mercury mining and sales; and urged USEPA to
develop retirement options for mercury so that waste generators
and waste treatment facilities may choose recycling or
retirement.
In addition many states have adopted mercury products
legislation to reduce mercury use and increase the recycling of
mercury from remaining uses. Numerous states are also
implementing extensive mercury collection and recycling
programs, which are contributing to the excess U.S. supply of
commodity elemental mercury. Exports of mercury concern the
states because poorly regulated uses in other countries can
result in direct exposures to their citizens and contribute
significantly to overall global mercury releases to the
environment and resulting impacts on our states.
The Quicksilver Caucus recently developed 14 principles
that encompass the environmental position on elemental
commodity mercury of the Environmental Council of States, the
National Governor's Association and state associations
representing air, water, waste, and pollution prevention. These
principles articulate states perspectives for the development
of comprehensive and effective management of elemental mercury
in an environmentally secure manner at the local, state,
national, and international level.
These principles are presented in their entirety below and
include a number of provisions to: reduce the unnecessary use
of mercury (principles Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 11); restrict mercury
export (principles Nos.6, 8 and 9); and safely store excess
mercury (principles Nos. 6 and 10). The principles specifically
call for a prohibition on the export of elemental mercury to
developing countries where the resulting uses can result in
unsafe exposures. The principles also call on the U.S. to cease
the export of elemental mercury, except for a limited number of
essential uses where it can be demonstrated that the receiving
country does not have sufficient domestic sources of its own
secondary mercury. The QSC could only identify a small number
of essential uses, including fluorescent lighting, some dental
amalgam applications and, potentially, a select few scientific
pieces of equipment. These are noted in principle No. 3.
Although other essential uses were not precluded, the QSC
believes that these, if they exist, are likely to be very few
in number and will likely decrease in the future as mercury-
free alternatives are developed. The QSC principles would allow
for limited exemptions from the suggested export restrictions
for such essential uses provided they meet the other criteria
stipulated in principle No. 8. Decisions on these issues should
be made by knowledgeable experts using an appropriate and
transparent Federal process. The creation of a National
Advisory Committee, as called for in principle No. 13 to
develop recommendations for action, would provide a logical
place for decisions to be made regarding the specific criteria
and process to determine which mercury uses are essential and
whether exemptions should be allowed in a particular situation.
The complete set of principles state that:
(1) The manufacture and sale of non-essential uses of
mercury-added products should be phased out in the long-term.
Several mercury-added products can be phased-out in the next
three to five years including most uses of thermometers,
manometers, thermostats, switches, relays and novelty items.
(2) The best opportunities for achieving this goal will be
to aggressively pursue multi-stakeholder partnerships, educate
consumers and businesses and leverage Federal and state
environmental laws and regulations to accelerate such a
reduction.
(3) Reuse of elemental mercury should only be utilized in
processes or products deemed essential. Few essential uses
remain, but include fluorescent and compact fluorescent lamps,
some restorations with dental amalgam, and perhaps a select few
scientific pieces of equipment. For those uses of mercury that
continue, capture and recycling of mercury-containing products
at the end of their useful life should be required.
(a) The United National Environment Programme estimates
that globally, use of mercury in lamps and dentistry represent
less than 15 percent of total uses, or even as little as 9
percent. Research should be conducted to determine whether
there are any countries that do not have sufficient domestic
sources of secondary (recycled) mercury for these purposes.
(b) Federal and state governments should work with
manufacturers to ensure adequate nationwide infrastructure
exists for safe collection, storage and disposal of used
mercury-containing lamps and other products through a product
stewardship framework. This infrastructure should provide
flexibility for States to maintain and to continue to develop,
and implement their own strategies or regulatory programs.
(c) Research should be supported to find safe
alternatives to elemental mercury in those products deemed
essential.
(4) Research should also be conducted on the use and export
of mercury compounds, including such mercury compounds as
mercuric chloride and mercuric oxide, and in finding safe
alternatives.
(5) States and the Federal Government should continue to
work with manufacturing sectors to address current and legacy
uses of mercury in the manufacturing process (e.g., working
with the chlor-alkali manufacturers to identify alternatives to
mercury cell technology and where feasible, phasing out the use
of the ``mercury cell'' manufacturing process).
(6) Following the collection and recycling (retorting) of
used mercury-containing products, the mercury should be
sequestered and safely stored within the United States.
(7) The United States should support mechanisms to better
track international trade of mercury, mercury compounds, and
mercury-containing products.
(8) The United States should be a leader in proper use and
management of elemental mercury by not exporting any mercury-
containing products to other countries unless it is related to
an essential use. Exporting surplus elemental mercury to
developing countries where it can result in unsafe exposure
should be prohibited. Elemental mercury should only be exported
to other countries for essential uses where it can be
demonstrated that the country does not have sufficient domestic
sources of secondary (recycled) mercury.
(9) The United States should prohibit imports of elemental
mercury and mercury-containing products, unless the import is
for sequestration.
(10) Until a safe disposal technique is developed,
temporary storage of elemental mercury should be in a safe,
secure, continuously monitored location. Industries that
generate significant amounts of elemental mercury should be
responsible for the storage of their own mercury until a long-
term solution in the United States is identified and
implemented. Additionally, long-term Federal research seeking
ways to permanently and safely dispose of elemental mercury
should be supported.
(11) The United States should assist other countries in
phasing out uses and applications of mercury and help them
identify safe storage techniques to use for their mercury
stockpiles until a long-term solution is identified and
implemented.
(12) The USEPA and states need to work together to track
changes in the use of mercury-added products to measure the
sources and amount of mercury that is collected. This needs to
be correlated with (a) monitoring the releases of mercury to
air, water, and land and (b) monitoring of fish tissue.
(13) The Congress or the President should establish a
National Advisory Committee to develop a comprehensive report
that incorporates the principles set forth in this document and
make recommendations for action by governments, industry,
academia, and citizens and a time table for doing so.
(14) The Federal Government should ensure that there is
adequate funding to support the above mercury reduction
activities at the Federal, state, and local community levels of
government as appropriate.
The QSC states hope that you consider using these
principles as you develop the proposed legislation.
In conclusion, the states urge that:
<bullet> National elemental mercury stockpiles should not
be sold but should continue to be safely stored;
<bullet> National and international strategies to address
commodity elemental mercury production, use and ``retirement''
should be developed and implemented;
<bullet> Elemental mercury in excess of that needed for
essential uses should be sequestered;
<bullet> The Federal Government should take responsibility
for safely sequestering commodity mercury;
<bullet> National strategies/ programs addressing commodity
elemental mercury should be developed in consultation with the
States.
To end, I would also like to provide an additional
perspective on this issue from the standpoint of Massachusetts.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been significantly
impacted by mercury pollution and has been very actively
engaged in mercury reduction issues. In MA, over 50 percent of
the water-bodies tested in the state have one or more species
of fish with sufficiently high levels of mercury to warrant a
consumption advisory and our state Department of Public Health
warns pregnant women, children and nursing mothers to avoid
consuming any native freshwater fish caught in the State
(http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/environmental/exposure/
fish--mercury--in--ma.pdf; http://db.state.ma.us/dph/
fishadvisory/). In ``mercury hotspot'' areas like the northeast
part of MA and southern New Hampshire, close to 100 percent of
the tested water bodies have fish with elevated mercury levels
(http://mass.gov/dep/images/fishmerc.doc). We have recently
estimated that mercury deposition will need to be reduced by
86-98 percent to achieve water quality objectives in relation
to mercury levels in freshwater fish in the Northeast states.
Such steep reductions cannot be achieved without significant
reductions from national and international sources. In fact,
mercury deposition modeling results from USEPA and other
research groups indicate that a large fraction, ranging from
about 60 percent to over 80 percent, of all mercury deposited
in the U.S. comes from global sources. A ban on the export of
U.S. elemental commodity mercury would be an important step
that the U.S. could take to address the international sources
of mercury emissions that impact waters of the U.S. Provisions
can be added to the legislation to address unlikely but
possible scenarios such as the need for essential uses of
mercury that cannot be met without tapping U.S. mercury
stockpiles.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Dr. Smith.
We will now hear from Mr. Dungan.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. DUNGAN, PRESIDENT, THE CHLORINE
INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Dungan. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shimkus, and members
of the subcommittee, I am Art Dungan, president of the Chlorine
Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
concerning the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007, and the
advisability of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury.
In the United States, there are currently seven facilities
that produce chlorine using the mercury cell process. All are
members of the Chlorine Institute. Two of these facilities have
announced their intention to close or to convert to another
technology by the end of 2008. We believe the remaining plants
can continue to operate until the end of their economic life in
a manner that is fully protective of human health and the
environment, and in compliance with all regulatory
requirements.
The Chlorine Institute and the chloralkali producers using
the mercury cell technology have worked aggressively and
voluntarily to reduce mercury use and releases to the
environment, and have worked cooperatively with all agencies as
they set regulatory standards limiting such releases.
In 1996, the Chlorine Institute and the mercury cell
producers voluntarily agreed to reduce mercury use by 50
percent. As indicated in our ninth annual report to EPA, the
overall reduction in annual mercury usage in the ninth year was
94 percent.
The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2007 has two main provisions.
These are the prohibition on export of mercury, and the
establishment of an excess mercury storage advisory committee.
It is premature to establish a ban on mercury exports until the
United States has a program established and in place for the
permanent storage of mercury and coordinated with international
groups to ensure that the reduced supply of mercury from
countries such as the United States does not result in the
expansion of existing or the opening of new primary mercury
mines elsewhere in the world to meet the demand. If the goal of
the mercury export ban is to reduce mercury use and indirectly
mercury releases to the environment, a ban established before
international action to reduce mercury use is implemented, will
have the opposite effect.
The Institute supports the establishment of an excess
mercury storage advisory committee to address issues related to
surplus mercury. The Institute was also asked to address the
advisability of establishing a Federal stockpile for mercury.
For more than 5 years, the Institute has publicly supported the
establishment of such a Federal stockpile. The Department of
Defense Logistics has safely stored mercury for more than 50
years.
Earlier this decade, the DLA undertook a very public
process to examine how the long-term storage of its surplus
mercury should be addressed. The conclusion was that mercury
could continue to be safely stored for a long-term period by
the DLA. The Institute does not believe that any viable
alternative exists to the storage program being implemented by
the DLA. The Chlorine Institute recognizes that is beyond the
current mission of the DLA to manage the long-term storage of
all surplus mercury generated in the United States. However,
the Institute believes it would be sound public policy for the
U.S. Government to manage all the surplus mercury in a safe and
environmentally friendly way, as is being done by the DLA.
In conclusion, the Institute is opposed to the prohibition
on the export of mercury, because it is premature to establish
such a ban until the United States has a program established
and in place for the permanent storage of mercury. The
Institute supports the establishment of an excess mercury
storage advisory committee. The Institute supports the
establishment of a Federal stockpile for mercury.
I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
committee and share the Chlorine Institute's views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dungan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.078
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Dungan.
At this time, Mr. Lawrence, we would love to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE LAWRENCE, PRESIDENT, BETHLEHEM APPARATUS
COMPANY, INCORPORATED, HELLERTOWN, PA
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
In my opinion, it is not advisable to establish a Federal
stockpile for mercury. The result would be that more mercury
air emissions will occur by the removal of secondary mercury
from the international market.
The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per
year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by
virgin mercury mining. Reports indicate that virgin mercury
mining will lose approximately 4 percent of their production to
air emissions. That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution
annually. Virgin mercury mining occurs in China and Kyrgyzstan.
The markets in both China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that they
will purchase secondary mercury to offset their mining
production. If the United States were to encourage the sale of
mercury from caustic soda plants and from the U.S. Government
stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of
mercury pollution annually.
An export ban on sales of commodity grade mercury will
result in an increase in world atmospheric mercury pollution.
The increase will be caused by the increase in virgin mercury
mining. More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining
that will occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury
mining. This type of mining is much less efficient because of
the small scale and crude equipment. Air emissions could be as
much as 50 percent of production. An effect of an export ban of
secondary mercury from the United States and from the European
Union could result in an increase in global mercury pollution
by 500 tons a year. Along with the current mercury mining
pollution, the result of the legislation could be up to 540
tons per year.
The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will
cause prices to increase and thereby cause less artisanal gold
mining is not valid. As indicated by Mr. Ed Wyler, economist
for Environmental Protection Agency, ``Demand for mercury by
miners is insensitive to mercury price. HG cost is very small
relative to value of recovered gold, approximately 0.1
percent.'' Mr. Wyler's report, he indicated that it takes a
pound of mercury to produce a pound of gold by artisanal
miners. Today's world market price for mercury is about $8 per
pound. Today's gold price of $650 per troy ounce is equal then
to $9,477 per pound. Therefore, mercury cost is 0.08 percent.
If the price of mercury were to increase to $100 per pound
because of the removal of supplies from U.S. and Europe, then
the mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of
gold recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound for mercury would
be a sufficient incentive to create enough new artisanal
mercury mines. These new mines would not only supply artisanal
gold miners with the mercury they want, they will also produce
much more atmospheric mercury pollution.
I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In
addition, I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of
mercury from Federal stockpiles. Passage of H.R. 1534 could
result in 540 tons of mercury pollution per year. Non-passage
of H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales of stockpiles could
result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per
year.
Thank you. That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]
Testimony of Bruce Lawrence
It is not advisable to establish a Federal stockpile for
mercury. The result would be that more mercury air emissions
will occur by the removal of secondary mercury from the
international market.
The world consumes approximately 2,000 tons of mercury per
year. Of this, roughly 50 percent or 1,000 tons is provided by
virgin mercury mining. Reports indicate that virgin mercury
mining will lose approximately 4 percent of their production to
air emissions. That makes 40 tons of mercury pollution
annually. Virgin mercury mining occurs in China and in
Kyrgyzstan. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Revich, Boris (1994): ``Mercury Levels in the Atmospheric Air of
Some of the Former USSR Cities and in Human Blood, Hair and Urine''
published from the: International Conference on Mercury as a Global
Pollutant. Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, July 10-14, 1994. Note:
Mr. Revich indicates that the Khaidarkansky mine in Kirghizia emits 21
tons of mercury per year. With an average production of 500 tons per
year the 21 tons represents 4.2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The markets in both China and Kyrgyzstan have shown that
they will purchase secondary mercury to offset their mining
production. If the United States were to encourage the sale of
mercury from caustic soda plants and from the U.S. government
stockpiles, then the world would be relieved of the 40 tons of
mercury pollution annually.
An export ban on sales of commodity-grade mercury will
result in an increase in world atmospheric mercury pollution.
The increase will be caused by the increase in virgin mercury
mining. More troubling is the likelihood that the new mining
that will occur will be from what is called artisanal mercury
mining. This type of mining is much less efficient because of
the small scale and crude equipment. Air emissions could be as
much as 50 percent of production. The net effect of an export
ban of secondary mercury from the United States and the
European Union could result in an increase in global mercury
pollution by 500 tons per year. Along with the current mercury
mining pollution, the result of this legislation could be up to
540 tons per year of mercury atmospheric pollution
The argument that the suspension of mercury sales will
cause prices to increase and thereby cause less artisanal gold
mining is not valid. As indicated by Mr. Edward Weiler,
economist for the Environmental Protection Agency, ``Demand for
mercury by miners is insensitive to mercury price;'' ``Hg cost
is very small relative to value of recovered gold
(approximately 0.1 percent).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Weiler, E. (2002): ``Can the U.S. act alone on mercury?''
presented at the US EPA-sponsored conference: Breaking the Mercury
Cycle: Long-Term Management of Surplus Mercury & Mercury-Bearing Waste,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA, May 1-3, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Mr. Weiler's report, he indicated that it takes a pound
of mercury to produce a pound of gold by artisanal miners.
Today's world market price for mercury is about $8 per pound.
Today's gold price of $650 per troy ounce is equivalent to
$9,477 per pound. Therefore mercury cost is .08 percent. If the
price of mercury were to increase to $100 per pound because of
the removal of supplies for the U.S. and Europe, then the
mercury cost would become only 1 percent of the value of gold
recovered. In my opinion, $100 per pound mercury would be
sufficient incentive to create enough new artisanal mercury
mines. These new mines would not only supply artisanal gold
miners with the mercury they want, they will also produce much
more atmospheric mercury pollution.
I strongly recommend that H.R. 1534 not be passed. In
addition, I strongly encourage the resumption of sales of
mercury from the Federal stockpiles. Passage of H.R. 1534 could
result in 540 tons of mercury pollution per year. Non-passage
of H.R. 1534 with the resumption of sales from stockpiles could
result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury pollution per
year.
----------
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
I would like to thank all the panelists. At this time, I
would like to ask a few questions.
First of all, Dr. Shannon, thank you very much for coming
down from Boston. I certainly appreciate your presence here,
and also your testimony.
I want to ask a fairly narrow question with respect to the
endorsements of this bill, H.R. 1534, that were made by the
American Medical Association and the American College of
Preventative Medicine. My question is basically this. I am not
sure whether you are in a position to endorse on behalf of the
Association of Pediatrics, but would you say that your position
is consistent with the endorsements that have been previously
made by the American Medical Association and the American
College of Preventative Medicine?
Dr. Shannon. I would say that the Academy's view is
absolutely consistent with the principles of this legislation,
that is, whatever can be done to reduce the global burden of
elemental mercury.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Dr. Greer, the EPA says that--and we have heard this
testimony today--the administration's position is that we have
to rely on demand management strategies. A couple of questions
that are somewhat related. Do you think that just reducing
demand and not addressing supply will solve the problem is the
first question.
The second question, are these mutually exclusive
strategies?
Ms. Greer. Actually, when people have taken a hard look at
this they have concluded that the only real way to solve this
problem is by ratcheting down supply and demand in a logical
kind of hinged fashion. If you only reduce demand, then you get
all this excess supply, the price gets lower and lower, and you
sort of invite more and more uses. If you reduce supply and you
don't reduce demand, then you get the problem that the
gentleman from Bethlehem Apparatus was mentioning, that you
might spark additional mining of mercury.
So what needs to happen is a coordinated reduction of
supply and demand.
The only other comment I would have on EPA's call to lower
mercury demand is this. We are on a glide path down of demand
here in the United States, so that is really not our highest
priority anymore to get us down to zero. We have really done a
very good job, and we will be down at the bottom sometime soon.
Our higher priority should then be to take steps to reduce
demand abroad, and you are hard-pressed to come up with demand
reduction strategies for these uses abroad, such as artisanal
mining, except by constraining supply and making the price go
up.
And so I really don't see a demand reduction strategy
without a supply reduction strategy making any sense in the
long run.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. Just a follow-up question.
Do you agree with the findings of the November 2006 report of
the United Nations Environment Program that stated various
location-specific global mercury project, training programs,
and assessments have demonstrated that when mercury is less
available and/or more expensive, less mercury is consumed as
miners switch to more efficient practices, sometimes
eliminating mercury use entirely.
Ms. Greer. Well, Representative Wynn, these are the
experts. That is the agency that has put the experts in the
field and those people have thrown themselves at this problem
for more than a decade, and so I think we have to respect their
expertise along with the technical assistance and training that
they are trying to do, that they feel that the scale of this
problem is such that they really need this additional boost
from worldwide constraining of supply in order to make a
difference. I just think those are the people that have been in
the field for more than a decade. We ought to take their
conclusions seriously.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Dr. Smith, I believe you indicated that 60 to 80 percent of
all the mercury deposited in the U.S. comes from global
sources. Can you amplify on the need to stop U.S. mercury
exports and how poorly regulated uses overseas come back to
impact the resources and public health concerns that we have?
Mr. Smith. There have been a number of deposition modeling
studies that have concluded that a substantial fraction of the
mercury depositing in the U.S. and our States is coming from
global sources. That may range from 50 to as high as 80, 85
percent, so it is a very significant fraction.
With respect to the export of mercury here, we do know that
the distributive uses for artisanal gold mining and other
unnecessary uses in third world countries, for example, mercury
containing jewelry that can still be bought in Mexico provides
an example of that. It is definitely contributing to releases
of environmental mercury, which will enter the global
circulation and impact the United States.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you.
Mr. Dungan, a couple of quick questions. I think the
earliest part of your testimony basically established the fact
that there are alternatives to mercury use, which is why there
is such a decline in the United States. Is that correct?
Mr. Dungan. There are alternatives, yes.
Mr. Wynn. OK, all right. And second, I think you said
basically you would support a stockpile, so you are not so much
concerned about the new virgin mines. You seem to be saying--
and I don't want to put words in your mouth--but you seem to be
saying if there is a U.S. stockpile, you are fine with banning
exports. Is that----
Mr. Dungan. Well, you may put it that way, but our concern
is that this bill, as it exists now, really puts the cart ahead
of the horse. All you have done is ban exports but there is no
policy that the bill sets to handle surplus mercury. So we are
concerned about that.
But let me also go back to the first question. Each
facility has to look at what its long-term options are, and to
say that there are alternatives available is one issue. The
other issue, does this alternative make sense for this
facility?
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much. I believe my time has
expired.
I will turn to the ranking member, Mr. Shimkus, for
questions.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I take my
questions, I just want to welcome Paul Gillmor here, a former
chairman of the subcommittee for 6 years. He is on a week
leave--not leave of absence, but he has joined us for this
week, and he shows his commitment because he is even here at
this hearing. Thank you.
Quick question, I only have a short couple minutes. Good or
bad, Dr. Greer?
Ms. Greer. Good. Want to know why, or do you want to keep
going?
Mr. Shimkus. No, no, good or--if broken?
Ms. Greer. If broken, it is a very miniscule amount of
mercury. I think----
Mr. Shimkus. So it is OK then?
Ms. Greer. It is OK.
Mr. Shimkus. All right, good.
Dr. Shannon?
Dr. Shannon. I would agree that if broken, the vapor would
dissipate quickly and not produce a significant health----
Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Yes, good, but if you break millions and
millions and millions of them, it would add up to quite a bit
of mercury.
Mr. Shimkus. And it goes up in the atmosphere and into the
fish?
Mr. Smith. And ultimately into the fish.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Dungan.
Mr. Dungan. I really am not qualified to answer that.
Mr. Shimkus. All right, Mr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. I will say good. The amount of mercury
consumed by the lighting industry is a very, very small
fraction----
Mr. Shimkus. Let me keep going quickly then.
This is labeled mercury. Good or bad? Just go down the
line, good or bad, that this is labeled as having mercury in
it?
Ms. Greer. I think it is fine that it has a label.
Mr. Shimkus. Good. Dr. Shannon?
Dr. Shannon. Agree.
Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Agree and it is labeled because of State
requirements and legislation that requires it to be.
Mr. Shimkus. Not Federal?
Mr. Smith. No.
Mr. Shimkus. We debated that a couple----
Mr. Dungan. I agree.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Lawrence?
Mr. Lawrence. I agree.
Mr. Shimkus. Ad in today's Hill, exposing the benefits of
fluorescent light bulbs, no labeling of mercury, good or bad?
Dr. Greer.
Ms. Greer. I really haven't worked on this issue, so I have
to say----
Mr. Shimkus. Is mercury good or bad?
Ms. Greer. The need for a label, I think it is a good idea
to have a label.
Mr. Shimkus. All right. Dr. Shannon?
Dr. Shannon. I don't think it was necessary to put the word
``mercury'' on that ad.
Mr. Shimkus. Dr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. Not in the ad, but it should be labeled if they
are selling them in most of the New England States.
Mr. Shimkus. And you all don't care.
OK. Dr. Smith, on March 20, 2007, ECOS approved resolution
No. 07-1 entitled ``Creating a Partnership for a National
Vision for Mercury'' which I have right here. This resolution
was very clear about not having the States preempted in their
attempt to clarify and address mercury. Massachusetts and my
State of Illinois have enacted strong legislation and
implemented other programs to remove mercury from our schools.
In view of ECOS's resolution and our States' efforts to protect
public health against elemental mercury exposures, do you and
ECOS support Federal preemption that compels schools and
daycare centers to install mercury containing energy efficient
lighting equipment, even if they do not want to do it, because
of health risks from mercury?
Mr. Smith. Well, as a general rule, the States really do
not like Federal preemption on pretty much anything, so we
would like to have the alternative of doing what is best in our
individual circumstances.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Dr. Greer, should energy efficient lighting with mercury be
compelled in schools and daycare centers to reduce electricity
use if the school or daycare center does not want to use them
out of public health and environmental concerns over exposures
to released elemental mercury?
Ms. Greer. Mr. Shimkus, I do appreciate how much you are
concerned about the mercury in these bulbs, but I am here to
tell you that if you are worried about mercury exposure in
schools, you should worry about what is in their thermometers
and what is in their chemistry labs.
Mr. Shimkus. Well, you are right. That is the whole point,
if you----
Ms. Greer. Because if you are talking about--what we are
talking about----
Mr. Shimkus. Reclaiming my time. If we are talking about
the problem of mercury, then we ought to be talking about the
problem of mercury.
Ms. Greer. I just think we ought to put our----
Mr. Shimkus. It should be a comprehensive approach, and we
are promoting thousands of increased light bulbs--and I am not
saying I disapprove of them, but----
Ms. Greer. But you are starting at the very smallest use of
mercury that everybody----
Mr. Shimkus. Do you know where these come from?
Ms. Greer. China.
Mr. Shimkus. Do you know who is mining it?
Ms. Greer. China.
Mr. Shimkus. What is the problem with mercury in the air,
the mining operations that you just promoted? Zero Mercury in
international organizations, are you part of that?
Ms. Greer. I am part of that.
Mr. Shimkus. And you know in this publication it says what
to do about mercury in electronics equipment?
Ms. Greer. Right.
Mr. Shimkus. What does it say?
Ms. Greer. But in this case----
Mr. Shimkus. No, what does your organization say in this
document?
Ms. Greer. It is zero for electronic equipment, but it is--
--
Mr. Shimkus. It says no mercury in electronics. I mean, you
are a member of this group.
Ms. Greer. I am.
Mr. Shimkus. So your testimony is contradictory. When you
say it is not enough to cause any effect, but then
internationally you say ban it from all electronic equipment.
Ms. Greer. Excuse me, I would like to set the record
straight about my position. This is a big problem of 3,500 tons
of mercury a year. Policies should start in the big places and
not in the smallest places. It is my opinion that starting on
this problem with compact fluorescent light bulbs is starting
at the miniscule end of it----
Mr. Shimkus. I am starting at China, and I yield back my
time.
Mr. Wynn. The Chair recognizes the bill's sponsor, Mr.
Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you.
Dr. Greer, I too think we ought to begin with the major
problems. I would just add to this debate with the comment that
compact fluorescent light bulbs, among other things, are
intended to reduce the demand for new coal-fired power plants,
which do emit mercury and which is a significant source of
mercury here.
But I want to come back to your testimony. Your written
testimony, and really, pages 15 through 19. When Mr. Gulliford
was testifying in the first panel, he talked a lot about the
fear he had that an export ban on mercury would essentially
lead to increased mining. It seems to me in those four pages,
you make a very compelling case that it would not do that, and
I would like to ask you to address that issue directly.
Ms. Greer. Let me just summarize what I said in that
written testimony.
There were two reasons that we don't think that this is at
all likely. The first is that most places can't mine mercury in
the world. The largest mine in the world in Spain has been
intentionally shuttered because the European Union has been
constraining supply. The mines in Algeria were closed. They had
technical problems for years and are not expected to reopen.
This really is leaving only the Kyrgyzstan mine as a mine that
is in operation for export, and that mine is suffering from
problems itself. It has not been able to produce more than 500
tons a year, and according to the World Bank, its deposits
really aren't very rich.
This leaves, of course, China, but as we already said,
China is mining a tremendous amount of mercury but not for
export. They use it all for their own purposes.
And so when you look at what is really available through
more mining, there are just not very many places in the world
to imagine that this could really happen.
And then the second reason I put in my testimony is because
UNEP has just done a very extensive analysis of global demand,
and they predict that between now and 2015, global demand is
going to go down. And so as a matter of a financial investment
by a company or a country, it doesn't seem like a very
attractive investment to undergo the expense of opening up a
new mine in the case that global demand is slowly going down.
Mr. Allen. Two other points. Mr. Gulliford was not aware of
any steps by Kyrgyzstan, but you mentioned in your testimony
that at an October 2006 European Commission Mercury meeting in
Brussels, the head of the mine asked the international
community for assistance in transitioning through other
economic activities in the region.
Ms. Greer. That is right. And NRDC was at that meeting.
Kyrgyzstan was invited because they are so important to global
supply of mercury, and what we learned at that meeting is that
the mine is subsidized by the government. It is not a profit
making institution. The government would like very much to find
alternative employment opportunities for people in that mine
and convert that area to non-mercury mining because it is not a
very profitable operation for them anyway. They were seeking
international assistance for development that would enable them
to close that mine.
Mr. Allen. And finally, could you speak to the current
activities in the European Union to ban the export of mercury
from those countries?
Ms. Greer. Yes, and in fact, I have a small news
announcement to make on that. As some of you know, the European
Union has also been contemplating an export ban, and they
export much more mercury than the United States. Combined, if
the European Union and the United States did an export ban, we
would take a very nice bite out of the global supply of
mercury. The EU is about a year and a half ahead of us in terms
of their deliberation, and just on Tuesday their Parliament
passed the mercury export ban, which will go into effect in
2010. Now they have the functional equivalent of a conference
between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, but that
should be completed by the fall. There are not big differences
between the Parliament bill and the Council of Ministers bill,
and so as you gentlemen can imagine, it won't take too long, I
think, for them to pass this in the fall.
Mr. Allen. Thank you.
Finally, Mr. Smith, I have a quick question. Taking your
position as you support a ban on the export of mercury,
providing there is narrowly tailored exemptions for what you
refer to as essential uses, and I am always concerned when you
start writing exemptions for essential uses or phrases like
that, they can be big enough to drive a pretty big truck
through. So I wondered if you could expand on that. Do you mean
anything more than dental amalgam and compact fluorescent light
bulbs, or do you have any thoughts on how we would make that
point?
Mr. Smith. Yes, the Quicksilver Caucus group that pulled
together those principles, when thinking about essential uses,
could really only come up with the three that are listed,
dental amalgam uses, uses in fluorescent lamps, and some uses
for medical equipment where we don't have options that are
readily available. Those are the ones we could come up with. We
really couldn't preclude that there may be other ones that are
out there. We did not have the time to invest a serious
research effort into it. Because there may be others, we wanted
to leave that as an option to have exemptions for those
essential uses that might be identified by a professional
committee at some future date.
Mr. Allen. Great, thank you.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the gentleman.
At this time, the Chair would recognize the former chairman
of this subcommittee, Mr. Gillmor, for questions.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is good
to be back, even if it is for a temporary period.
Let me ask Mr. Dungan, and you proposed a central storage
facility. We have had some experience with nuclear waste with a
proposal with this Yucca Mountain. That has not been
successful. It is not being done. We have nuclear waste stored
at about 100 locations around the country. Why do you think we
will be any more successful, and you might want to jump in on
this also, Mr. Lawrence, why do you think we would be any more
successful with this than we have been with Yucca Mountain?
Mr. Dungan. Well, mercury waste, in my opinion, is not
nuclear waste. The Federal Government does have a successful
history of safely storing mercury for 50, 60 years. The concern
is if private industry were to store this mercury, under
current U.S. regulations we don't have the authority to do it.
If you impose an export ban, at some point, there is no market
for mercury. It no longer becomes a commodity, and then how is
it handled? Is it handled as waste, and how is this controlled,
and what are these long-term issues? This mercury is going to
be around, not just for 40 years as proposed in the bill, but
forever, and someone has to be able to manage it forever. We
don't think that there is a private organization that can do
that.
Mr. Gillmor. Let me ask you, if the U.S. and the EU ban
mercury exports and China does not--I mean, frankly, I think we
know what China's record has been on global warming. They are
going to be the largest carbon emitter on the planet. They have
no interest exhibited so far of trying to limit that. We are
getting food from them that has been poisoned and they don't
care much about examining that.
But I guess my question is if the U.S. and EU ban it and
China does not, what will be the result in terms of total
mercury in the planet under that----
Mr. Dungan. Well, I have a hard time believing that China
will not supply all its mercury needs, whether that be by
importing mercury or starting new mines. I think they will. And
while most uses of mercury are declining, mercury use for
catalysts in chemical plants in China and artisanal mining
throughout the world are increasing, and as Mr. Lawrence
pointed out, the economics would appear to indicate that there
might be an incentive for new mines to be started up. I am not
saying they will, but I think this is a clear issue that needs
to be addressed before we impose any kind of export ban.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. Let me ask you another question on
that. Forty years, do you think that is a relevant and a
necessary timeline? I mean, mercury is basically eternal.
Nuclear fuel is not. It does have a finite time, so is 40 years
a realistic timeframe?
Mr. Dungan. In my opinion, no. I think in a zillion years
that nuclear waste may be harmless, and mercury will still be
there in its current form. I believe that any facility, while
you might look at a 40-year economic horizon, it ought to be
designed that you expect that facility be there forever.
Mr. Gillmor. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wynn. Thank the gentleman.
At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Capps. I am
sorry, Ms. Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith, while States I understand--and Illinois would
have an interest in this as well--are not interested in
preemption, how would you feel about Federal legislation that
at least lets the States go beyond the level of the Federal
Government, would it meet national standards?
Mr. Smith. I think the States would probably be comfortable
with that, and with respect to the mercury world, there are
numerous States, including Illinois and my State,
Massachusetts, and many, many others that are already exceeding
EPA Federal requirements with respect to pollution controls and
pollution prevention activities, so that is certainly
consistent with what we are already doing.
Ms. Schakowsky. Dr. Greer, a lot has been made of the
storage issue, and yet, I am looking at your testimony that
says as a technical matter, it is quite easy to store mercury.
I wondered if you wanted to respond to this notion, both about
what an incredible problem it seems to be presented as, and if
you could talk about that.
Ms. Greer. Well, in my capacity at NRDC, I work on a lot of
different toxic chemicals, and I am here to tell you that
mercury is a dream chemical for storage compared to most of the
other chemicals that are toxic that are out there. It is not
reactive, it is not explosive, if you keep it below 70 degrees
it doesn't volatilize, and so it really is a very simple matter
to store it in flasks as is going on, or in stainless steel
tanks in a monitored warehouse. If all the toxic chemicals I
worked on were this easy to store, we wouldn't have the sort of
Superfund problems that we have and we wouldn't have the
controversies that we have about storage piles for other
hazardous materials.
Ms. Schakowsky. So would you say that this notion that we
have to solve the storage problem before we address this export
issue is necessary? You would disagree with that?
Ms. Greer. Well, I don't think there is--and probably Mr.
Dungan agrees, there isn't really a technical problem about
storage. What he is referring to is we need to decide where we
want to put it and what happens with the legal liability and
other issues.
I think the bill does this by setting up the FACA committee
and by asking for a recommendation to Congress well in advance
of when the ban actually goes into effect. So from my
perspective, that concern is addressed and we do intentionally
have in the bill something that lines up a storage solution
before it goes into effect.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I am fascinated with your testimony, Mr. Lawrence, because
it is so precise. You talk about how the net effect of an
export ban could result in global mercury pollution by 500 tons
per year. The result of this legislation would be up to 540
tons per year, and you go on to talk about how much--``Non-
passage could result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury
pollution per year.'' I would be very interested in seeing what
all your assumptions are and how you arrived at this
calculation of the 540 tons more and the 40 tons less. And if
you could just submit that, I would really--if you want to make
a comment?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, the only thing that I haven't put in
what I have submitted already is that the 500 tons is my
estimate, that there is 500 tons of mercury used in artisanal
mining, so because of the one-to-one relationship with the
mercury and gold. So that if we take away the supply sources of
the artisanal miners, then it is going to be produced someplace
else, and that----
Ms. Schakowsky. So you discount the historical experience,
really, that Dr. Greer referred to that actually decreasing
mercury availability has not, in fact, created more. Actually
there has been less. Am I saying that correctly, that some of
these operations have actually shut down and we haven't seen an
expansion of mercury mining? Let me just make sure I have got
that right.
Ms. Greer. Yes, we might be getting confused between mining
for gold, artisanal mining for gold and mercury mines, could
you rephrase the question?
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, I am trying to understand if the
basis for deciding that this bill will result in 540 tons of
mercury pollution and that resumption of sales from stockpiles
would result in the elimination of 40 tons of mercury
pollution. I don't know if what you had said relates to this
calculation, but I mean, that is pretty precise.
Mr. Lawrence. I took 4 percent of 1,000 tons of virgin
mining that I mentioned in here. If we were selling 1,000 tons
from the stockpile, it could displace that 1,000 tons of virgin
mercury mining.
Ms. Greer. To weigh these two things, if we were to open
new mines and we had 40 new tons of mercury pollution out of
that, that would--setting everything else aside that would be
worse than using recycled mercury. But what we are really
comparing is that having an over-supply of mercury in commerce
and meeting all of those demands, which is 3,500 tons of
mercury a year.
So for the speculative outcome that we might cause more
mining that might cause 40 additional tons of releases, against
an already existing 3,500 ton demand and consumption every year
that we are trying to address. And the way to do that is to
ratchet down supply and demand.
Mr. Wynn. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. We have got a vote on. I am going to turn it to
Mrs. Capps for questions, and I think we will be able to
conclude the hearing prior to voting.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you very much.
I want to address my questions, or at least some of them,
to Dr. Shannon. Can you help us understand the mercury-related
symptoms in illnesses that were observed in the small-scale
gold mining communities discussed in the UN's Global Mercury
Project?
Dr. Shannon. Well, I will answer in this way and I hope I
answer your question. First, the effects of elemental mercury
exposure are actually quite subtle until the exposure is
severe, truly at an extreme, and at that point, the primary
effects are neurologic. That is generally what you will see in
children, and as I mentioned in my testimony, it can vary from
very subtle neurobehavioral difficulty concentrating types of
symptoms to the more severe seizures or life-threatening
neurologic events.
Mrs. Capps. You are implying that it isn't readily detected
perhaps at first, that the intoxication is the end of it?
Dr. Shannon. That is exactly right. So the point I am
hoping to make is that at the point that you are seeing
symptoms in children or adults, their exposure is severe. They
have an enormous mercury burden.
Mrs. Capps. Let me ask you then, what will happen and does
happen to the mothers and children who have been working in
these gold fields and handling the mercury?
Dr. Shannon. We believe that most, if not all, of the
neurologic consequences of elemental mercury exposure are
permanent. Almost as certainly, some of it as it is eliminated
from the body, there would be some improvement but there is, we
believe, no hope of returning to baseline function.
Mrs. Capps. Finally, if mercury exports from the U.S. are
banned by 2010, what type of health impact would that have on
these small-scale mining towns, and do you think H.R. 1534
would have a positive step in reducing harm from mercury in the
environment, not only in these countries, but would it even be
important here in the U.S.?
Dr. Shannon. Again, let me try to answer your question in
the following way. Anything that we can do to reduce human
exposure to elemental mercury will result in vastly improved
health, vastly improved health outcomes, and in the case of
children, I am just thinking about the developing brain and
being able to reduce, if not eliminate, exposure of this toxic
metal to their developing brain will have a great positive
impact on health.
Mrs. Capps. Dr. Greer, you might want to add something. I
have a little more time and I know we are pressing it with
votes. If I am allowed, I would ask you to follow on with that,
if you care to?
Ms. Greer. I don't have too much to add to that, except to
strongly agree that we know that the damage that mercury causes
is permanent, particularly to the developing infant, and it is
for that reason that it is such a high priority for NRDC, for
the Zero Mercury Group, and other international groups to
eliminate large sources of mercury exposure.
Mrs. Capps. And it would be in the gold mining communities
that were described in the project, but in this country as
well?
Ms. Greer. In this country as well. Wherever there are
large exposures to mercury.
Mrs. Capps. That is the end of my questioning. Thank you.
Mr. Wynn. I thank the lady for her questions. I want to
thank all the witnesses for coming here today and thank you for
your testimony.
I believe this concludes our questions. I want to remind
members that they may submit additional questions for the
record to be answered by relevant witnesses, the questions
should be submitted to the committee clerk in electronic form
within the next 10 days. The clerk will notify your offices of
the procedures. I want to thank all the staff for helping us
this morning.
Without objection, the subcommittee hearing is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.222
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.223
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.224
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.225
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.226
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.227
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.228
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.229
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.230
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.231
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.232
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.233
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.234
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.235
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.236
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.237
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.238
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.239
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.240
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.241
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.193
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.194
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.195
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.196
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.197
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.198
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.199
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.200
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.201
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.202
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.203
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.204
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.205
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.206
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.207
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.208
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 43289.209